Cheryl Schatz

Mark,
You said:

3. The opinion that ‘ha’adam’ must refer to the man alone is not supported by the bible either. For example in Gen 1:27 we read “So God created (the) man in his own image…male and female he created them.” The definite article is included here in the Hebrew yet the intended meaning of the passage is indisputably generic-male and female.

The first reference is to one man and the second reference is to both male and female. This Scripture doesn’t say that the singular is plural, but that God not just the first male but male and female.

Again we have the same issue in Gen 6:1 “When (the) man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to THEM…” Again clearly here the construct ‘ha’adam’ is generic.

The problem for you Mark is that you don’t get it. I have already agreed that there are some very rare instances where ‘ha’adam’ can mean the whole human race. However it is up to you to prove from the context where it is not only clear that ‘ha’adam’ means all of humanity (Adam and Eve) but that it is impossible for it to be anything else. Other wise your point has no validity.

Therefore the conclusion of Cheryl that the definite article has to only refer to the one man is false.

Mark, please stop misrepresenting me. I didn’t say that. What I said was that in the context of Genesis 3 in this text it cannot mean anything but one man. Will you please stop misquoting me and admit that I am talking about this specific text that is the basis of my argument. It does your point no good to find one of several uncommon usages of ‘ha’adam’. Your argument can only be argued when you prove your point from the text at hand.

Therefore to conclude that Gen 3:22ff can only refer to Adam is simply false.

I have given you proof from the text why it can only mean one man. You have not addressed my argument to remove it as valid. What you have done is to assume your position and then argue from your assumptions and not from the text.

It is equally possible grammatically that both Adam and Eve are included in the banishment. This is in fact the historical position of the church, supported by Hebrew grammar.

Oh, are you really now admitting that my view is not impossible? Well how about that? Or do you mean something by “equally possible grammatically” to not allow my view the light of day? Common now, ‘fess up. Are you now saying that my view is equally valid as your own view?