Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,652 Year: 4,909/9,624 Month: 257/427 Week: 3/64 Day: 1/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 149 (147020)
10-03-2004 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by doctrbill
10-02-2004 11:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by doctrbill
Any thoughts on why the KJV, RSV, and so many others render it as Adam?
Is your Hebrew text different from the one they were using?
The NIV also renders Adam, but the NAS translates "the man".
Also:
Tanakh, Jewish Publication Society; Jerusalem, 1985.
The Interlinear Hebrew Bible, (literal trans., 3 vols.), Jay P. Green Sr. ed., Hendrickson pub., 1985.
Both of the above publications translate the usage in Gen. 4:1 as "the man".
To the best of my knowledge, all the versions are translated from the standard Masoretic Hebrew text in which the definite article is attached to the term in Gen. 4:1. The text reproductions I use are:
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia with Masora and Critical Apparatus, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
תורה נביאים כתובים, Koren pub., Jerusalem Ltd.; Jerusalem, Israel.
I have no good explanation as to why some translations choose to denote this term (with the D.A.) as a proper name. IMO, it is not inexcusably incorrect; Adam was "the human" after all. But, also IMO, it is not technically correct either. Nowhere else is a proper name prefixed with the definite article. For instance: you're not going to read: "the Noah" or "the Abraham".
Also, one additional consideration that I think is pertinent to any earlier usages in the text, and chronologically, is that it would make no good literary sense to name the man "Adam", and then in a following passage revert back to calling him "the man".
The confusion exists because the term best translated as "human" (adam) becomes (IMO, in later tradition) the proper name of the first human, i.e. Adam.
As I once tried to explain to WT (whom it is probably best if I don't discuss too much right now), there are somewhat subtle nuances differentiating the terms; "adam" as humankind; "ha'adam" as 'the human'; and "ish" as 'a man'.
The relevant section of my post in that exchange is reproduced below:
quote:
There is no usage of a plural construction of "adam". It is, then, used with much the same construction and connotations that we use for "man" in the sense of "human" or "human species", i.e. not singular/plural but rather, singular/collective.
In contrast, "ish" does utilize plural forms. It is used with much the same connotation that we ascribe to "fellow" or "guy". Thus, while a plural construction of "ish" may be used to describe a specific group of men, i.e. "those guys" (as separate in some way from the rest of humanity), "adam" would only be used to refer to the afore mentioned "humanity" collectively.
In the same sense, "ish" without the definite article would have the connotation of "a guy" or "a fellow", whereas "adam" without the definite article has the connotation of "human/mankind".
Then, "ish" with the definite article would indicate "the guy" or "the fellow", whereas "ha'adam", i.e, with the definite article would carry the sense of "the human being".
Thus, to answer your question, doctrbill, I can't really speak for why some versions choose to translate a proper name in Gen. 4:1. I am simply basing my current opinion on a logical consistency of usage in the Hebrew (with the support of the above mentioned sources). And again, I think it is more than random coincidence that the first usage as a proper name occurs with the conception of the purported "Godly line of Seth".
Again, always a pleasure talking with you doctrbill,
Amlodhi
This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-03-2004 08:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by doctrbill, posted 10-02-2004 11:55 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by doctrbill, posted 10-03-2004 4:30 PM Amlodhi has replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2852 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 77 of 149 (147033)
10-03-2004 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Amlodhi
10-03-2004 3:38 PM


Amlodhi writes:
I think it is more than random coincidence that the first usage as a proper name occurs with the conception of the purported "Godly line of Seth".
I would love to hear more of your thoughts on that.
And, while I have your attention: I have for some time now suspected that certain stories were concocted in an effort to demonize the peoples upon whom the Israelites were about to attempt genocide. The homosexual rape of Noah by his grandson Canaan (ancestor of the Canaanites), and the incestuous rape of Lot by his daughters (the mothers of Moab and Ammon) might suggest that descendants of these characters shared the nature of their progenitors. If I were sending troops to butcher women and children I would surely want them to believe that those kids deserved to have their throats slit like so many little goats (visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and all that).
The practice of demonizing one's enemies is an important function of military leadership. Considering how graphically the Bbile describes the actual killing, I should be surprised if such 'pep talks' were not recorded, 'for the record.' And, of course, I am convinced that they were.
Any thoughts?
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Amlodhi, posted 10-03-2004 3:38 PM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Amlodhi, posted 10-04-2004 12:26 AM doctrbill has replied

Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 149 (147036)
10-03-2004 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by arachnophilia
10-03-2004 4:39 AM


