PDA

View Full Version : Literal translations of Biblical names?



Calminian
01-23-2017, 11:16 PM
Could someone offer possible literal translations for Biblical names such as:

Adam
Eve
Cain
Abel

I've been trying to get a grasp on how the original Hebrew speakers would have heard certain names and words. Today, most english names have roots in other languages and we rarely know what they mean (unless we look them up). But this was different in early history, correct? I'd be curious how certain names would have been heard?

For instance, Eve is said to have named Cain based on him being an acquisition. Cain is a transliteration, but how would it be rendered literally? The only example I can think of where names are not transliterations is Native American names such as Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Standing Bear, etc. In those cases they are translated literally. Is this similar to how original Hebrew speakers heard names?

hansgeorg
01-24-2017, 02:51 AM
I would think so, yes.

Abel I was recently seing as meaning "vanity", but I am not a Hebraist myself.

robrecht
01-24-2017, 04:40 AM
Could someone offer possible literal translations for Biblical names such as:

Adam
Eve
Cain
Abel

I've been trying to get a grasp on how the original Hebrew speakers would have heard certain names and words. Today, most english names have roots in other languages and we rarely know what they mean (unless we look them up). But this was different in early history, correct? I'd be curious how certain names would have been heard?

For instance, Eve is said to have named Cain based on him being an acquisition. Cain is a transliteration, but how would it be rendered literally? The only example I can think of where names are not transliterations is Native American names such as Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Standing Bear, etc. In those cases they are translated literally. Is this similar to how original Hebrew speakers heard names?Adam (אָדָם, 'adam): Mankind, humanity, sometimes of an individual male, reddish (perhaps like clay). Surprisingly, unlike almost everything else of significance in the creation narrative, ’adam is not named when created on the sixth day, or when he is formed from the earth in Genesis Chapter 2. The actual naming of ’adam does not occur until Gen 5,2, where, like in Gen 1,26, 'adam refers explicitly to the couple, male and female, which is given the name ‘humankind’. 'adam is closely related to the word 'adamah, which means 'ground', 'earth' in the sense of dirt (not the planet). Mankind comes from the earth and returns to the earth (Gen 2,19). The individual man whom we today call Adam, is never actually given a name in the Hebrew Bible.

Eve (חַוָּה, chawah): Unlike Adam, who is never given a name, Eve is named twice. At first the man rather crudely named her merely 'Woman' (Gen 2,25), but later after they are spared from immediate death on account of their disobedience, he gives her a true name (3,20), an ancient form of the word for 'life'. It can also mean 'village', and to this day, the women are the true center of all village life. The men go off and hunt and gather, make war, drink and carouse, but the women make sure everything is taken care of properly back home in the village.

Cain (קַיִן, qayin): In Gen 4,1 the biblical author makes a word-play on the name Cain (qayin) and the verb qanah (to acquire, buy, create, make) when Eve says she has acquired/made a man (with Yahweh). Qayin could be a (copper) 'spear', or in Aramaic a (copper) smith, and it may be related to the Kenite tribe (in Hebrew spelled with a Q) of Moses' father-in-law'. One might also think of Cain as evoking the Canaanites, but this is a different word in Hebrew, spelled with a K rather than a Q and signifying traders, merchants. The word 'Cain' is closely related to qiynah, which is a a funeral dirge, which is also evocative of Cain's role as the first murderer.

Abel (הֶבֶל, hevel): The meaning of the 'hevel' is 'mist' or 'fog', as he too like the fog disappears quickly from the scene, leaving no progeny. It is the same word that Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) uses in the theme of his book: Vanity of vanities, all is vanity, says Qoheleth. One might also say, Fog of fog, all is fog. Or, what is the ultimate meaning of our short life, if we all die so soon like Abel?

Sparko
01-24-2017, 05:27 AM
Adam (אָדָם, 'adam): Mankind, humanity, sometimes of an individual male, reddish (perhaps like clay). Surprisingly, unlike almost everything else of significance in the creation narrative, ’adam is not named when created on the sixth day, or when he is formed from the earth in Genesis Chapter 2. The actual naming of ’adam does not occur until Gen 5,2, where, like in Gen 1,26, 'adam refers explicitly to the couple, male and female, which is given the name ‘humankind’. 'adam is closely related to the word 'adamah, which means 'ground', 'earth' in the sense of dirt (not the planet). Mankind comes from the earth and returns to the earth (Gen 2,19). The individual man whom we today call Adam, is never actually given a name in the Hebrew Bible.

Eve (חַוָּה, chawah): Unlike Adam, who is never given a name, Eve is named twice. At first the man rather crudely named her merely 'Woman' (Gen 2,25), but later after they are spared from immediate death on account of their disobedience, he gives her a true name (3,20), an ancient form of the word for 'life'. It can also mean 'village', and to this day, the women are the true center of all village life. The men go off and hunt and gather, make war, drink and carouse, but the women make sure everything is taken care of properly back home in the village.

Cain (קַיִן, qayin): In Gen 4,1 the biblical author makes a word-play on the name Cain (qayin) and the verb qanah (to acquire, buy, create, make) when Eve says she has acquired/made a man (with Yahweh). Qayin could be a (copper) 'spear', or in Aramaic a (copper) smith, and it may be related to the Kenite tribe (in Hebrew spelled with a Q) of Moses' father-in-law'. One might also think of Cain as evoking the Canaanites, but this is a different word in Hebrew, spelled with a K rather than a Q and signifying traders, merchants. The word 'Cain' is closely related to qiynah, which is a a funeral dirge, which is also evocative of Cain's role as the first murderer.

Abel (הֶבֶל, hevel): The meaning of the 'hevel' is 'mist' or 'fog', as he too like the fog disappears quickly from the scene, leaving no progeny. It is the same word that Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) uses in the theme of his book: Vanity of vanities, all is vanity, says Qoheleth. One might also say, Fog of fog, all is fog. Or, what is the ultimate meaning of our short life, if we all die so soon like Abel?

That's interesting.

The question then is:

Were they named that because of the meanings? Or did the meanings come from the names later?

For example, did Adam come to mean "mankind" because Adam was the first man? Considering Hebrew wasn't around then probably, I would think so.

hansgeorg
01-24-2017, 05:51 AM
Considering Hebrew wasn't around then probably, I would think so.

Hebrew WAS around. It is the language God spoke with Adam in all probability (Aramaic might be a candidate too).

robrecht
01-24-2017, 05:51 AM
That's interesting.

