Gen 3:6 man

[redhotmagma]

In Genesis 3:6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

In the NET it gives this word for husband
enowsh H582
Definition:   
1) man, mortal man, person, mankind
1a) of an individual
1b) men (collective)
1c) man, mankind

In the KJV, NAS, NIV etc it gives
iysh H376
1) man
1a) man, male (in contrast to woman, female)
1b) husband
1c) human being, person (in contrast to God)
1d) servant
1e) mankind
1f) champion
1g) great man
2) whosoever
3) each (adjective)

H376 is a contracted form of H582

Which one is correct (if we can really know) and does it matter?  is there a difference in what is being said, between she gave it to a man376, or mankind582.  That seems to be the difference in the two general uses of the two words, although I could be wrong, it has happened once or twice before.

[micah7:9]

Very GOOD Indeed redhotmagma.

The Lord showed me that several years ago, I reason there is a GREAT deal of difference. I have nothing really to offer except you have found a very good study.
Should you continue yo will see that man/adam is H120/H121 until Gen 2:24  ThereforeH5921 H3651 shall a manH376
Gen.3:8 and AdamH121       Gen.4:1 a manH376

It is my opinion that there is much to be gleaned from that study, gold me thinks.  :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :happy3:
God's speed :bigGrin:

[Molly]

The word also means 'husband' which is the word the translators chose.

[redhotmagma]

Molly, do you know where else it is translated husband?  it is husband 3 times, and without looking at all 500 instances (I don't know of a way to see where the word is translated husband), I'd like to see if that is really a correct translation.  The reason I say that is the word  iysh 376 seems like the better choice for husband, corresponding to the female ishshah H802.  I could see why they would use 376 instead of 582, but that may not be correct, and that may tell us something.

A note; the word 582 comes from anash H605 weak, sick, frail, incurable
Here is one example

Jer 17:9 The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?

[Molly]

I'm not sure what your question is RHM.

H376 is a frequently used word for husband.

[redhotmagma]

582 is the word in question here.  KJV, NAS have 376 in genesis 3:6.  NET has 582 in the same spot, and has it listed in its Hebrew.  My first question was which is the correct word there.

[Molly]

Oh I don't know.

H376 is the word for husband in E-sword in the Gen verse.


H 582 is the root.

[WhiteWings]

  83אישׁ ('ysh). Assumed root of the following.
83aאִישׁ ('ı̂sh) man, mankind, champion,great man, husband, person, whatsoever, whosoever. (ASV, RSV similar.)
The word 'ı̂sh connotes primarily the concept of man as an individual and thus differs in that regard from the more general concepts inherent in the words 'ĕnôsh and 'ādām ("mankind").
Two possible roots have been suggested for the word, 'nsh and 'ysh ('wsh). If from the latter, the word 'ı̂sh may be related to the Akkadian ishānu meaning "strong."
The word is used variously in the ot. Most commonly it denotes any individual male. Less frequently it has the more specific connotation of "male," emphasizing the male sex, as distinct from the female sex (Ex 35:29; Lev 13:29; II Chr 15:13) or man in his sexual role ("to know a man," Gen 19:8, etc.). Characteristically this is zākār.
It is used in many technical expressions such as "man of the earth" (Gen 9:20) meaning "farmer," "man of the field," connoting a hunter (Gen 25:27) and "man of God," referring to a prophet (Deut 33:1, etc.).
Frequently the word functions as an individualizing element connoting the concept "each" as in "each person" (Gen 10:5). It also functions in a broadly inclusive sense meaning "whoever" (Lev 15:5).
One of the most common usages of 'ı̂sh is in the sense of "husband." The word begins to achieve significance in this sense first in Gen 2:23–24 where the origin of woman is described. While the derivation of 'ishshâ from 'ish suggested by this passage is difficult philologi-cally (there may be no more than a word play), there is no question that the words "This ... is bone of my bones ... She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man" (v. 23), communicate a close and intimate relationship that Adam could not find apart from one who shared his own station and nature; indeed, his own life. It reflects God's desire to provide man with a companion who would be his intellectual and physical counterpart. The permanency intended in the relationship is expressed in the assertion that man should leave his parents and cleave to his wife.
A husband could divorce his wife under certain conditions (Deut 24:1–4) but divorce was not encouraged (Mal 2:16; Jer 3:1).
The relationship of husband to wife is used as a metaphor of God's relationship to his people. This relationship is the basis of assurance for the people of God in the book of Hosea where the marriage relationship forms a central motif (see Hos 2:16).
Man possesses great individual worth in the ot, for anyone who murders a man is himself to be put to death (Lev 24:17). God observes the ways of men (Job 34:21; Prov 5:21) and the invitation of wisdom goes out to all men (Prov 8:4) demonstrating God's concern for the individual.
As with 'ĕnôsh a distinction obtains between God and man. Balaam observed that God was not man that he should lie (Num 23:19).
Bibliography: Hallevy, Raphael, "Man of God," JNES 17:237–44. Hoffner, H. A., "Symbols for Masculinity and Femininity," JBL 85:326–34. May, Herbert G., "Individual Responsibility and Retribution," HUCA 32:107–20. TDOT, I, pp. 222–35. THAT, I, pp. 130–37.
T.E.M.

