KeralaBrethren.net
New User? Register Today!
Registered Users, LOGIN
What we believe (Eng) What we believe (Mal) About Us Contact Us
Forums Home General Forum Youth Forum Sisters Forum Archives (2005-2007) Archives (2001-2004)
Listing of Brides Listing of Grooms
Assemblies in Kerala Evangelists in India Instituitions in India
Christian Albums Christian Songs
Audio Sermons Bible Wallpapers Brethren Links KB History (Eng) KB History (Mal)

K E R A L A  B R E T H R E N
General Forum (2005 - 2007)

Forums Home ::
This Message Forum is to discuss spiritual topics only. Please avoid personal or assembly matters.
Let us use this facility for our spiritual enrichment and for bringing glory to our Lord almighty.
Webmasters reserve the right to delete any topic or posting partly or completely from this forum.
View Topics ::

Go to bottom of the page

# 01269 :  Who named Adam?
Adam, who named him this name?

God / Moses / Adam / linguistic scholers

Post by : godly1  View Profile    since : 14 May 2007


Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 14 May 2007 10:30:24 AM Close
Dear Godly1,

In Genesis 1:26 we read, "And God said, Let us make Adam in our image, after our likeness..." Unfortunately this Hebrew word ADAM is translated as "man" and we lost sight of its significance. If God said to make Adam (man) in His image and likeness, then it was God who called His creation ADAM.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : trds   View Profile   Since : 14 May 2007 11:09:26 AM Close
An interesting thought comes to my mind.

God named man even before making him!

Matthew 1: 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Mary was told that the savior's name will be "Jesus"

Revelation 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Hopefully, we can name our children before they are born. Sometimes I thought, knowing the gender through medical science was wrong, of the babe to be born . I am just thinking.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : trds   View Profile   Since : 14 May 2007 3:35:15 PM Close
Genesis 5:2 reads, "Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created". (KJV)

If we notice the phrase, "and called their name Adam". 'their' is plural.

If we notice, who named, "Eve" as "Eve" it was, Adam who called her, Eve; not God. Genesis 3:20 "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living"

Just few thoughts - Not for any arguments please.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 14 May 2007 4:11:58 PM Close
Gen 1:26 -“Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Dear Bro. Koshy,

From what you wrote it says, “Let us make ADAM in Our image”. But then it goes on to say, ‘let THEM rule over’. (Caps added for emphasis). Could you explain further the reason(s) why the collective singular (Adam) is used here? I believe this collective singular usage led the translators to translate the latter part of the verse as ‘let them rule’, referring to ‘humankind’. My initial thought (without much thought in to it) is that the name ‘Adam’ represents this individual as well as the generations to come from him.

How do you see it?

Regards,

Tom J

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 14 May 2007 4:19:02 PM Close
Dear 'trds' & Bro Ksohy,

I didn't see 'trds' posting until after I posted mine. If I had seen it, I could simply have waited.

Tom J

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : trds   View Profile   Since : 15 May 2007 8:03:52 AM Close
Few points of interest.

I. Genesis 2: 21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Was it that woman was already in man, so, God called both of them together as, "Adam"?

II. The talk between the 'serpent' and the 'woman' recorded in Genesis 3 starts somewhere in the middle of conversation.

Vs. 1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Does plural addressing such as, "Adam" mean in any way that the sin entered into the world through both of them collectively, rather than saying that it entered through man, "Adam"?

If we notice more about it, we see that the serpent did not tell Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. It was her decision yielding to temptation.
Genesis 3

1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : godly1   View Profile   Since : 15 May 2007 8:07:19 AM Close
thanks for your fine replay
& waiting to see more.
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 15 May 2007 8:46:42 AM Close
Dear ‘trds’ and Tom J, Part-1

I think that both of your postings deal with the same issue, Creation of ‘Adam’ and ‘the Adam.’

In Genesis 1:26-27, “And God said, Let us make man (ADAM) in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over the whole earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth on the earth. And God created Man (ETH-H’ADAM = the Adam) in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he him.” The Hebrew word ADAM is used in Genesis 1:26 and ETH-H’ADAM is used in Genesis 1:27. There is a slight difference. The Hebrew word ETH is equivalent to the English definite article “the.” We are left with searching for the difference between ADAM and H’ADAM. In the translations, the differences are lost.