The question then is:

Were they named that because of the meanings? Or did the meanings come from the names later?

For example, did Adam come to mean "mankind" because Adam was the first man? Considering Hebrew wasn't around then probably, I would think so.The only instances in the earliest Hebrew consonantal text of Genesis where 'adam is unambiguously used as a name is in Genesis 4,25 and 5,3-5. On the basis of those texts, you could make a case that it was originally understood to be the name of a single man. Personally, I would not assume that the first man was named Adam, 'though the author(s) of these verses did, and the tendency of later translators and Masoretes tended to variously understand the earlier text of Genesis in this way, at the risk of obscuring the deep significance of the collective and symbolic force of ’adam in these Hebrew narratives.

The LXX first uses the transliteration Adam (rather than a translation) at Gen 2,16, when Adam is commanded not to eat from the tree of life, but note that while he is addressed with one singular 2nd person verb in 2,16, this is immediately followed by three 2nd person plural verbs in 2,17. The LXX uses the transliteration more than other translations, but not exclusively after 2,16 (see 2,18.24 4,1 and 5,1). Does the Greek translator sometimes translate and other times transliterate ‘Adam’ because is trying to evoke the polyvalent sense of the Hebrew original that was otherwise lost in Hebrew? The Vulgate first uses the transliteration at 2,19, the naming of the animals. The Masoretic text does not vocalize the Hebrew consonantal text as a name until 3,17 (cursing of the ground) and 3,21 (making of clothes). Luther did not use the name Adam until Gen 3,8, after the fall of man. The King James Version followed the Vulgate in starting to use Adam at 2,19. Is Adam to be understood strictly as a name? That very much depends on what translation you read:

MT arthrous: 1,27; Chapter 2: 14x (2,7bis.8.15.16.18.19bis.20.21.22bis.23.25); Chapter 3: 6x (3,8.9.12.20.22.24); 4,1 Chapter 6: 6x; Chapters 7-25: 10x
MT anarthrous: 1,26 2,5 (w אַ֔יִן)] [2,20* 3,17.21 (w לְ)] 4,25 5,1bis.2.3.4.5 16,12
DSS arthrous: 1,27 2,15.16.19; cf 1,26 plural verb 1,27 them
Sam anarthrous: 1,26 2,5.7.25 3,8 4,25 5,1bis.2.3.4.5
Sam arthrous: 1,27 2,7.8.15.16.18.19bis.20.21.22bis.23 3,9.12.20.22.24 4,1
- Cannot say if 2,20 3,17.21 are arthrous or anarthrous because of prepositions
LXX Anthropos: 1,26.27[o] Chapter 2: 6x (2,7bis[o].8[o].15[o].18[o].24; 4,1 5,1 Chapter 6: 11x; …
LXX Adam: Chapter 2: 10x (2,16[o].19bis[o1x].20bis[o1x].21[o].22bis[o].23.25[o]); Chapter 3: 9x (3,8[o].9bis[o1x].12[o].17[o].20.21[o].22.24[o]); 4,1.25 5,1.2.3.4.5
Vulg Adam: Chapter 2: 8x (2,19bis.20.21.22bis.23.25); Chapter 3: 6x (3,8.9.12.20.22.24); 4,1.25 5,1.2.3.4.5
Vulg Homo, homines: Gen. 1,26-27 2,5.7-8.15.18.24 4,1 5,1
Luther 1545 Adam: Chapter 3: 8x (3,8.9.12.17.20.21.22.24); 4,1.25 5,3[1x!]
KJV Adam: Chapter 2: 6x (2,19bis.20bis.21.23); Chapter 3: 5x (3,8.9.17.20.21); 4,1.25 5,1.2.3.4.5
NRSV Adam: 4,25 5,1.3.4.5

hansgeorg
01-24-2017, 05:52 AM
Personally, I would not assume that the first man was named Adam, 'though the author(s) of these verses did,

In other words, you feel disagreeing with a hagiographer and with God is good enough for you?

robrecht
01-24-2017, 05:59 AM
In other words, you feel disagreeing with a hagiographer and with God is good enough for you?I would never disagree with God, unless he wanted me to, but I'm not sure which hagiographer you are referring to here?

Sparko
01-24-2017, 06:27 AM
Hebrew WAS around. It is the language God spoke with Adam in all probability (Aramaic might be a candidate too).really hans, you should not be contributing to threads in biblical languages. You have absolutely no knowledge in the area. I trust robrecht's answers and comments. He is a first class biblical language scholar. You could learn a lot just from reading his posts.

Remember the old saying, better to be silent and seem a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Sparko
01-24-2017, 06:31 AM
I would never disagree with God, unless he wanted me to, but I'm not sure which hagiographer you are referring to here?I think he is referring to Luke's genealogy maybe?

Cerebrum123
01-24-2017, 07:22 AM
The only instances in the earliest Hebrew consonantal text of Genesis where 'adam is unambiguously used as a name is in Genesis 4,25 and 5,3-5. On the basis of those texts, you could make a case that it was originally understood to be the name of a single man. Personally, I would not assume that the first man was named Adam, 'though the author(s) of these verses did, and the tendency of later translators and Masoretes tended to variously understand the earlier text of Genesis in this way, at the risk of obscuring the deep significance of the collective and symbolic force of ’adam in these Hebrew narratives.

The LXX first uses the transliteration Adam (rather than a translation) at Gen 2,16, when Adam is commanded not to eat from the tree of life, but note that while he is addressed with one singular 2nd person verb in 2,16, this is immediately followed by three 2nd person plural verbs in 2,17. The LXX uses the transliteration more than other translations, but not exclusively after 2,16 (see 2,18.24 4,1 and 5,1). Does the Greek translator sometimes translate and other times transliterate ‘Adam’ because is trying to evoke the polyvalent sense of the Hebrew original that was otherwise lost in Hebrew? The Vulgate first uses the transliteration at 2,19, the naming of the animals. The Masoretic text does not vocalize the Hebrew consonantal text as a name until 3,17 (cursing of the ground) and 3,21 (making of clothes). Luther did not use the name Adam until Gen 3,8, after the fall of man. The King James Version followed the Vulgate in starting to use Adam at 2,19. Is Adam to be understood strictly as a name? That very much depends on what translation you read:

