>GM>Pearce, from whom you get the 2-Adam model, even gives good
>>linguistic evidence that there is a separation between
>>these two usages. He writes:
>>"The Hebrew word adam supports such an interpretation. It
>>is a generic noun meaning 'man' or 'mankind' in Genesis I. In
>>chapters 2 to 4 the definite article is added and it becomes 'the
>>Adam' or 'the man' (or individual). From Genesis 3:17 onwards
>>the noun also becomes an individual's name 'Adam'.~E.K. Victor
>>Pearce, Who was Adam? (Exeter: The Paternoster Press, Ltd.,
>>1969), p. 21
I have checked this "fact" out with friends who know Hebrew. I do not know
hebrew. They tell me that Pearce is wrong here. Genesis 1:26 does not have
the definite article, they agree, but Genesis 1:27 does have the definite
article. This, if true would seem to be a major theological blow to the
2-adam view. No longer could Genesis 1 man be made out to be anyone except
Adam under this viewpoint.
If there are any Hebrew scholars in the house, your input is needed.