In Genesis 2:5 we see V’ADAM. When V’ is added to another word, it stands for the English word “and.” Therefore V’ADAM is translated as “and…a man.” Because of such use of ADAM, it is generally taken as to indicate ‘man’ in general, without an article. This is what we consider as the plural use of the singular word ADAM. When it is with an article it stands for the person of the first Man or his successors. In Genesis 2:5 and 6 we read, “And a man was not to till the ground.” In KJV they added two words to make it clearer to the readers and it reads, “And [there was] not a man to till the ground.” (Note: I placed the added words in square brackets.). In the original language, “and a man” is V’ADAM; and “the ground” is ETH-H’ADAMAH. Therefore, it is considered the name for man as ADAM was derived from the place of his origin, the ground. It indicates that the meaning of 'man’ as “earthy.” We read about this in the New Testament, more than once. 1 Corinthians is one of them. We again read about H’ADAMAH in Genesis 2:6 and 7 they are translated as “the ground” in KJV.

(To be cont. Part-2)

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 15 May 2007 8:47:54 AM Close
Dear ‘trds’ and Tom J, Part-2

In Genesis 2:7 we read, “And formed Jehovah Elohim the man dust from the ground…” To make it clear, in KJV it is translated as, “And the Lord God formed man [of] the dust of the ground…” When it was “the man” in this verse, the Hebrew expression is ETH-H’ADAM. In Genesis 7:21, when we read about “every man” the Hebrew word is H’ADAM. Therefore, in the strictest sense, I will say that H’ADAM is the person or those who are his successors. This is in accordance with the “Theory of Class” that states that all the successors of a thing will have the characteristic of its original predecessor. We have the characteristic of Adam, as being his successors. The Hebrew word H’ADAM is used in this sense also.

“The man” in Genesis 2:22 and the first part of 23 is H’ADAM. When it is connected with the woman the Hebrew word for her is ISHAH. We also read that the reason for calling the female as ISHAH was that she was created from ISH. In the first part of Genesis 2:23 we read that God created ISHAH from what He took from ADAM. When Adam explains about her origin he said that she was taken out of ISAH and not ADAM.

After reading this, it is natural for one to say that I am inconsistent between yesterday and today. It depends upon how you view my postings. When I answered yesterday (5/14/2007) it was just a jotting down without much depth in my writing and I was only pointing out that it was God who called what He created from the dust as ADAM. It did not occur to me that you may want to be clearer. Now, since I know, I went to the next level of depth.

(To be cont. Part-3)

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 15 May 2007 8:48:33 AM Close
Dear ‘trds’ and Tom J, Part-3

To answer your question, when it is ADAM it is men in general and not an individual. When it is H’ADAM, it is indicative of the person if the definite article is present or the successors of that person, whom we call Adam – the first Man from the earth (H’ADAMAH). In its plural usage, it tells us about our origin from this earth, “Dust you are and dust you will be.”

The Hebrew words for “male” and “female” are ZAKAR and NEQEBAH. In Hebrew, the AH ending usually indicates feminine gender. Therefore ‘man’ is said to be ISH and the ‘woman” ISHAH.

There are four Hebrew words used for man in general. They are ADAM, ISH, ENOSH, and GEBER.

(Note: If you need to expand on this, please let me know.)

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : trds   View Profile   Since : 15 May 2007 11:32:34 AM Close
Bro. Koshy,

Thanks for the explanation.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : lemuelraj   View Profile   Since : 15 May 2007 12:06:54 PM Close
Dear Bro.Koshy,

You wrote: "To answer your question, when it is ADAM it is men in general and not an individual. When it is H’ADAM, it is indicative of the person if the definite article is present or the successors of that person, whom we call Adam – the first Man from the earth (H’ADAMAH)."

I found that in Gen 4:25; 5:3 and 5:5, we have ADAM (without the article), yet these verses refer to the first man Adam going by the context, and not men in general.

And Adam [Heb: ADAM] knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. (Gen 4:25).

And Adam [Heb: ADAM] lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: (Gen 5:3).

And all the days that Adam [Heb: ADAM] lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. (Gen 5:5).

May I know how do you explain this? Am I missing something?

In Christ Jesus,
Moses LemuelRaj

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 15 May 2007 2:23:13 PM Close
Dear Moses LemuelRaj,

What I wrote is the general rule and not the specific. There are always exeptions and you cited three of them. There are more.

You could see other exeptions to H'ADAM and ETH-H'ADAM too.

I only stated the general explanation that is used by many (in the KJV too) who know the Hebrew better than I do. That includes Jewish teachers.

The discussion here is who named Adam and I tried to limit my explanation to that.

Do you like to discuss the use of 'man' or 'Adam' from KJV? We could do that too.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : lemuelraj   View Profile   Since : 15 May 2007 10:10:55 PM Close
Dear Bro.Koshy,

Your reply explains it. Thankyou.

In Christ Jesus,
Moses LemuelRaj

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : godly1   View Profile   Since : 17 May 2007 3:33:51 AM Close
Thanks for all of your participation to bring out the best answer questioned above.........
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page



Go to top of the page

All times are GMT -5 Hours
Forums Home ::
© 2018 Sansnet.com



HOME