Mike's refutation of Trible: 'adam' is never used as 'earth creature' in Hebrew; in Genesis 2 it always refers to a male; and Genesis 2:23 ('ish') proves Adam was already male.
Refuting Trible's sexually undifferentiated adam theory
Mike offers multiple refutations: (1) 'adam' is never used in ancient Hebrew to mean 'earth creature' -- it always means mankind or male. (2) Every occurrence of 'adam' in Genesis 2 refers to a male. (3) Genesis 2:23 uses 'ish' (purely male term) -- 'she was taken out of man (ish)' -- proving Adam was already male before Eve's creation. (4) Trible's own view requires the word to change meaning mid-sentence in Gen 2:22. (5) Adam's incompleteness was about lacking a female partner, not lacking sex.
Your Tags
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...moreVideo
Was Women's Submission Just a Curse to Be Overturned？ Women in Ministry part 2 @ 00:37:182022-03-14