Hi Arachnophilia,
quote:
Originally posted by Arachnophilia
To WT: how is it evolutionary in the slightest?
It isn't. And it doesn't surprise me in the least that you understood that immediately.
quote:
Originally posted by Arachnophilia
i guess this is a point of debate, and i'll let you (doctrbill) and amlodhi duke it out.
I'm sure that it's only a figure of speech but, for the record, doctrbill and I don't do much "duking". I will be interested to hear any perspective that he might have on the issue.
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by arachnophilia, posted 10-03-2004 4:39 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3135 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 79 of 149 (147060)
10-03-2004 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Amlodhi
10-03-2004 2:02 PM


I am sorry you are angry.
I only know what you type into a post.
You admit the original says Adam/Odom but it should be translated differently.
Is this not true ?
My point about the def/art is that it pinpoints the next word and singles it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Amlodhi, posted 10-03-2004 2:02 PM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Amlodhi, posted 10-03-2004 9:06 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 149 (147066)
10-03-2004 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Cold Foreign Object
10-03-2004 8:02 PM


quote:
Originally posted by WT
I only know what you type into a post.
No, apparently you have no idea what I type into a post. You misquote and distort my words just like you do to Cyrus Gordon. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it is simply your lack of understanding rather than the even less desirable alternative.
Nowhere have I said that אדם (adam) or האדם (ha'adam) should be translated as איש (ish).
We've been over this before:
quote:
Ecc. 2:11-12, "Then I faced all my works that my hands had done, and on the labor that I had labored to do . . . And I turned to behold wisdom, and madness, and folly. For what can האדם the man (ha'adam) who comes after the king do when they have already done it?"
Ez. 28:2, ". . . say to the ruler of Tyre . . . because your heart is lifted up, and you have said, 'I am a god' . . . yet you are אדם a man; human (adam), and not a god."
So, WT, which one of the above is Adam? Is he the man born after king Solomon or is he the king of Tyre?
Notice, איש (ish) has nothing to do with it.
Amlodhi
This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-03-2004 08:21 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-03-2004 8:02 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-04-2004 7:47 PM Amlodhi has replied

Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 149 (147096)
10-04-2004 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by doctrbill
10-03-2004 4:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by doctrbill
I would love to hear more of your thoughts on that.
My thoughts are that the book of the generations of Adam (chapter 5) is a later tradition, and likely by a different author, than chapters 1-4.
Note that in Gen. 4:1 "the man" (IMO, as discussed) knew his wife and she bears Cain (and Abel) with the help of YHWH. Along with the use of ha'adam (the man) in 4:1, YHWH is used consistently through verse 24; it is used nine times in these 24 verses.
Then, beginning with verse 25/Seth's conception (where, for the first time, the use of adam is unmistakeably the proper name "Adam"), we have an abrupt and synchronous switch to the term Elohim instead of YHWH to denote God.
Verses 25 and 26 are two very short lines each separated from both each other and the main subject of chapter 4 by a "sof pasuq", i.e. ":", as though they were addendums.
Then chapter 5 is introduced as "the book of the generations of Adam", but neither Cain nor Abel are anywhere mentioned. It says only that Adam was 130 years old when he fathered Seth and that, after he fathered Seth, he continued to father sons and daughters.
It begins to appear then that, unlike the creation and Cain/Abel stories, the Seth tradition did not arise until sometime after the term adam became entrenched in the traditon as the proper name Adam. This later Seth tradition then being attached to the originally separate creation and Cain/Abel traditions by the redactional/transitional verses of Gen. 4:25-26.
Add to the above your observation that Adam fathered Seth "in his own image, and his own likeness", and the addendum from 4:26 that it was with Seth and (Seth's son) Enos that it was begun to call upon the name of YHWH, and the purpose of the (later) chapter 5 tradition becomes clear: to provide an exalted history for a Godly lineage leading to the righteous Noah.
Disclaimer: This is not a thesis (or a carved-in-stone position), but it does represent my current thoughts on the matter (and remember, you asked for them).
quote:
Originally posted by doctrbill
I have for some time now suspected that certain stories were concocted in an effort to demonize the peoples upon whom the Israelites were about to attempt genocide.
As to this part of your post, I can only agree 100%. Demonize them; Glorify us; that was the SLOP* de jour.
*(Standard Literary Operating Procedure).
Even Dante couldn't resist writing his friends into heaven and his enemies into hell.
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by doctrbill, posted 10-03-2004 4:30 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by jar, posted 10-04-2004 12:39 AM Amlodhi has not replied
 Message 84 by doctrbill, posted 10-04-2004 3:12 AM Amlodhi has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 82 of 149 (147097)
10-04-2004 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Amlodhi
10-04-2004 12:26 AM