[WhiteWings]

iysh is in the Hebrew text.

[redhotmagma]

thanks WW

[micah7:9]

Why, why would that one word be changed so many times if there is not something to know? I just feel in my opinion there is more there. :dontknow: :HeartThrob:

[WhiteWings]

thanks WW

I think it doesn't solve any problems.






83aאִישׁ ('ı̂sh) man, mankind, champion,great man, husband, person, whatsoever, whosoever. (ASV, RSV similar.)
The word 'ı̂sh connotes primarily the concept of man as an individual and thus differs in that regard from the more general concepts inherent in the words 'ĕnôsh and 'ādām ("mankind").

Husband in Gen 3:6 likely refers to one man according to scholars. But it can also mean mankind that's usually translated from adam or enosh. According to the same scholars "man/adam" in Gen 3:8 means just one man but the Hebrew word usually refers to more than one person. Mankind.

 



25[/color]אדם ('[/color]dm) I. Assumed root of the following.
25aאָדָם ('[/font]ādām) man, mankind, Adam.
25bאֲדָמָה ('[/font]ădāmâ) ground, land.
'ādām. Man, mankind; also human (adj.), someone (indef.); Adam (the first man). The ASV and RSV translate the same with notable exceptions. In Job 31:33 the RSV obscures the reference to Adam. Although the etymology of 'ādām cannot be explained with certainty (cf.TDOT. I, p. 78). the word probably relates to the original ruddiness of man's complexion (cf. F. Maas, 'ādāmTDOT, I, pp. 78–79). This word for man has to do with man as being in God's image, the crown of creation. It should be distinguished from 'ı̂sh (man as opposite of woman, or as man distinguished in his manliness), 'ĕnôsh (man as weak and vulnerable), geber (man as mighty and noble), and mĕtı̂m. Ugaritic 'adm normally means "people," and is parallel to l'im, or is used in the appellation 'ab'adm, "father of mankind." 'ādām occurs exclusively in the singular absolute, 562 times.
'ādām also refers to generic man as the image of God and the crown of creation or is a personal name. Hence in Gen 1–3 it is the word usually used for man. (In later passages of Scripture it is difficult to distinguish in meaning from 'ı̂sh.) Here, man is distinct from the rest of creation in that: he was created by special and solemn divine counsel (Gen 1:26); his creation was an immediate act of God; he was created after the divine type; he was created with two distinct elements (Gen 2:7); he was placed in an exalted position (Gen 1:28); he was intended for a still higher (in the sense of a permanent and fulfilled) position. Hence, man (as 'ādām) was the crown of creation. Genesis 1 sets forth 'ādām as the goal and vice-regent of creation, while Gen 2 shows how the creation was formed as the scene of man's activity, i.e. it was formed around 'ādām. In the first three chapters of Gen there is a wordplay on man, mankind, and the first man "Adam." 'ādām connotes man in the image of God as to: soul or spirit (indicating man's essential simplicity, spirituality, invisibility, immortality), physical powers or faculties (the intellect and will with their functions), intellectual and moral integrity (true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness), body (as a fit organ of the soul sharing its immortality, and as the means through which man exercises his dominion), and dominion over the lower creation.
The image of God in man has been much discussed. Engnell, Wildberger, and von Rad refer it to man's dominion over the non-human world. Humbert and Koehler contend that it indicates man's external form, which seems inappropriate in view of the repeated assertion of God's spirituality. Brunner, Kierkegaard, and Berkhouwer think it refers to man's exceptional relationship with God. F. Horst declares that man is a creature who "hears the word of God, speaks to God in prayer and obeys him in service" (TDOT, I, p. 85). In contrast to these somewhat neo-orthodox approachesthe image of God in the narrow sense refers to man as a rational-moral creature (cf.Deut 4:10–12). Significantly God's first words to man are both