Cheryl Schatz

Mark,
You said:

When have i said that ‘ha’adam’ has to ‘always’ mean more than one person. You have assumed this about me. But i have clearly said semantically that it ‘can’ mean more than one person.

I didn’t say you said “always”. You are now putting words in my mouth. What I am saying is that ‘ha’adam’ can mean the whole human race but it is a rare occurrence in the Scriptures. The context must affirm that the whole human race is in view. The problem that you have is that if you are claiming that ‘ha’adam’ can mean more than one person in Genesis 3 then any occurence of ‘ha’adam’ is in question. What makes Genesis 3:9 referring just to the man? Please do answer me. The fact is that we can go through each occurrence and prove that ‘ha’adam’ is referring to the male alone. It is up to you to prove that any of these occurrences can refer to the human race. You have not been successful in doing that.

Your conclusion to say that i therefore have to translate every use of it as more than one person is just ridiculous.

No I didn’t say that. What I said is that if you insist that ‘ha’adam’ being kicked out of the garden must mean not just the man but all of humanity (meaning the man and the woman in this case) then you will have to be prepared to defend every other case of ‘ha’adam’ in the passage and show why these references also cannot refer to both the man and the woman. Shall we go there?

You obviously are not reading what i wrote, nor understanding the actual possibilities of the meaning of the word with the definite article.

I am reading what you wrote. You are the one who is adding words to what I wrote. Why do you do that?

I have already said that ‘ha’adam’ can mean all of humanity, but that meaning is such a rare occurrence that one must prove the meaning from the passage since the normal meaning is always of one person. Do you deny this?

Where did Eve return to? Adam’s rib? It is obviously meant to be understood generically, since both Adam and Eve did die and returned to the earth (technically Eve is made from the earth anyway).

No, this is not true. “Technically” Eve is not made from the earth. She is made from Adam and this is what Scripture argues in Paul’s writing. Never once is she said to be from the ground as well as from Adam. Adam is the only one who is “from” the earth. If you say that Eve is from the earth then the picture back to Adam from the first “earthy” man is lost and thus the picture of the last Adam is lost.

1 Corinthians 15:47–48 (NASB)
47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly.

So are you now saying that the “earthy” includes Eve?

The fact is that Genesis 3:19, 23-24 cannot be anything other than the male.

Genesis 3:19–24 (NASB)
19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.”
23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

The terms “from it (the ground) you were taken and “to cultivate the ground from which he was taken” can only refer back to the first man. She was not taken from the ground and to claim that the woman was taken from the ground is to deny the Genesis account. If you have to go this far to defend your point of view, it really does come across as if you are pulling at straws to keep a position that is impossible to hold from the inspired text. If this kind of exegesis is okay for you to do, then I could claim that anytime Adam is referred to that Eve is also referred to. Would that be fair? And if not, why not?

So nothing in Gen 3:22ff excludes Eve-the opposite really. It is only your misunderstanding of ‘ha’adam’ that has lead to your wrong conclusion.

I don’t have a misunderstanding. I just am really wondering why you feel free to give anyone the permission to dismiss the link between one male “Adam” and Christ? For if you continue to hold that adding Eve to the text is allowed, when references to the first earthy man is so clear, then what reason would you have to stop anyone from adding Eve into any text referring to just Adam? You would have a hope to prove that they were wrong with your own additions.

You see this is why the comp position is untenable. It not only must read into the Scriptures, but it must distort the clear passages about the earthy man to add in the woman when Scripture is clear that there is only one earthy man.

1 Corinthians 15:22 (NASB) For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

So is it in “Adam and Eve” that all die? Can’t anyone just arbitrarily replace Adam here with Adam and Eve? If you can, why can’t someone else?

1 Corinthians 15:49 (NASB)
49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.

So is it the image of the man and the woman? Is that what the meaning of “earthy” is? If not, then why not? If you can change Adam’s creation from the earth to include both the man and the woman, then anyone else can noodle with the text and add her into “Adam” “earthy” anytime they wish, right? Don’t you see that by this kind of claim you have taken a turn towards the removal of any understandable meaning of the Scriptures.

‘ha’adam’ is used becasue of Adam’s headship-plain and simple

Once again you are assuming the point that you are trying to prove. This is a logical fallacy called “begging the question”. It is not allowed in a valid argument.

I can see that you are really trying, but while you are trying, I am sure that there are many who can see that you are changing the text to make it fit your presuppositions.

We also know that both became like God knowing good and evil, since this is what is indicated about eating the fruit before the fall. And we are told that both their eyes are open.

This is simply not true. This is what the serpent said that they would be like God when they ate. But the truth from the text is that they were already like God – they were made in His image. Adam already knew good and evil since he was not deceived. He did not become more like God when he ate. He became less like God since he had now not just the knowledge of good and evil (which he had before) but he experienced evil. The grammar of the passage does not have God saying that man became like God at the eating of the fruit, but he was like God in his creation and the “but now…” shows that the “now” condition is not Godlike. As I have answered in another post, satan is the father of lies and he cannot tell the truth. This is what Jesus said so the serpent and God cannot be saying the same thing. One of them is lying and I accept that it is the serpent who lied.