I think we also need to remember that the people writing these tales had a different idea of what accurate meant than we might apply from a 21st century scientific perspective. This was not unusual and actually continued well into what we might consider modern times.
For them, there was an underlying TRUTH. And facts, history, as we might see it simply did not play a part. This continued and can be seen in the Aurthurian legends where Arthur is said to have taken part in battles long after he would have been a dottering old man.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Amlodhi, posted 10-04-2004 12:26 AM Amlodhi has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1431 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 83 of 149 (147113)
10-04-2004 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by doctrbill
10-03-2004 12:34 PM


But then, of course, Babylonian is Mesopotamian.
yes, i meant in particular, beyond the notion of common cultural background.
This is not an opinion which I am prepared to argue further but if you explore the uses of "foundation" in the old King James Bible you may begin to understand why, as much as I like the graphic representations of it, I am increasingly skeptical of that old interpretation. It is, I believe, a matter of physical versus spiritual interpretation.
agreed, good points.
but the rest of the model stands. i see no reason to assume that "earth" refers to anything other than all of the land in genesis 1. the case may well be different for genesis 2, since the story seems more concerned with hebrew origins in particular.
Doesn't that explain the discrepancies then? The explanation being: as you say, that they are telling us two completely separate stories.
well, yes, but we can't possibly look on it and claim that genesis provides an accurate and complete picture of what actually happened. the authors and redactors didn't seem overly concerned with the details.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by doctrbill, posted 10-03-2004 12:34 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by doctrbill, posted 10-04-2004 3:22 AM arachnophilia has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2852 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 84 of 149 (147116)
10-04-2004 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Amlodhi
10-04-2004 12:26 AM


Amlodhi writes:
remember, you asked for them
Yes I did, and wow!! What a wonderful presentation of your view. As usual, your insights satisfy the curious mind.
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Amlodhi, posted 10-04-2004 12:26 AM Amlodhi has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2852 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 85 of 149 (147118)
10-04-2004 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by arachnophilia
10-04-2004 3:04 AM


Arachnophilia writes:
i see no reason to assume that "earth" refers to anything other than all of the land in genesis 1. the case may well be different for genesis 2, since the story seems more concerned with hebrew origins in particular.
I will have to agree with you, of course. I suppose I am overly concerned that everyone here be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that it was only yesterday, in terms of historical time, that the religious community has been willing to concede that earth is a planet. As recently as the onset of the seventeenth century, this point was flatly denied by both Catholic and Protestant dogma.
we can't possibly look on it and claim that genesis provides an accurate and complete picture of what actually happened
You'll get no protest from me on that score.
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by arachnophilia, posted 10-04-2004 3:04 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3135 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 86 of 149 (147282)
10-04-2004 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Amlodhi
10-03-2004 9:06 PM


Nowhere have I said that (adam) or (ha'adam) should be translated as (ish).
Yes you have.
Would you like me to retrieve it ?
BTW, it really doesn't matter because you have proven yourself dishonest no matter what.
Dr. Gordon produces a book based upon years of archaeology and you just spin it to mean contrary to the title and thesis of the book.
Your anger towards me is contrived - a tantrum geared to deflect away from the truth/evidence. Imagine that, an atheist erupts with anger because someone allegedly misrepresents his position. Your kind has been doing that to theist claims for centuries, and true to the claims of basic psychology, a person condemns that which he is secretly guilty of the most.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Amlodhi, posted 10-03-2004 9:06 PM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by doctrbill, posted 10-04-2004 8:02 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 88 by Amlodhi, posted 10-04-2004 9:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2852 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 87 of 149 (147289)
10-04-2004 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Cold Foreign Object
10-04-2004 7:47 PM


WILLOWTREE writes:
Would you like me to retrieve it ?
I would.
it really doesn't matter
It matters to me.
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-04-2004 7:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 149 (147307)
10-04-2004 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Cold Foreign Object
10-04-2004 7:47 PM


