Windows 3 described in the Bible

Hi Amlodhi:The hebrew for 1:26,27 says "dm" and not "ishi", therefore, the text accuratley translated says "Let us make Adam in our image".

Hi Amlodhi: 'ish' or 'ishi', like you say is 'man' in the generic sense. How can this be ?The definite article reinforces the specificity of the object.But where is this definite article in the original text ? OK, if you insist the original contains a def/art then so be it.But your rendering is controlled by english grammar standards which is in defiance of the text/"dm"/h'awdawm. But the passage we are arguing says "dm" and not "ish", it was you who already established "awdawm" or I prefer "odom".It is a proper name distinguishing a certain creation, singling out from all the other "beasts of the field". So you are saying the def/art determines if "dm" becomes proper, why say "dm" to begin with ? Why not say "ish" ?What about the patriarch "Dan" ? Is his proper name ever treated like "dm" ? "it just doesn't work grammatically"My exact point above.You are admitting that the text translation is controlled by english grammar.The def/art should be dropped OR just say "the odom". The def/art is there to prevent exactly what you are doing.I respectfully submit that you are corrupting the text, which we agree to be "dm" to suit english grammar.Earlier I questioned the existence of the def/art, but now I accept it. My sources agree.There is no way around it.God inspired "the odom/Adam" to specifically relate that Adam and his kind are special.I also submit that the rendering of "man" or "mankind" for "dm"/"odom" is motivated by an 'a priori' theological position brought into the translation/debate.

Hi Amlodhi: I'm sorry but this makes no sense.We are both in agreement that Genesis 1:26 says "dm"/Adam."ish" or "ishi" is hebrew for man or mankind.British = Brutus founded New Troy/London, descendant of Zarah/Genesis 38."brit" = covenant."ish" = man.Hence, British = (O.T.) covenant man. Generic "ish" in action.According to Dr. Scott the def/art cannot relegate "dm" to mean "ish".The text says "dm" because the writer intends to single out this creation from every other "beast of the field". The def/art reinforces the object of this singling out.The text says "Let us make Adam in our image" and no amount of grammatical contortions can change what you have admitted.It should read "Let us make the Adam in our image" and in the previous post you admit that the ONLY reason this is not done is for proper english grammar considerations.There can be no intent of the hebrew for the def/art to render "dm" - "ish". The very purpose of the def/art is to single out not just any man but Adamkind.Your rendering is used by evolutionists to hijack Genesis and assert an ambiguity which allows them an ajar door to corrupt the source for their purposes.The definite article does not convert "dm" to translate "ish".What else could the author of Genesis done ? That person said "dm" because he meant "dm", if he wanted "ish" he would of said "ish".The definite article, like I said, is intended to prevent exactly what you are doing.source: Dr.Gene ScottBTW, Dr. Scott routinely points out the errors of Brown-Driver and Briggs. "definite article" singles out not just any but THE something.Prove the definite article, preceding the proper name, renders the proper name generic - why say a proper name if it is not meant ?BUT there is no way to prove "dm" a proper name - it is the specific name given to a special creation, a special creation that receives the all important added element of God's breath/ruash/nefish."ish" is subsequently used to describe all the generic kinds of Adamkind. You cannot leap from the objective undisputed Holy Writ of Genesis to a problematic Solomonic source. Superiority is not subject to correction by inferiority.My sources say the only function of the definite article is to single out, and that it in no way can change "dm" to translate "ish". IF what you say here is correct - I concede the point.I am going to check you out.I need a source for hebrew, unlike you who actually know it. No emotion except in your response - concede the point

I have conceded the point out of respect to your level of knowledge.Dr. Scott, the brightest hebrew scholar in the world, says the definite article specifies the actual creation of "dm"/Odom/ahm to be separate and distinct from every other creation.No amount of grammatical twisting can erase "dm" to mean "ish" except if a 'a priori' theological or other agenda is operating.You can surely count on me verifying your claim that the definite article renders "dm" to translate "ish".Only your Ezekiel reference procured the concession.