Originally posted by robrecht
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines
This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.
This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.
Forum Rules: Here
This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Literal translations of Biblical names?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Just Passing Through View PostJust 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?
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"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Just Passing Through View PostJust 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.Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by Calminian View PostMaybe, 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.
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"
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."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Just Passing Through View PostYes, 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.
Originally posted by Just Passing Through View PostWhen Eve was created, she was also mankind...
Originally posted by Just Passing Through View PostYou'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 .....
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Just Passing Through View PostHebrew 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.
Comment
-
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"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Geert van den Bos View PostPaul 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"βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by Geert van den Bos View Postplease 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"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Geert van den Bos View Postplease explain
Writing thus implicates that, at least for him, the name Adam doesn't mean "earthling" as if derived from "adamah"βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by Geert van den Bos View PostPaulβλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostWe 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?
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_...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 Frenchin 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/ind...ish&pid=tradam
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment