I have stated that I am not going to respond to Glenn's posts anymore.
It seems Glenn was bounced off the Reflector when I posted those
messages, so he may not have seen them. This is my firm intention,
but I may make some exceptions, as in this case when Glenn seems
to ignore what I posted before?
On Thu, 30 Nov 1995 23:24:33 -0500 Glenn wrote:
>I wrote, quoting E.K.Pearce:
>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
GM>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.
As I have said, I do not necessarily agree with Pearce on every point.
I have his address and plan to write to him with a paper I am
preparing on the two-"Adam" model.
On 11 Nov 95 I posted the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I have now done an exhuastive word study of all occurrences of Heb
'adam in Gn 1-5. The problem is that Strongs of itself does not show
up the different nuances of the word. The same root word 'adam means
"man" and "Adam", depending on the prefixes attached to it, and also
the context. The following are the three uses of the Heb. word 'adam
in the NIV:
1. Heb. adam: a. = "man": i. man as male and female (Gen 1:26;
5:1,2*); b. = "Adam" i. Adam* [Gen 4:25; 5:1*,3*,4*,5]
2. Heb. ha adam: a. = "the man": i. man as male and female (Gen
1:27); ii. Adam (Gen 2:7,8,15,16,18,19*,20*,21*,22,23*;
3:8,9*,12,22,24); b. = "Adam" (Gen 3:20*; Gen 4:1).
3. Heb. va adam a. = "a man" : i. man in general (Gen 2:5)
4. Heb. le adam a. = "man": i. Adam (Gen 2:20*,25); b. = "Adam" (Gen
3:17*,21*)
*AV "Adam"
The conclusion is that the Heb. supports the two-"Adam" theory. In
Gn 1:26-27, the Heb. adam and ha adam, cannot be translated "Adam",
and in fact they are not in any translation AFAIK. OTOH, from Gn 2
onwards, the Heb. adam, ha adam, and le adam are translated as both
"man"and "Adam".
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't recall if anyone got back to me on this, so perhaps it never
made it to the Reflector?
God bless.
Stephen