MT arthrous: 1,27; Chapter 2: 14x (2,7bis.8.15.16.18.19bis.20.21.22bis.23.25); Chapter 3: 6x (3,8.9.12.20.22.24); 4,1 Chapter 6: 6x; Chapters 7-25: 10x
MT anarthrous: 1,26 2,5 (w אַ֔יִן)] [2,20* 3,17.21 (w לְ)] 4,25 5,1bis.2.3.4.5 16,12
DSS arthrous: 1,27 2,15.16.19; cf 1,26 plural verb 1,27 them
Sam anarthrous: 1,26 2,5.7.25 3,8 4,25 5,1bis.2.3.4.5
Sam arthrous: 1,27 2,7.8.15.16.18.19bis.20.21.22bis.23 3,9.12.20.22.24 4,1
- Cannot say if 2,20 3,17.21 are arthrous or anarthrous because of prepositions
LXX Anthropos: 1,26.27[o] Chapter 2: 6x (2,7bis[o].8[o].15[o].18[o].24; 4,1 5,1 Chapter 6: 11x; …
LXX Adam: Chapter 2: 10x (2,16[o].19bis[o1x].20bis[o1x].21[o].22bis[o].23.25[o]); Chapter 3: 9x (3,8[o].9bis[o1x].12[o].17[o].20.21[o].22.24[o]); 4,1.25 5,1.2.3.4.5
Vulg Adam: Chapter 2: 8x (2,19bis.20.21.22bis.23.25); Chapter 3: 6x (3,8.9.12.20.22.24); 4,1.25 5,1.2.3.4.5
Vulg Homo, homines: Gen. 1,26-27 2,5.7-8.15.18.24 4,1 5,1
Luther 1545 Adam: Chapter 3: 8x (3,8.9.12.17.20.21.22.24); 4,1.25 5,3[1x!]
KJV Adam: Chapter 2: 6x (2,19bis.20bis.21.23); Chapter 3: 5x (3,8.9.17.20.21); 4,1.25 5,1.2.3.4.5
NRSV Adam: 4,25 5,1.3.4.5

It's not just "those texts" in Genesis that lead to Adam being the name of the first man, it's the context of the whole Bible. The Adam in Genesis 5:1 is the same one who's wife was Eve, who was to be the "mother of all the living", meaning that all mankind would be descended from her from then on. Then you have 1 Chronicles writing up the history back to the beginning, and starts with Adam. Then Luke does his genealogy leading back to "Adam, who was the son of God". Romans 5:12-14 that teaches that death came into the world through Adam's sin. 1 Corinthians 15 comparing the first and last Adam, and 1 Timothy 2:13-14 comparing Adam and Eve, and mentioning that Adam was formed first. All of these together make it unmistakably clear that Adam was the very first human, but you are so obsessed with a "deep significance" that you are throwing out the crystal clear meaning that actually is there for all to see.

robrecht
01-24-2017, 07:37 AM
It's not just "those texts" in Genesis that lead to Adam being the name of the first man, it's the context of the whole Bible. The Adam in Genesis 5:1 is the same one who's wife was Eve, who was to be the "mother of all the living", meaning that all mankind would be descended from her from then on. Then you have 1 Chronicles writing up the history back to the beginning, and starts with Adam. Then Luke does his genealogy leading back to "Adam, who was the son of God". Romans 5:12-14 that teaches that death came into the world through Adam's sin. 1 Corinthians 15 comparing the first and last Adam, and 1 Timothy 2:13-14 comparing Adam and Eve, and mentioning that Adam was formed first. All of these together make it unmistakably clear that Adam was the very first human, but you are so obsessed with a "deep significance" that you are throwing out the crystal clear meaning that actually is there for all to see.I think you may have misunderstood. I did not say something like 'only those texts in the Bible', but rather, "The only instances in the earliest Hebrew consonantal text of Genesis ..." My intent is merely to best understand the meaning intended in the earlier narratives of Genesis, not to refute later theological reflection or interpretations based on those narratives by other authors. For example, I think you will see some of this same deeper significance in the writings of St Paul, where he understands Adam not merely as an historical man but also as a type of the coming one (Rom 5,14). We are all dying insofar as we are all ‘in’ Adam, but we shall all be made alive ‘in’ Christ (1 Cor 15,22). While Paul reads Adam as a name as early as Gen 2,7 (perhaps following a Greek text akin to the Samaritan text tradition I mentioned above or perhaps just making an allusion), he nonetheless still provides a preceding gloss which retains part of the Hebrew significance (‘the first human’), and significantly this ‘name’ Adam is shared by ‘the last Adam’, Christ (15,45). Paul is here speaking of the first human, but Christ is also the 'second human' (15,47). If he were only understanding the first man in a purely historical sense then the second man would not be Christ but Cain or Abel or Seth. We are ‘in’ Adam and ‘in’ Christ, the second Adam because of this collective understanding of ’adam as mankind. Likewise, Paul retains the ’adamah dimension of ’adam and incorporates it with the collective sense: 'The first man was from the earth, a man of dust … As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust … Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven' (15,47-49).

hansgeorg
01-24-2017, 07:57 AM
I would never disagree with God, unless he wanted me to, but I'm not sure which hagiographer you are referring to here?

When it comes to Genesis : Moses.

+ His sources, whether written and oral, back to Adam.

hansgeorg
01-24-2017, 08:01 AM
really hans, you should not be contributing to threads in biblical languages. You have absolutely no knowledge in the area.

For one thing, I did start learning Greek, though mostly pre-koiné (Attic broadening more to Ionic and Homeric than to koiné).*

I also know Hebrew has two "tenses" if that is the right word, a normal future being expressed in present and a prophetic in perfect tense.

But seriously, I don't think you are referring to linguistic proficiency which can be gleaned by careful reading of the texts. I think you are referring to linguistic theories, which are another thing.

I'll take Church Fathers over modern linguists any day, and when a modern linguist pretends Tower of Babel can't have happened as described because PIE, I prefer doubting PIE over doubting Holy Writte.

* I forgot most. Ask John Reese if I didn't even mistake the Ionic form aiei for the Attic and Koiné form, which really is aei.

Sparko
01-24-2017, 08:07 AM
I think "Adam" is like the word "Earth" - just like "Earth" means "dirt" - "Adam" means "man"

But just like "Earth" is also a proper name of the planet. So "Adam" is the first man's proper name.

Did we name the planet after dirt? Or did dirt come to be called "earth" because of the name? Doesn't really matter.

