Ish-Ishshah adam-eve

[rmwilliamsll]

there has been at least two threads that i tried to show that the first couple's proper names were ish and ishshah and that their titles were adam and eve.

i'll gather the pieces here in one spot to discuss the issues:

from:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=26239057&postcount=32

The Bible tells us that their name was Adam and Eve.


unfortunately Adam and Eve are titles, not specific names.


Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.


same word translated as called-qara, as in:

Quote:
Gen 1:5 And God called 07121 the light 0216 Day 03117, and the darkness 02822 he called 07121 Night 03915. And the evening and the morning were the first day 03117.

Gen 1:8 And God called 07121 the firmament 07549 Heaven 08064. And the evening and the morning were the second day 03117.

Gen 1:10 And God called 07121 the dry 03004 [land] Earth 0776; and the gathering together of the waters called 07121 he Seas : and God saw that [it was] good .

Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field , and every fowl of the air ; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call 07121 them: and whatsoever Adam called 07121 every living 02416 creature 05315, that [was] the name thereof .

Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle , and to the fowl of the air , and to every beast of the field ; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Gen 2:23 And Adam said , This [is] now bone of my bones , and flesh of my flesh : she shall be called 07121 Woman 0802, because she was taken out of Man .
from: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...6557-7627.html

ish and ishah have as much or even more claim to be their names as do adam and eve, and the pun between their names is much stronger and specifically binds them together as a pair of people for the first pair of names than for the second pair.

ish-man
ishah-woman
the partial pun is even in the English.

adam-man and ground and red
eve-mother of all living

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jase View Post
'adam {aw-dawm'}


1) man, mankind
a) man, human being
b) man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)
c) Adam, first man d) city in Jordan valley

i posted on this topic in another thread here on the issue citing the Hebrew and the appropriate verses:

The Bible tells us that their name was Adam and Eve.


unfortunately Adam and Eve are titles, not specific names.

at: http://www.christianforums.com/showp...7&postcount=32

and to add to it a bit.

from: Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

to: Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.

the word is generic, "the man"* and ought to be consistently rendered that way until:

Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

when ishshah is named, and "the man" is likewise given the name "ish" as parallelism with ishshah. so the generic adam becomes the specific couple ish-ishshah. it is sad that the translators of the first English text capitalized Adam sometimes and not others, leading people to think it was a proper name. however in Gen 2:23 Man(as is Woman, the translators recognizing that this too is a proper name) is also capitalized, as it should be, it is the first man's proper name.

but the hold of tradition on people's minds is strong enough that the proper reading is not going to get through despite the protestations that they are properly reading the Scriptures.

the first man's name was ish, his title is adam.
likewise the first woman's name was ishshah and her title was eve.


but like the chimera Jehovah, the right way of looking at words will take a long time to become the common way of seeing them.


notes:
*hebrew does not have the definite article here, it is better in english as "man"
however to our english ears, used to the definite or indefinite article everywhere this sounds odd, hence "(the) man". in any case, ish and ishshah are the first couple's names.

from: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=26301203&postcount=57


and:

Therefore --- AV1611VET disagrees.


we do the same thing in English.

The King, The Queen, refer to specific people.
if there is going to be confusion, say with King John or Queen Mary, we specify more than their title.

all the verses quoted are referring to Adam by title, without confusion in the same way.


the determining factor is the grammar of:

Gen 2:23 And Adam 0120 said 0559 , This 02063 [is] now 06471 bone 06106 of my bones 06106, and flesh 01320 of my flesh 01320: she 02063 shall be called 07121 Woman 0802, because she 02063 was taken 03947 out of Man 0376.

this is a naming ritual.
nowhere is Adam given as a name, but rather in:

Gen 3:20 And Adam 0120 called 07121 his wife's 0802 name 08034 Eve 02332; because she was the mother 0517 of all living 02416

ishshah is explicitly being given a title, in fact, the meaning fo the title is even given. the problem in english is that the word ishshah in Gen 3:20 is translated as wife rather than the proper name for the Women.

it is literally:
(the)Man cried out Women's title Eve


why labor the point?

because YECists are literalistic when it suits their fancy and supports their ideology, even when presented with new information (to them) they are unwilling to look at and examine it. Even when that discussion revolves around the Scriptures, contrary to their outspoken words that they are all about the Scriptures.



there is often posted here the idea that no one brings up Scripture. well here it is, grammar, linguistics.


an additional thought.

the same kind of thing happened slowly over the centuries as Europe invented family names.
occupations: smith, tailor, wright etc
place names usually hometowns,
patronyms: williamson

titles slowly became proper names, it appears to be a natural and common linguistic phenomena.

