Adam/Eve

[Nooj]

Adam (Man) and Ishah (the first name that Adam gives to Eve, and meaning Woman) are both names of type, as if representing a wider humanity. They are both frequently preceded by definite articles, for example:

Gen 3:2 And the woman said to the serpent, "Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat.

Gen 3:20. And the man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all life.

As if the text is trying to avoid using proper nouns/names and thus depersonalise the two figures. Genesis describes man as Adam and woman as Eve once*

Doesn't it seem likely that Genesis here is using a man and a woman as metaphors for an entire people?

* It's since come to my knowledge that some translations do include one more instance of adam with no 'ha' in the beginning as Adam, an individual. Nonetheless, the main point is that adam and ishah are not described as individuals often in the text. That's still true.

 

[Bushido216]

As an atheist you're not allowed to be posting here I don't believe.

 

[gluadys]

As an atheist you're not allowed to be posting here I don't believe.

No, its ok since the rules changed.

 

[Melethiel]

As an atheist you're not allowed to be posting here I don't believe.

That rule changed over 6 months ago.

 

[gluadys]

Adam (Man) and Ishah (the first name that Adam gives to Eve, and meaning Woman) are both names of type, as if representing a wider humanity. They are both frequently preceded by definite articles, for example:

Gen 3:2 And the woman said to the serpent, "Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat.

Gen 3:20. And the man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all life.

As if the text is trying to avoid using proper nouns/names and thus depersonalise the two figures. Genesis describes man as Adam and woman as Eve once*

Doesn't it seem likely that Genesis here is using a man and a woman as metaphors for an entire people?

* It's since come to my knowledge that some translations do include one more instance of adam with no 'ha' in the beginning as Adam, an individual. Nonetheless, the main point is that adam and ishah are not described as individuals often in the text. That's still true.

I agree. The story refers to a primordial man and woman who are mythologically every man and woman.

It is about who we are, not about ancestors who lived a long time ago.

 

[Bushido216]

That rule changed over 6 months ago.

I was off the boards for two years.

 

[jckstraw72]

well you have to ask yourself why "Adam" and "Ishah" mean "man" and "woman" -- perhaps bc thats what the first man and woman were called.

 

[Nooj]

well you have to ask yourself why "Adam" and "Ishah" mean "man" and "woman"

adam means humankind, it doesn't necessarily mean the male gender. ish and ishah are both part of adam.

-- perhaps bc thats what the first man and woman were called.

So the words 'adam' and 'ishah' mean humankind and woman because Adam and Eve's names echoed down through time until it was entrenched into Hebrew? Honestly never heard that one before.

So why did God name the man Adam and why did the man call woman Ishah? Without the Hebrew meanings, they'd be just arbitrary names. Both of them could have been called Bob and Bill and it wouldn't have mattered, because Hebrew would obediently pick up Bob and Bill as words for humankind and woman. So why did God choose these specific names?

What about Gen 2:23

And man said, "This time, it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called ishah (woman) because this one was taken from ish (man)."

I just said that without the Hebrew meanings, Adam and Ishah are arbitrary names. It wouldn't matter what names were chosen.

But it doesn't sound like ishah was an arbitrary choice after all, because she was named after the Hebrew word ish. Ish is a description of gender here. So this verse suggests that the name Ishah was chosen for a Hebrew meaning. Think about that for a second. Adam chose Ishah's name on the basis of a Hebrew word that according to your scenario, didn't exist then. The only two possibilities are that Adam spoke Hebrew or Moses picked the names Adam and Ishah because they had some deeper meaning in Hebrew.

I think some Christians are doing the account a disfavour by reading it purely literally. Even if you think it's literal and describes actual events, how about reading it through the TE perspective once in a while? There's no rule that says you've got to take Biblical stories as black and white. Sometimes, interpreting it differently can bring new insights. I know it makes me appreciate Genesis all the more.

