Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Mark & Mary Markham" <markhamm AT topsurf.com>]

Considering the object is not the same in the statements allows for a dif
theologically. Adam was mared by the fall. The sin nature was passed to
Seth. When you attempt to define "image" I believe it sheds light on the
passage. Adam was now mortal (yet designed and destined for eternity)-- so
were his offspring.

You can only take the Hebrew so far here, but the object is dif-- like a
photocopy of a photocopy.

What do you think?
-----Original Message-----
From: Lewis Reich <LBR AT sprynet.com>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: Image of Adam


>On 17 Feb 99, at 10:28, George Athas wrote:
>
>> A question of curiosity:
>>
>> What, if any, import should be made of the statement in Gen 5:1-2 that
>> Mankind was in the image of God, but which goes on to say in 5:3 that
>> Shet was in the image of Adam? What are we to make of this? Is it a
>> contrast, or a parallel?
>
>The traditional commentaries of Nachmanides and ibn Ezra suggest the
latter.
>I'm not sure how much room there would be to  understand it as a contrast;
>after all, if Adam were created in the image of God, and Seth were created
in
>the image of Adam, presumably "in the image of" is transitive, no?
>
>Lewis Reich
>LBR AT sprynet.com
>
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: markhamm AT topsurf.com
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
>
>