The same process happened with the name of Jesus.
his name is Yeshuah in Aramaic, his title is Messiah.
which was Latinized to Jesus and formed as our common first and last name form to
Jesus Christ, when in fact it is a title Messiah and a proper name Yeshuah
so properly:
Messiah Yeshuah or Christ Jesus.

my point is that YECists don't really interact with the Scriptures the way they claim, what they really do is interact with a tradition, reading the Scriptures with the glasses supplied by that tradition. When i first saw this idea a few weeks back while reading the Hebrew i was interested and pursued the point. When i show the same thing here the reaction is uniformally one of lager, draw the wagons around and prepare for battle.

interesting reaction.

 

[laptoppop]

Nice explanation. It is rejected by many because Adam is seen as a real man. When the New Testament refers to something in the Old Testament, we trust that they understand it better than we do. Adam is referred to in the New Testament as a name, not the generic, and not ish. For example, Luke 3:38 where Adam, not ish, is listed as the father of Seth.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Nice explanation. It is rejected by many because Adam is seen as a real man. When the New Testament refers to something in the Old Testament, we trust that they understand it better than we do. Adam is referred to in the New Testament as a name, not the generic, and not ish. For example, Luke 3:38 where Adam, not ish, is listed as the father of Seth.

and Jesus is referred to as "the Christ" which is a title as well.
likewise we use the term Father, another title, or Lord, yet another title. what is God's proper name?

my point is not to argue the historicity of the first couple, i believe that they are historical human beings. but to show that at least one thing, that we take for granted the Scriptures teach isn't right when we look closer. it is this willingness to examine things, to strive to understand that i'd like to encourage. my surprise is how a few YECists responded to the idea so strongly without coming to grips with the data.

qara for example. God never says "I qara you adam".
adam clearly "qara you women". analogously to "qara the animals" and God's qara day and night. dry land and water, heavens and earth.


the same demand to talk about the scriptures went by unnoticed when i tried to show that yom means daylight in Gen 1:5. YECists accuse people of not taking Scripture seriously but when i bring up grammar and linguistics there is no engagement with the issues, in general.

 

[laptoppop]

So are you seriously saying the entire rest of the luke geneaology uses names, but for adam luke used a title?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So are you seriously saying the entire rest of the luke geneaology uses names, but for adam luke used a title?

no, it is a title that evolved into a proper name.

like Christ a title becomes like a last name.
like the tailor Ismael becomes Ismael Taylor
or John son of Thunder becomes John Thunder
or Paul the village smithy becomes Paul Smith
or Richard son of William becomes Richard Williamson


it is clearly a title in Gen 1-5
Adam Man and Eve Woman
or
Ish 'Adam and Ishshah Eve (adjectives follow nouns in Hebrew)

 

[Assyrian]

So are you seriously saying the entire rest of the luke geneaology uses names, but for adam luke used a title?

There is 'God' as well: son of Seth, son of Adam son of God. That is a title rather than a name too.

The genealogy leaves the literal human biology at that end too, it is pretty clear Adam wasn't the biological son of God the way Isaac was the biological son of Abraham. If Adam wasn't the biological son of God, is it so definite that Seth had to be the biological son of Adam? Or was Seth simply a 'son of Man' and Man was created by God?

 

[Pats]

I find this subject very interesting, but, clearly I need to look else where for more info on it. I can't follow the OP at all. I'm impressed with anyone who made sense out of it.

 

[jereth]

the same demand to talk about the scriptures went by unnoticed when i tried to show that yom means daylight in Gen 1:5. YECists accuse people of not taking Scripture seriously but when i bring up grammar and linguistics there is no engagement with the issues, in general.

This is a recurring pattern, much to our ongoing frustration.

- raqia (firmament)
- Genesis 2:19 (waw + imperfect tense)
- Romans 5:12 (no relevance to animals)
- Genesis 7:19 (hills <--> mountains)
- sheol
- adam being the name for both male and female in Gen 1:27, 5:2
- word plays like adam - adamah

etc.

Every time one of these linguistic, grammatical or exegetical arguments are brought up, it seems the YECists just run and hide.

It was precisely because I personally confronted these issues that I changed from YECist to TEist. i.e. The Scriptures ulitmately made me reject YECism, it had very little to do with science.

You were right when you said earlier that YECism is based on tradition, not a close reading of the Bible.

 

[laptoppop]

Silence is not the same as "running and hiding". Sometimes it just gets tiresome to have to continually explain and defend, so a rest is in order.

In this case, the one thing I care about is if Adam was a real person or not. RMWilliams said "my point is not to argue the historicity of the first couple, i believe that they are historical human beings." This to me makes this discussion about semantic details that don't really interest me.