Adam could have been his actual name, but since he was the first human, it also came to be the name for the species, Mankind. Basically in English his name would be Man. But it would not only be his proper name, but the name of the species he started.

hansgeorg
01-24-2017, 08:10 AM
Adam could have been his actual name, but since he was the first human, it also came to be the name for the species, Mankind. Basically in English his name would be Man. But it would not only be his proper name, but the name of the species he started.

Heber was both a name of one line of Shemites and the name of the man starting it. (Lud and Asshur are two others).

Sparko
01-24-2017, 08:19 AM
Heber was both a name of one line of Shemites and the name of the man starting it. (Lud and Asshur are two others).Israel.

hansgeorg
01-24-2017, 08:28 AM
Israel.

Another example, ancestor of main line of Hebrews.

Sparko
01-24-2017, 08:56 AM
Another example, ancestor of main line of Hebrews.And every tribe.

hansgeorg
01-24-2017, 08:57 AM
And every tribe.

True enough, too.

Calminian
01-24-2017, 09:19 AM
It's an interesting topic, but I'd like to bring things back to my original question, if I could. Can someone take a stab at a literal translation for each of these names? Adam, Eve Cain, Abel?

For instance, would Adam's name literally have been ground? Would Cain's literally have been possession or acquisition?

Or would they have just been similar sounding?

Sparko
01-24-2017, 09:28 AM
It's an interesting topic, but I'd like to bring things back to my original question, if I could. Can someone take a stab at a literal translation for each of these names? Adam, Eve Cain, Abel?

For instance, would Adam's name literally have been ground? Would Cain's literally have been possession or acquisition?

Or would they have just been similar sounding?

Robrecht already did that in post #3

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?13439-Literal-translations-of-Biblical-names&p=410281&viewfull=1#post410281

robrecht
01-24-2017, 09:46 AM
It's an interesting topic, but I'd like to bring things back to my original question, if I could. Can someone take a stab at a literal translation for each of these names? Adam, Eve Cain, Abel?

For instance, would Adam's name literally have been ground? Would Cain's literally have been possession or acquisition?

Or would they have just been similar sounding?Sure, I'll take a stab at shorter answers: No, no, yes. I think, in context, 'adam' literally means 'humankind' or 'the human' or 'the person' or 'the man' in Genesis 1-3, and in a couple of places (Gen 4,25 5,3-5) it is used as a person's name, Adam. In my opinion the NRSV correctly translates it this way throughout Gen 1-5, except in Gen 5,1, where I believe the LXX has a better translation of the Hebrew. The feminine form of 'adam' means 'earth', in the sense of dirt or ground, and it is clearly evoked by the name Adam, 'though it is not a literal translation. Eve is an ancient word for 'life' or 'village', and she is clearly given the name Eve in the text. Cain would literally mean spear or (copper) smith, and he is clearly given the name Cain by Eve who make a play on words based on the similarity of the word Cain and 'to acquire/make'. Abel literally means mist or fog.

Calminian
01-24-2017, 03:41 PM
Sure, I'll take a stab at shorter answers: No, no, yes. I think, in context, 'adam' literally means 'humankind' or 'the human' or 'the person' or 'the man' in Genesis 1-3, and in a couple of places (Gen 4,25 5,3-5) it is used as a person's name, Adam. In my opinion the NRSV correctly translates it this way throughout Gen 1-5, except in Gen 5,1, where I believe the LXX has a better translation of the Hebrew. The feminine form of 'adam' means 'earth', in the sense of dirt or ground, and it is clearly evoked by the name Adam, 'though it is not a literal translation. Eve is an ancient word for 'life' or 'village', and she is clearly given the name Eve in the text. Cain would literally mean spear or (copper) smith, and he is clearly given the name Cain by Eve who make a play on words based on the similarity of the word Cain and 'to acquire/make'. Abel literally means mist or fog.

Appreciate it, thanks. Being Adam was from the ground, it makes sense his name is a masculine form of that word. So I guess those walking around with him for a few hundred years thought of him as Dirtius or Groundus or some play on the root word. Very interesting, i think. Then born to him were Aquirus and Mistian from his lovely wife Lifine. Am I grasping this?

BTW, on the secondary discussion, it would seem Adam's name meaning "mankind" has more to do with him be the father of all mankind. We are all Adam, because we are from Adam. Just as Jews are all Israel, having come from Israel. Some of us are Israel, some are Shem, some are Egypt, but all are Adam. Therefore his name would naturally be a synonym for mankind. That's how I've always thought of it.

robrecht
01-24-2017, 04:52 PM
Appreciate it, thanks. Being Adam was from the ground, it makes sense his name is a masculine form of that word. So I guess those walking around with him for a few hundred years thought of him as Dirtius or Groundus or some play on the root word. Very interesting, i think. Then born to him were Aquirus and Mistian from his lovely wife Lifine. Am I grasping this?

BTW, on the secondary discussion, it would seem Adam's name meaning "mankind" has more to do with him be the father of all mankind. We are all Adam, because we are from Adam. Just as Jews are all Israel, having come from Israel. Some of us are Israel, some are Shem, some are Egypt, but all are Adam. Therefore his name would naturally be a synonym for mankind. That's how I've always thought of it.I don't follow the 'Aquirus' reference. Nor do I know enough evolutionary science to know if it is in fact correct to even speak of a single first man roaming around Africa or wherever. I suspect not, but my knowledge of the science pretty much plateau'd with high school biology. And whenever humans first started using names, that too I do not know, but I very much doubt that they spoke Hebrew. I know a little bit of early Hebrew, and a couple of its earlier cognate languages, but nothing of the history of language before that.

Calminian
01-24-2017, 09:08 PM
I don't follow the 'Aquirus' reference. Nor do I know enough evolutionary science to know if it is in fact correct to even speak of a single first man roaming around Africa or wherever. I suspect not, but my knowledge of the science pretty much plateau'd with high school biology. And whenever humans first started using names, that too I do not know, but I very much doubt that they spoke Hebrew. I know a little bit of early Hebrew, and a couple of its earlier cognate languages, but nothing of the history of language before that.

Acquirus, rather. In other words a name which incorporates the root acquired. If I understood correctly.

I'm sad you don't believe Genesis is history. There's actually a movie in theaters next month called "Is Genesis History?" Here is the trailer.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tudQkA06tTM

It's a one night event, Thursday, February 23rd. You can check here to see if there's a theater near you.
http://isgenesishistory.com/theaters

If you're open.