 

[Ben12]

In Bible times names were chosen with great care and were frequently given by prophetic utterance or under divine inspiration so that the names actually revealed the nature, character, attributes, and destiny of the person, and thus carried a message to all who spoke or used that name. (This goes for the names of God which has been said there are over 200)

In a very real sense the "name" of a being is regarded as being a real part of the person. In a certain sense there can be no separation whatsoever between a man’s name and what he is as a person. In the scriptures the innermost being of a man is expressed in his name. That is why Esau declares of his conniving brother, "Is he not rightly named Jacob (supplanter)? For he has supplanted me these two times" (Gen. 27:36). After wresting with the angel of the Lord, however, Jacob underwent a change of attitude and alteration of character which was accompanied by a change of name. Having seen the "face" or presence of God he was no longer the same man that he had been before his encounter with the Lord. Since name and character are absolutely identified there had to be a change in Jacob’s appellation! The angel of the Lord, therefore, said, "Thy name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel (Prince): for as a prince thou hast power with God and with men, and hast prevailed" (Gen. 32:28).

 

[gluadys]

Even if you think it's literal and describes actual events, how about reading it through the TE perspective once in a while?

One doesn't even need to think of it as a TE perspective. These thoughts on the names existed long before evolution came along.

 

[gluadys]

In Bible times names were chosen with great care and were frequently given by prophetic utterance or under divine inspiration so that the names actually revealed the nature, character, attributes, and destiny of the person, and thus carried a message to all who spoke or used that name. (This goes for the names of God which has been said there are over 200)

In a very real sense the "name" of a being is regarded as being a real part of the person. In a certain sense there can be no separation whatsoever between a man’s name and what he is as a person. In the scriptures the innermost being of a man is expressed in his name. That is why Esau declares of his conniving brother, "Is he not rightly named Jacob (supplanter)? For he has supplanted me these two times" (Gen. 27:36). After wresting with the angel of the Lord, however, Jacob underwent a change of attitude and alteration of character which was accompanied by a change of name. Having seen the "face" or presence of God he was no longer the same man that he had been before his encounter with the Lord. Since name and character are absolutely identified there had to be a change in Jacob’s appellation! The angel of the Lord, therefore, said, "Thy name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel (Prince): for as a prince thou hast power with God and with men, and hast prevailed" (Gen. 32:28).

Very true and all the more reason to pay attention to the meaning of the names.

Has anyone noted that both 'adam' and 'ishah' refer to the origin of the person made?

As nooj points out the man called the woman 'ishah' because she was taken out of 'ish'

'ish' and 'ishah' being the male and female aspects of 'adam'.

But 'adam' itself is related to 'adamah' (earth) from which the 'adam' was taken. As God reminds him later, "from dust you came, to dust you will return..."

So, following along on your reminder that biblical names refer to the nature of the thing named we have adam named for the earth he comes from and ishah named for the ish she comes from. And ish and ishah together are then both adam. Both "earthlings" in their male and female aspects.

Furthermore, this is profoundly true of every one of us. We are made of earth, we belong to the earth, we are made to care for the earth and for one another. So it makes a lot of sense to see Adam and Eve as types of humanity, as revelations of what human nature is.

Then of course, in the NT we get Christ as the type of the new humanity--the second Adam.

Interestingly, in this sermon St. Johm Chrysostom includes an image of the Church born from Christ's side, as Eve was from Adam's rib.

 

[Nooj]

Er. How did my OP turn into this?

 

[shernren]

Er. How did my OP turn into this?

Welcome to Origins Theology.

 

[Melethiel]

I split all the off topic posts out to Hamartiology.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

I think some Christians are doing the account a disfavour by reading it purely literally. Even if you think it's literal and describes actual events, how about reading it through the TE perspective once in a while? There's no rule that says you've got to take Biblical stories as black and white. Sometimes, interpreting it differently can bring new insights. I know it makes me appreciate Genesis all the more.

Precisely.

 

[shernren]

Except that wasn't me. That was Nooj.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Oops! so sorry for the misquote!

 

[Scotishfury09]

Er. How did my OP turn into this?

Compared to most threads this one has stayed fairly related to the OP.

 

[Melethiel]

Compared to most threads this one has stayed fairly related to the OP.

Hah...no it didn't. I split a couple of pages to a different forum.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Hah...no it didn't. I split a couple of pages to a different forum.

Ah, that makes sense.