I'm perfectly happy to concede that "Adam" can be used in a generic "human" kind of way -- the important point is if it is ALSO used as a name of a particular individual created by God.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You were right when you said earlier that YECism is based on tradition, not a close reading of the Bible.


it's not the i oppose tradition, (i'm consciously reformed), what i don't like is tradition masquerading as common sense (in this case) or claiming to be so obvious that it doesn't need analysis. Tradition is necessary and a good thing, but when it is unexamined and unrealized it is blinders.

I start teaching Sunday School again this coming Sunday. (forgive me for the example but the situation dominates my thinking) on the ministries of mercy, the bottom line obvious in a couple of weeks is that i think the conservative church made a serious theological error when in opposing liberalism in the early 20thC associated the social gospel with any social/political/cultural engagement and for 70 years, as a result, abandoned ministries of justice and mercy to others. (not completely but a lot)

the point is that we should not abandon tradition because it has failed us, but rather we failed it. we failed to understand how systems of theology shape our understanding not just of the Scriptures but of the world around us.

that is my point with threads like this. to show that the underlying principles underneath fundamentalism or under YECism are not necessarily biblical but often are simply pieces of a system of thought which may or may not be Biblical at those principles. What is necessary is to examine them, to look at them and try to struggle with the ideas.

Adam is a title, now does that mean that Adam was a prototypic Man, a composite picture, a generic figurehead? I don't know, but i know that the reason most YECists will not look carefully at the grammar etc for the problem is that it appears to be one step out of the mental system and therefore (because of the slippery slope argument) they will deny the value even of looking at the problem. And defend this with statements like:

Adam must be a personal name, because Luke in his geneology of Jesus says so, and if you don't believe Luke then Jesus did not rise from the dead.

It is this conflation of big and little issues, without distinction either to importance or significance or systematic thinking that bothers me in this forum. but it illustrates that what people are really doing is defending a whole system, a package deal that they feel is under attack and each piece is as crucial as any other.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

And this is the problem that i want to make obvious.
The details of Scripture, the grammar, the words, all are important. For if God really did communicate to humanity in the Scriptures then what He said there is a big deal. Because of the pervasiveness of sin we do read into Scripture, we do misinterpret things and we do so with motives and desires not to see it as authoritative and speaking to us personally and with control, presence and authority (to quote my favorite modern theologian)

Whether or not Adam is a title or a personal name is the datum that we need to build and challenge and rebuild our theological systems. In my case it is the big idea that Adam was the physical progenitor of all mankind that is the issue, not the historicity of the first couple, but rather were they the first man/woman or the first semitic couple.

The idea that Adam is a title relates to the crucial theological principle of federal headship, how does Adam relate to "those in Adam", how does Adam relate to how God creates souls since the fall. How is Adam the first man and Jesus the second. This issues are not going to be solved by simply adopting a system, but rather by carefully challenging each part of the system, looking at the scriptures and working through the pieces to personally engage with them. And in doing so make them your effort and your personal battles that although hard fought are worthwhile because you took the time and effort to work through them.

that is my point in bringing up qara and adam and ish.
to give people the chance and the motivation to engage with the Scriptures and their own systematic thinking. (and the opportunity to get into the issues myself under the pressure of defending them to someone else in a logical and coherent manner so as to be persuasive)

 

[Assyrian]

In this case, the one thing I care about is if Adam was a real person or not. RMWilliams said "my point is not to argue the historicity of the first couple, i believe that they are historical human beings." This to me makes this discussion about semantic details that don't really interest me.

I'm perfectly happy to concede that "Adam" can be used in a generic "human" kind of way -- the important point is if it is ALSO used as a name of a particular individual created by God.

But if Adam means human or mankind, how do you know the account of Adam and Eve isn't a Mr Man story of God creating the human race? Do the references to Adam in the NT only work with a literal person or do they work if it is allegorical or symbolises the human race?

 

[gluadys]

Interestingly, except for an obscure reference to a town called Adam, there is no place in the Old Testament where 'adam' must be used as a proper name. Every translation I have seen translated 'adam' as 'man' in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2:7. They vary at the point where they switch from the generic 'man' to the name 'Adam'.

As far as I know, nothing in the Hebrew indicates that such a switch is necessary.

That leaves the New Testament as the source of the idea that 'adam' is a proper name. But every occurrence of 'adam' in the New Testament is simply a transliteration (rather than a translation) of the Hebrew word into Greek.

I am not certain the NT references give any more support than the OT to 'adam' being a proper name of an individual person.