Nowhere have I said that אדם (adam) or האדם (ha'adam) should be translated as איש (ish).
quote:
Originally posted by WT
Yes you have. Would you like me to retrieve it?
Yes, retrieve it.
Or, since we both know you're just blowing fumes, let me retrieve the truth of the matter for you:
quote:
Previously Posted (in a former thread) by WILLOWTREE:
. . . why say "(a)d(a)m" to begin with ? Why not say "ish" ?
quote:
Previous (in the former thread) response to WT's above question:
As noted (in the previous thread); in the sense of "Let us make adam/humanity/mankind" and "God put ha'adam/the human being in the garden . . ." as opposed to "Let us make ish'im/some men" and "God put ha'ish/the guy (with the implication that others exist) in the garden . . ."
Thus, not only have I not said that "adam" should be translated as "ish", I have (both here and in the previous thread) repeatedly pointed out the distinction for you.
And since I have a 9 yr. old granddaughter who has no trouble comprehending this, I suspect that you do also. Even though your self-appointed, personal vendetta against "my kind" so often causes you to behave contrary to your lip-service to Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by WT
Dr. Gordon produces a book based upon years of archaeology and you just spin it to mean contrary to the title and thesis of the book.
Have you no memory whatsoever? I assure you most of the other people on this board do. You are fooling only yourself; and making a fool of yourself in the process.
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-04-2004 7:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-04-2004 11:06 PM Amlodhi has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3135 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 89 of 149 (147339)
10-04-2004 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Amlodhi
10-04-2004 9:10 PM


I only have one question:
Is it accurate to translate the said verse "Adam" or "Odom" or is the KJV correct - "man"/ishi ?
I will not challenge what you say. I just want to know.
WT
Edit:
Don't you remember that I conceded the point (in the previous topic) when you evidenced through Ezekiel ?
This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-04-2004 10:09 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Amlodhi, posted 10-04-2004 9:10 PM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Amlodhi, posted 10-05-2004 2:07 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 149 (147384)
10-05-2004 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Cold Foreign Object
10-04-2004 11:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by WT
Don't you remember that I conceded the point (in the previous topic) when you evidenced through Ezekiel?
I certainly do. I also remember you conceding the point concerning Cyrus Gordon. And as I have just demonstrated in my above post, I also remember repeatedly explaining to you my understanding of the distinction between the terms "adam" and "ish".
And it is precisely because I remember all these things that it makes me angry when I see you on this thread a short time later spewing libelous misrepresentations.
quote:
WT:
Is it accurate to translate the said verse "Adam" or "Odom" or is the KJV correct - "man"/ishi?
{chuckle} . . You think I'm a real dim-bulb, don't you. Let's see, "Adam" or "man/ishi", are those my choices?
First off: אִישִי (ishi) is the term "ish" with a 1st person singular possessive suffix meaning literally "man of me" or "man of mine", i.e. usually translated "my husband". I also remember explaining that to you in the previous thread, but apparently, you are not interested in retaining anything you consider irrelevant to your game-playing.
As to your question, it depends on which "said verse" you are referring to. Do you mean the Ezekiel verse?:
quote:
Ez. 28:2, ". . . say to the ruler of Tyre . . . because your heart is lifted up, and you have said, 'I am a god' . . . yet you are אדם (adam), and not a god."
So why does the Hebrew use the term "adam" in this verse instead of "ish" if the KJV translates "a man"? Will you next be accusing the KJV translators of "admitting it says Adam but it should be translated ishi"?
You already know that "adam" here is not the proper name "Adam" because Adam was not the king of Tyre.
Now, consider what I wrote before concerning the connotation of the terms "adam" vs. "ish":
quote:
There is no usage of a plural construction of "adam". It is, then, used with much the same construction and connotations that we use for "man" in the sense of "human" or "human species", i.e. not singular/plural but rather, singular/collective.
In contrast, "ish" does utilize plural forms. It is used with much the same connotation that we ascribe to "fellow" or "guy". Thus, while a plural construction of "ish" may be used to describe a specific group of men, i.e. "those guys" . . . in the same sense, "ish" without the definite article would have the connotation of "a guy" or "a fellow", (i.e. an adult male).
In contrasting the ruler of Tyre with a god, this verse in Ezekiel has a specific connotation in mind. It is not interested in describing the ruler of Tyre as an adult male of his species (i.e. an "ish"); it is, rather, interested in describing his species (i.e. adam).
IOW, the verse is not intending to say, "you are an adult male, and not a god". It means to say, "you are human, and not a god."
The KJV can (and often does) translate both "one of the guys" (ish) and "human" (adam) as "a man", but that translation doesn't always convey the nuance that is present in the Hebrew and is likely the reason for part of the confusion you find yourself in.
Now, I don't mind explaining my position to anyone; there have certainly been enough good people on this forum who have patiently explained things to me. But having to tediously repeat these things to you gets old quickly. (And your libelous misrepresentations just stink right from the beginning).
So, this time, make the effort to actually understand what is being said to you before you come flying back with anymore bogus "Adam or man/ishi" questions.
Amlodhi
This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-05-2004 01:29 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-04-2004 11:06 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024