I do appreciate your input on my post.

robrecht
01-24-2017, 09:39 PM
Acquirus, rather. In other words a name which incorporates the root acquired. If I understood correctly. Oh, I get it now. But the verb 'to get, acquire, create' is only a word play on the name of Cain, not the true meaning or an etymology. It's as if one were to say you were named Calminian because your mother used calamine lotion on you when you were born. Calamine and Calminian sound alike but are not in any other way related as words.


I'm sad you don't believe Genesis is history. There's actually a movie in theaters next month called "Is Genesis History?" Here is the trailer.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tudQkA06tTM

It's a one night event, Thursday, February 23rd. You can check here to see if there's a theater near you.
http://isgenesishistory.com/theaters

If you're open.

I do appreciate your input on my post.You're entirely welcome!

Geert van den Bos
01-25-2017, 05:06 AM
Adam did name Eve,

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

Eve = Hebrew "chavah" -- written almost like "chayah"= beast.

Genesis 1:25,
And God made the beasts of the earth , "vaya'as elohim et chayat haaretz"-

Rashi:

And the man named: Scripture returns to its previous topic (2:20): “And the man named,” and it interrupted only to teach you that through the giving of names, Eve was mated to him, as it is written (above 2:20): “but for man, he did not find a helpmate opposite him.”


Adam didn't name himself.
In this sense his name remains a mystery, a question mark.

Genesis 1:26,
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,

Let us make man = "na'aseh Adam"

after our likeness = "kidmuteinu" --

It is suggested that that the rootletters "d-m" ("dalet-mem") explain the name Adam as "I am like" , "I do resemble" (First letter of Adam , "alef", denoting the first person singular).

Just Passing Through
01-25-2017, 06:51 AM
Just a couple passing through comments:
When Adam was created, he was the only human, so he didn’t need a name. When there’s only one, what’s the point of any other name?
In the same way the Scriptures can speak of God. That’s not a name, but since there is only one, it’s all the name he really needs. It was due to man’s weakness and sin, worshiping false gods, that God finally, thousands of years later, chose a name for himself. The LORD, a name he would never have needed if not for sin, which is significant since it is his covenant name by which he makes himself known as the one who faithfully loves and saves us in spite of our sin. If Moses hadn’t been weak and sinful, he never would have asked for God’s name, yet God answered with grace and mercy, “I Am Who I Am,” and he made that his name.
It’s only when a second human is created that names are needed, and the first human got dibs on the name “Human.” It was both his name and what he was, and I don’t think they quibbled about usage, name or noun?

Secondly, when all the world’s languages were confused at Babel, there’s no reason to think the Shemites got dibs on the pre-Babel language, or that the Jews would eventually speak the same language as Adam had. If not, then all the names in the first chapters of Genesis are translations or transliterations of what they were actually called.
Eve’s etymology is uncertain. It could have the same roots as “village,” (it takes a mother to make a village, literally).
And Cain only sounds like “acquired.” But these names might just be an accommodation to the shift in languages that made an exact, meaningful explanation difficult. (Like a joke in one language that simply can’t be translated into another language). Even if some form of Hebrew was the Ur-language, it would have evolved so much in the thousands of years before Moses wrote the story down, that the same problems would apply.

Calminian
01-25-2017, 08:15 AM
Just a couple passing through comments:
When Adam was created, he was the only human, so he didn’t need a name. When there’s only one, what’s the point of any other name?
In the same way the Scriptures can speak of God. That’s not a name, but since there is only one, it’s all the name he really needs. It was due to man’s weakness and sin, worshiping false gods, that God finally, thousands of years later, chose a name for himself. The LORD, a name he would never have needed if not for sin, which is significant since it is his covenant name by which he makes himself known as the one who faithfully loves and saves us in spite of our sin. If Moses hadn’t been weak and sinful, he never would have asked for God’s name, yet God answered with grace and mercy, “I Am Who I Am,” and he made that his name.
It’s only when a second human is created that names are needed, and the first human got dibs on the name “Human.” It was both his name and what he was, and I don’t think they quibbled about usage, name or noun?

Secondly, when all the world’s languages were confused at Babel, there’s no reason to think the Shemites got dibs on the pre-Babel language, or that the Jews would eventually speak the same language as Adam had. If not, then all the names in the first chapters of Genesis are translations or transliterations of what they were actually called.
Eve’s etymology is uncertain. It could have the same roots as “village,” (it takes a mother to make a village, literally).
And Cain only sounds like “acquired.” But these names might just be an accommodation to the shift in languages that made an exact, meaningful explanation difficult. (Like a joke in one language that simply can’t be translated into another language). Even if some form of Hebrew was the Ur-language, it would have evolved so much in the thousands of years before Moses wrote the story down, that the same problems would apply.

Maybe, but there are also more generic names for man in the book of Genesis. It would seem Adam was to function as his name, and it would seem he was named after the ground he was made from.

Also, someone mentioned both Adam and Eve were referred to as Adam, which makes sense since Eve also came from him. All are Adam, because all come from him, just like all that came from Israel are Israel.

Calminian
01-25-2017, 08:20 AM
Oh, I get it now. But the verb 'to get, acquire, create' is only a word play on the name of Cain, not the true meaning or an etymology. It's as if one were to say you were named Calminian because your mother used calamine lotion on you when you were born. Calamine and Calminian sound alike but are not in any other way related as words.

You're entirely welcome!

That makes it even clearer, thanks. That's the info I was looking for. Think I have a grasp on it now.

Geert van den Bos
01-25-2017, 08:20 AM
Just a couple passing through comments:
When Adam was created, he was the only human, so he didn’t need a name. When there’s only one, what’s the point of any other name?

It’s only when a second human is created that names are needed, and the first human got dibs on the name “Human.” It was both his name and what he was, and I don’t think they quibbled about usage, name or noun?


The same would apply for Eve, she was the only woman. In your reasoning there would not have been need for a name.

Adam seems to have been both male and female,
but after the woman was built from one of his ribs there is mentioning of "ish", man, and "ishah", woman.

Genesis 2:23, This one shall be called ishah (woman) because this one was taken from ish (man)."

In the continuation Adam denotes both the male and the name.

