[open] Ish and Ishshah

[plum]

this is something I haven't really heard of before... and I was wondering if anyone had any insight into it?
http://www.christianforums.com/t3311105-ish-ishshah-adam-eve.html

that thread is in the Origins forum.

Are "Adam" and "Eve" titles for the first man and woman? I know the meaning of their names is general... Adam= man for instance...

thoughts?

 

[stone]

looks like another form of replacement theology

 

[plum]

what?? how so

 

[stone]

Here's a snip from the links op:

unfortunately Adam and Eve are titles, not specific names.

and another:

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.

This looks like an attempt to prove that the book of genesis is not exactly how it is written.

They are saying that Adam is not the name of the 1st man and Eve not the name of the 1st woman, but titles.

 

[plum]

Simply because they are suggesting that adam and Eve are titles doesn't mean they're preaching replacement theology, stone

 

[stone]

wouldn't this mean that, according to what they say, all men are Adams and all women are Eve's just for being human?

 

[stone]

and here's that word again:

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.

 

[Hadassah]

I haven't had time to read the link, but if things are as stone said it is on the thread (I believe ya) - this is a form of replacement theology (of sorts).

Adam/Adom and Eve/Chava are their names. Man/Ish and Woman/Ishah are designations of the race & their distinct roles.
Kind of like saying Horse: Arabian - name: Shibboleth [hey i made a funny! ] and then deliniating that she is a Mare/Dam
If we then say "oh well it's not an Arabian, but it's a horse" or "Look at that mare..." and someone says "That's not a mare, that's a horse" - we're talking in circles. Both are applicable titles to the species and the specific being we are speaking of.

 

[debi b]

Does anyone know what a YECists is? I can't post in that section so I can not ask.

On the face of it he has a valid point. He is only talking about how this word developed into a proper name. I don't know where he is going with it.

 

[Hadassah]

Does anyone know what a YECists is? I can't post in that section so I can not ask.

Young Earth Creationist

 

[debi b]

Thanks for the response

I don't know specifically how this fits into his theology, but he is not talking about any kind of replacement from a language point of view.

When you know how to read - not just play around, it will change you. There are connections that you just can not make in any other language.

Learning the text (especially Torah) in the language that it was written in will help you understand the disciples (Yes, it is posible to figure out Paul in a way that harmonizes ALL the Scriptures ). Yeshua himself said they speak of me and they DO. If someone is coming up with something else - well......

Here is where many get discouraged - it will take time. There is no short cut, but Scripture talks about seeking Him with all your everything

 

[stone]

I say replacement because it takes the Adam i know from reading Genesis and replaceing him with something else. It's also adding words. Adam is the 1st man, created by g-d, why try and distort that with some other teaching?

I recall that i've had a beef with yec's long before i chose messianic. heh, although i can't recall exactly what it was... it'll come to me.

lol, o yea, ask them about dinosaurs.

 

[debi b]

Could be that is where he is heading. That is why I said I don't know what he is trying to do with the info. The observation has merit, the conclusions drawn can be another story

 

[plum]

I say replacement because it takes the Adam i know from reading Genesis and replaceing him with something else.

but when you say "replacement theology" it actually means something different which this man is not talking about at all. so let's not mix terms

Thanks debi, for your thoughts. This is all about the language, folks

 

[Henaynei]

1) the poster quotes one of their previous posts in which they clearly state

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

unfortunately Adam and Eve are titles, not specific names.

so nu?? The bible says their names were Adam and Chavah - but the bible got it wrong

2) by the poster's logic ALL the names in the bible were titles rather than actual names - because in the bible one's name had a known meaning, much as American Indian names do. Thus they have in one fell swoop turned the entire bible into metaphorical literature and have blown it's immutable veracity into the dust

3) this is just another form of "higher criticism" that removes G-d from the picture and replaces Him with the "need of primitive people to create reasons and purposes in and for the world around them" because they were too unlearned and not blessed with scientific knowledge and reasoning

b'Shalom
Henaynei

 

[plum]

yes, the logic is questionable. Good point about the other names having meaning as well. That is one thing that was often unmentioned in any Bible classes or sunday school classes I took as a child. The meanings of the names in Hebrew always shed light on G-d's role in their lives or in the nation of Israel's life.

I suppose it would only be fitting that the first humans were named "man" and "woman".


I'd hope the study of Hebrew wqould lead to more discoveries that would bring G-d back into the picture.

 

[Henaynei]

But G-d said their names were Adam and Chavah

ish and ishshah were the names of their "kind," *not* their personal names, just as:

chamor and aton are male and female donkeys - not their personal names

or

aryeh and leviah are male and female lions

or

ayal and ayalah are male and female deer/gazelle

or

kelev and kalbah are male and female dogs

so too

ish and ishshah are male and female humans

the scriptural context and the plain instruction of scripture support this....

 

[P_G]

I agree with Henaini these are specific proper names not titles or descriptors of Man and Womman. Even in English the distiniction is very clear that there are Man and Womman and Adam and Eve.

Not so sure it is replacement theology in the sense that we see replacement theology. But sure is some shakey theology

PG

 

[plum]

But G-d said their names were Adam and Chavah

I know. I'm not asking anyone to agree with the guy I quoted. I don't even agree with him.

but Adam means "man" doesn't it? that's what I was getting at.

 

[CovenantRay]

I know. I'm not asking anyone to agree with the guy I quoted. I don't even agree with him.

but Adam means "man" doesn't it? that's what I was getting at.

Yes, related to adamah, earth.

CovenantRay