gengwall

Yes Lmb, I think I can sum it up pending Susanna’s confirmation.

The discussion is around the Hebrew word ‘adam and it’s definite form ha’adam. Specifically, Susanna sees the definte form ha’adam (literally, “the human”) as primarily representing a collection of humans – “humanity”, if you will. That collection could be all humans over all time or a subset of humans, specifically, in Genesis 1-3, the subset consiting of Adam and Eve. She only views it as representing a definite, specific, singular instance of that collection – i.e. “the human being” or “that human” – if there are other words in the text which support the isolation or decollectivization of ha’adam.

My view grammatically is basically the opposite. I believe a specific human is in view when ha’adam is used unless there are defining words that indicate the collective is the usage.

Scripturally, many verse have been covered but the immediate discussion revolves around the uses of ha’adam in Genesis 1-3 in general, and specifically in Genesis 1:26-27, Gen 3:9, and Gen 3:24-4:1 (with the repeat of the creation story in Gen 5:1-2 rolled in by implication).

The ramifications of the usage of ha’adam affect both the inter-egalitarian debate of the fall and, subsequently, the egalitarian arguments against complementarian views of male authority. (Well, I don’t think the inter-egalitarian dust up impacts egal/comp arguments at all.)