Geneis 2:25, Now they were both naked, the man and his wife, but they were not ashamed.

the man and his wife = "ha-adam v'ishto"

One Bad Pig
01-25-2017, 08:30 AM
Just a couple passing through comments:
When Adam was created, he was the only human, so he didn’t need a name. When there’s only one, what’s the point of any other name?
In the same way the Scriptures can speak of God. That’s not a name, but since there is only one, it’s all the name he really needs. It was due to man’s weakness and sin, worshiping false gods, that God finally, thousands of years later, chose a name for himself. The LORD, a name he would never have needed if not for sin, which is significant since it is his covenant name by which he makes himself known as the one who faithfully loves and saves us in spite of our sin. If Moses hadn’t been weak and sinful, he never would have asked for God’s name, yet God answered with grace and mercy, “I Am Who I Am,” and he made that his name.
It’s only when a second human is created that names are needed, and the first human got dibs on the name “Human.” It was both his name and what he was, and I don’t think they quibbled about usage, name or noun?

Secondly, when all the world’s languages were confused at Babel, there’s no reason to think the Shemites got dibs on the pre-Babel language, or that the Jews would eventually speak the same language as Adam had. If not, then all the names in the first chapters of Genesis are translations or transliterations of what they were actually called.
Eve’s etymology is uncertain. It could have the same roots as “village,” (it takes a mother to make a village, literally).
And Cain only sounds like “acquired.” But these names might just be an accommodation to the shift in languages that made an exact, meaningful explanation difficult. (Like a joke in one language that simply can’t be translated into another language). Even if some form of Hebrew was the Ur-language, it would have evolved so much in the thousands of years before Moses wrote the story down, that the same problems would apply.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsoTSGhh3uM

Just Passing Through
01-25-2017, 09:58 AM
Maybe, but there are also more generic names for man in the book of Genesis. It would seem Adam was to function as his name, and it would seem he was named after the ground he was made from.

Also, someone mentioned both Adam and Eve were referred to as Adam, which makes sense since Eve also came from him. All are Adam, because all come from him, just like all that came from Israel are Israel.

Yes, there are other names. First there was mankind, and just the one name for mankind: Adam.
It likely comes from the word for “ground” or “red.” Whether Adam was named for the ground and mankind was named for Adam, or mankind was named for the ground and Adam was named for mankind, really is moot, since noun and name were inseparable at the time.
When Eve was created, she was also mankind, and that name also applied to her. But to distinguish the two, Adam got dibs on “man” as both noun and name. Eve kept adam as noun, but got Eve as name.

There are other words for man that serve other distinguishing purposes.
Adam as noun distinguishes man from whatever is not part of mankind (God, angels, animals, vegetables, minerals).
Adam and Eve as names distinguish the first two individuals.
Ish and ishah distinguish male and female.
Enosh seems broadly to distinguish an individual human being/mortal/member of mankind from adam which later is used more as a collective word for all of mankind or for the individual only as a generic representative of all mankind.
Then other distinctions arise for infants, children, adults in their prime, and the elderly, etc.


The same would apply for Eve, she was the only woman. In your reasoning there would not have been need for a name.

Adam seems to have been both male and female,
but after the woman was built from one of his ribs there is mentioning of "ish", man, and "ishah", woman.

Genesis 2:23, This one shall be called ishah (woman) because this one was taken from ish (man)."

In the continuation Adam denotes both the male and the name.

Geneis 2:25, Now they were both naked, the man and his wife, but they were not ashamed.

the man and his wife = "ha-adam v'ishto"

You're right, Eve didn't need a name. Once male and female were distinguished by ish and ishah, that's who she was. Adam didn't name her until after the fall and the first promise. Thus the primary purpose of her name was not to distinguish, but to serve as a constant reminder of God's gracious treatment of them, that he promised them both children (it makes a village) and one special Seed.

As for the phrase ha-adam v'ishto, the words man (ish) and woman (ishah) also serve in context as the words for husband and wife, especially when they have the suffix "his" or "her". Adam is ishahh in verse 6, "her husband." and in verse 8 she is ishto, "his wife."

Calminian
01-25-2017, 11:52 AM
Yes, there are other names. First there was mankind, and just the one name for mankind: Adam.
It likely comes from the word for “ground” or “red.” Whether Adam was named for the ground and mankind was named for Adam, or mankind was named for the ground and Adam was named for mankind, really is moot, since noun and name were inseparable at the time.

I would agree, just as I would agree Israel can both represent a nation as well as a person. It's just that in this case, it referred to a person first, so it would stand to reason this followed precedent. Adam was Adam before he was mankind because he existed prior to mankind coming out of him (including Eve who came out of him). That might be a key people miss. Eve came out of her husband, unlike the rest.


When Eve was created, she was also mankind...

Yes, just as Cain and Abel were mankind and you and I are mankind. All that come from Adam are adam. Makes perfect sense that someone like Eve coming from Adam would be considered adam. In my mind, this all makes perfect sense.



You're right, Eve didn't need a name. Once male and female were distinguished by ish and ishah, that's who she was. Adam didn't name her until after the fall .....

I'm not sure about this. The text is stating the fact that Adam named her Eve, but doesn't necessarily say when. Could have been in the Garden and could have been outside of the Garden. It was mentioned because she was about to bear a child and her name was relevant to this. If it was outside the Garden, it might indicate their stay in the Garden was short lived, maybe just a few days.

Just Passing Through
01-25-2017, 12:39 PM
Hebrew has certain markers that indicate a pluperfect, something that happened earlier and is just now being mentioned. None of them is present in this verse, although that is neither definitive nor absolutely necessary to my argument. (I have heard the theory that 4:1 “Adam lay with his wife Eve,” bears such a pluperfect marker, and that Eve became pregnant in the garden, or may even have given birth in the garden, but it seems more natural to read it as merely fast-forwarding, so to speak, to what was important, the birth and naming of her first son, rather than flashing back to before the fall).
If she was named earlier, it still holds true that the “invention” of the idea of a personal name only comes when the man thought about the arrival of children, and more people arriving meant there was a need to distinguish them. And even then, Moses continues to call her “the woman,” without a name, only addressing her with a name twice, at the promise of children and at the birth of her first child.

With regard to Adam, the term seems to be used generically and as a noun (both definite and indefinite) before it is ever used as a name.
Gen 1:26-27, “man” includes both man and woman.
Gen 2:6, there was no “man” yet to work the ground.
Gen 2:8, God placed “the man,” in the garden, and every reference following uses the definite article, with the possible exceptions of 3:20 and 4:1 (where a prefixed preposition makes it impossible to tell whether an article was intended, although the Masoretes added vowel pointing to indicate that they considered it the name Adam), until you get to 4:25.
So the noun aspect seems to have been dominant at first, and the name aspect only emerges when there are other people around, and a name becomes useful to distinguish which adam you’re talking about. But if the concepts of noun and name didn’t originally need to be thought of as exclusive of the other, which came first is undefinable.

Calminian
01-25-2017, 11:05 PM
Hebrew has certain markers that indicate a pluperfect, something that happened earlier and is just now being mentioned. None of them is present in this verse, although that is neither definitive nor absolutely necessary to my argument. (I have heard the theory that 4:1 “Adam lay with his wife Eve,” bears such a pluperfect marker, and that Eve became pregnant in the garden, or may even have given birth in the garden, but it seems more natural to read it as merely fast-forwarding, so to speak, to what was important, the birth and naming of her first son, rather than flashing back to before the fall).
If she was named earlier, it still holds true that the “invention” of the idea of a personal name only comes when the man thought about the arrival of children, and more people arriving meant there was a need to distinguish them. And even then, Moses continues to call her “the woman,” without a name, only addressing her with a name twice, at the promise of children and at the birth of her first child.

With regard to Adam, the term seems to be used generically and as a noun (both definite and indefinite) before it is ever used as a name.
Gen 1:26-27, “man” includes both man and woman.
Gen 2:6, there was no “man” yet to work the ground.
Gen 2:8, God placed “the man,” in the garden, and every reference following uses the definite article, with the possible exceptions of 3:20 and 4:1 (where a prefixed preposition makes it impossible to tell whether an article was intended, although the Masoretes added vowel pointing to indicate that they considered it the name Adam), until you get to 4:25.
So the noun aspect seems to have been dominant at first, and the name aspect only emerges when there are other people around, and a name becomes useful to distinguish which adam you’re talking about. But if the concepts of noun and name didn’t originally need to be thought of as exclusive of the other, which came first is undefinable.

Hmmm. That does make sense, thanks. Just looked the over those reference and noticed how often it's ha'adam. And it does seem clear both Adam and Eve are called Adam, with Adam later receiving it as his name. You've made me take a closer look at this.

Geert van den Bos
01-27-2017, 06:37 AM
Paul mentioned two Adams

a first Adam and a last (or second) Adam

the first out of earth Hebrew "adamah" (after Genesis 2:7), the second out of heaven.


1 Corinthians 15:

44 σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἐγείρεται σῶμα πνευματικόν. εἰ ἔστιν σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἔστιν καὶ πνευματικόν.
45 οὕτως καὶ γέγραπται, Ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν: ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν.
46 ἀλλ' οὐ πρῶτον τὸ πνευματικὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ ψυχικόν, ἔπειτα τὸ πνευματικόν.
47 ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς, χοϊκός, ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ.


Writing thus implicates that, at least for him, the name Adam doesn't mean "earthling" as if derived from "adamah" :ahem:

robrecht
01-27-2017, 07:21 AM
Paul mentioned two Adams

a first Adam and a last (or second) Adam

the first out of earth Hebrew "adamah" (after Genesis 2:7), the second out of heaven.


1 Corinthians 15:

44 σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἐγείρεται σῶμα πνευματικόν. εἰ ἔστιν σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἔστιν καὶ πνευματικόν.
45 οὕτως καὶ γέγραπται, Ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν: ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν.
46 ἀλλ' οὐ πρῶτον τὸ πνευματικὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ ψυχικόν, ἔπειτα τὸ πνευματικόν.
47 ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς, χοϊκός, ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ.


Writing thus implicates that, at least for him, the name Adam doesn't mean "earthling" as if derived from "adamah" :ahem:
Insofar as the second or last Adam is seen, at least partly, in contrast to the first Adam, it does not present a problem for the standard definition/etymology.

Geert van den Bos
01-27-2017, 07:37 AM
Insofar as the second or last Adam is seen, at least partly, in contrast to the first Adam, it does not present a problem for the standard definition/etymology.

please explain

Geert van den Bos
01-27-2017, 08:05 AM
please explain


Hebrew Genesis 2:7,

וַיִּיצֶר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן הָאֲדָמָה
"vayyitzer hashem elohim et ha-adam afar min ha-adamah"
and he formed, the Lord God, the man dust from the ground


"vayyitzer" is written with two letters "yud"

Rashi:
[וַיִּיצֶר, with two “yuds,” hints at] two creations, a creation for this world and a creation for the [time of the] resurrection of the dead, but in connection with the animals, which do not stand in judgment, two“yuds” are not written in [the word וַיִּצֶר describing their creation --


which would imply that Paul's last or second Adam is also "dust from the ground"

but not that the name Adam should mean "earthling"

robrecht
01-27-2017, 08:19 AM
please explain
First explain to whom "him" refers in this sentence of yours:

Writing thus implicates that, at least for him, the name Adam doesn't mean "earthling" as if derived from "adamah"

Geert van den Bos
01-27-2017, 09:23 AM
First explain to whom "him" refers in this sentence of yours:

Writing thus implicates that, at least for him, the name Adam doesn't mean "earthling" as if derived from "adamah"

Paul

robrecht
01-27-2017, 10:18 AM
Paul
We don't know for sure if or how well Paul understood Hebrew, but the association of the first Adam with the dust of the earth is still there, of course. His speaking of the second or last Adam as coming from heaven does nothing to invalidate the traditional Hebrew definition/etymology/association of Adam with earth in Hebrew since 1) Paul is writing in Greek, 2) Heaven is being contrasted with earth, and thus implicitly still acknowledges the association of the first Adam with the earth, and 3) Paul is not even discussing the meaning or etymology of 'adam in Hebrew. You agree, right?

Geert van den Bos
01-27-2017, 10:58 AM
We don't know for sure if or how well Paul understood Hebrew, but the association of the first Adam with the dust of the earth is still there, of course. His speaking of the second or last Adam as coming from heaven does nothing to invalidate the traditional Hebrew definition/etymology/association of Adam with earth in Hebrew since 1) Paul is writing in Greek, 2) Heaven is being contrasted with earth, and thus implicitly still acknowledges the association of the first Adam with the earth, and 3) Paul is not even discussing the meaning or etymology of 'adam in Hebrew. You agree, right?

there is more,

next it says
1 Corinthians 15:49

καὶ καθὼς ἐφορέσαμεν τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ χοϊκοῦ, φορέσομεν καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ ἐπουρανίου
And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.


εἰκών = Hebrew "tzelem"

It makes very much think of what Rashi says about "in his image", "b'tzalmo" Genesis 1:27,

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165#showrashi=true


And God created man in his image: In the form that was made for him, for everything [else] was created with a command, whereas he [man] was created with the hands (of God), as it is written (Ps. 139:5): “and You placed Your hand upon me.” Man was made with a seal, like a coin, which is made by means of a die, which is called coin in Old French

And next:

in the image of God He created him: It explains to you that the image that was prepared for him was the image of the likeness of his Creator.


Adam understood as "ani domeh" (= I am like, I do resemble ) by both Rashi and Paul

See also:

http://www.hebreeuwseacademie.nl/index.php?location=english&pid=tradam

robrecht
01-27-2017, 11:13 AM
there is more,

next it says
1 Corinthians 15:49

καὶ καθὼς ἐφορέσαμεν τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ χοϊκοῦ, φορέσομεν καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ ἐπουρανίου
And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.


εἰκών = Hebrew "tzelem"

It makes very much think of what Rashi says about "in his image", "b'tzalmo" Genesis 1:27,

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165#showrashi=true



And next:


Adam understood as "ani domeh" (= I am like, I do resemble ) by both Rashi and Paul

See also:

http://www.hebreeuwseacademie.nl/index.php?location=english&pid=tradam
Do you seriously propose this as the meaning of 'adam for the biblical authors at the time when these various accounts of Genesis were being written and compiled?

Geert van den Bos
01-27-2017, 11:31 AM
Do you seriously propose this as the meaning of 'adam for the biblical authors at the time when these various accounts of Genesis were being written and compiled?


Not only for the authors of Genesis, but also for the authors of NT.

Even that it is about the very essence of New Testament, the blood of the covenant.

Blood = Hebrew "dam", showing the same rootletters as Adam.

Calminian
01-27-2017, 09:23 PM
Do you seriously propose this as the meaning of 'adam for the biblical authors at the time when these various accounts of Genesis were being written and compiled?

Would you be willing to offer a reason why not?

robrecht
01-28-2017, 06:01 AM
Would you be willing to offer a reason why not?It's like saying beverage commonly known as 'Tea' actually means 'estimated time of arrival' because the letters of 'Tea' can be rearranged to 'ETA'.

Calminian
01-28-2017, 05:59 PM
It's like saying beverage commonly known as 'Tea' actually means 'estimated time of arrival' because the letters of 'Tea' can be rearranged to 'ETA'.

I may be misunderstanding both positions. I wouldn't argue Adam means dirt anymore than Cain means possession. Rather Adam (mankind) was named after the dirt he was made from and that he will return to.

In your analogy, TEA and ETA have no etymological relationship.

robrecht
01-29-2017, 02:44 AM
I may be misunderstanding both positions. I wouldn't argue Adam means dirt anymore than Cain means possession. Rather Adam (mankind) was named after the dirt he was made from and that he will return to.

In your analogy, TEA and ETA have no etymological relationship.Exactly my point. Geert is playing with with letters and unrelated words rather than talking about the actual meaning of the words as used by the authors of Genesis. For example, he wants to understand 'adam (אדם) as a combination of the ' (א) from 'ni (אֲנִי), meaning 'I', and the dm (דם) from the verb damah (דָּמָה), meaning 'to be like', but he also wants to use the dm (דם) from the 'adam (אדם) to mean dam or 'blood' (דָּם). Playing with words and letters to introduce different ideas, sometimes even profound ideas, can be fun, but it has nothing to do with trying to understand the words as used by the historical authors.

Geert van den Bos
01-29-2017, 05:04 AM
Exactly my point. Geert is playing with with letters and unrelated words rather than talking about the actual meaning of the words as used by the authors of Genesis. For example, he wants to understand 'adam (אדם) as a combination of the ' (א) from 'ni (אֲנִי), meaning 'I', and the dm (דם) from the verb damah (דָּמָה), meaning 'to be like', but he also wants to use the dm (דם) from the 'adam (אדם) to mean dam or 'blood' (דָּם). Playing with words and letters to introduce different ideas, sometimes even profound ideas, can be fun, but it has nothing to do with trying to understand the words as used by the historical authors.



Genesis 5:1,
In the day that God created Adam, in the likeness of God made he him

in the likeness of God = "bid'mut elohim"

Genesis 5:2,
He named them Adam on the day they were created.

He named them = "vayikra et shemam"

Which is rather compellling: Adam = "ani domeh"


Ezechiel 19:10 links "dam" , blood, with "d'mut" likeness.

Your mother is like a vine in your likeness

in your likeness = בְּדָמְךָ, "b'damcha" = with your blood = wine (fruit of the vine)

robrecht
01-29-2017, 05:23 AM
Genesis 5:1,
In the day that God created Adam, in the likeness of God made he him

in the likeness of God = "bid'mut elohim"

Genesis 5:2,
He named them Adam on the day they were created.

He named them = "vayikra et shemam"

Which is rather compellling: Adam = "ani domeh"


Ezechiel 19:10 links "dam" , blood, with "d'mut" likeness.

Your mother is like a vine in your likeness

in your likeness = בְּדָמְךָ, "b'damcha" = with your blood = wine (fruit of the vine)Sorry, Geert, but none of this is compelling or even ever so slightly plausible to the least possible extent imaginable.

Geert van den Bos
01-29-2017, 05:38 AM
Mark 10:45,

καὶ γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆσαι καi δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν = for also the son of man ( = ben (ha)Adam) didn't come to be served, but to serve and give his soul as ransom for the many.

ψυχή = Hebrew "nefesh" = soul

Blood is the soul of the flesh.

Genesis 9:4,
But, flesh with its soul, its blood, you shall not eat.

Mark 14:24,
Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν: -- this is my blood of the covenant that is poured out for many.

Geert van den Bos
01-29-2017, 06:16 AM
Genesis 4:9-11

Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?” And the Lord said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.


The voice your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground
Hebrew קוֹל דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ צֹעֲקִים אֵלַי מִן הָאֲדָמָה, "kol d'mei achicha tzoakim elai min ha-adamah"--

Rashi:
Your brother’s blood: Heb. דְּמֵי, the plural form. His blood and the blood of his descendants.

cf. Matthew 23:35,
so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah


On all of them who persist that the name Adam should mean "from the ground" --

like also the manslayer, ἀνθρωποκτόνος, from the beginning (John 8:44)

Rushing Jaws
04-29-2017, 05:12 PM
Robrecht already did that in post #3

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?13439-Literal-translations-of-Biblical-names&p=410281&viewfull=1#post410281 And did it very well. Whether Adam ever existed is a separate issue.