a command and a prohibition (Gen 2:16–17); man alone is responsible for his decision, man alone determines his destiny by volitional choice, and only man is judged as righteous or sinful by God's law. An older biblical theology holds that the "divine likeness is rather to be referred to the whole dignity of man in virtue of which human nature is sharply distinguished from that of the beasts; man as a free being is set over nature, and designed to hold communion with God, and to be his representative on earth" (G. F. Oehler, Old Testament Theology). Payne remarks that "the terms 'image' and 'likeness' ... are used interchangeably. ...The image thus connotes 'freedom' and 'blessedness', as it reflects within man the cosmic, ethical and beneficent sovereignty of the Testator himself. ...The divine image thus implies all the various aspects of God's reflected glory and honor. ...It may be defined, in summary, as the totality of man's higher powers that distinguish him from brute creation" (PTOT, p. '227). The apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus says of the creation of man: he "made them according to his image, and put the fear of man upon all flesh, and gave him dominion over beasts and fowls. Counsel and a tongue, and eyes, ears, and a heart, gave he them to understand. Withal he filled them with the knowledge of understanding, and showed them good and evil ... and they shall praise his holy name, that they may search out his marvellous works" (Eccles 17:3-9).
Even after the fall 'ādām is used of man! The image of God is still the central distinction. Hence, murder is an attack on the image of God (Gen 9:6). However, the fall lowered man's position before God (Gen 6:5–6; 8:21), ruptured his communion with God, and brought the curse of death on him so that he did not fulfill his intended exaltation. That part of the divine image consisting of true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness was destroyed. Only in and by Christ, the new Adam (Rom 5:12–21), can the original divine promise be realized.


'ădāmâ. Ground, land, earth. The ASV and RSV reflect the difficulties in deciding which of the English words to use in translation. Originally this word signified the red arable soil. From this it came to denote any cultivated, plantable ground and/or landed property. At times it approaches the meaning "home country" (see especially Jon 4:2), but probably not in a political sense (however, Isa 14:2; 19:17, and especially Ezekiel's almost exclusive "land of Israel," et al.). One should compare and distinguish 'ereṣ "earth, land," and 'āpār, "dry earth, dust." Also, contrast ḥelqâ "portion, field," yabbāshâ "dry land, dry ground," and śādeh "field, land, open country." 'ădāmâ occurs 224 times.
The Bible makes much of the relationship between man ('ādām) and the ground ('ădāmâ). That this might be vivid in the mind of the reader we will transliterate the words in the following discussion. Initially, God made 'ādām out of the 'ădāmâ to till the 'ădāmâ (Gen 3:23, to bring forth life?). The 'ădāmâ was God's possession and under his care (Gen 2:6). Thus, the first 'ādām (the man, Adam) and his family were to act as God's servants by obeying him in maintaining the divinely created and intended relationships vertically and horizontally. As long as this condition was sustained God caused the 'ădāmâ to give its fruitfulness (blessing) to 'ādām.
Then came sin. The unit 'ādām (Adam and Eve; see also Rom 5:12) violated the created structure. The 'ădāmâ, henceforth, brought forth thorns and thistles rather than freely giving fruit (Gen 3:17). Since 'ādām had disrupted the paradisiacal life-producing state, he was driven off the paradisiacal 'ădāmâ and sentenced to return to the 'ădāmâ (Gen 3:19). He was driven to it rather than it being given to him. He was to go down rather than up. His life moved in and toward death rather than in and toward life. However, the gracious Creator did not completely destroy 'ādām. He promised to bring forth from 'ādām a lifegiver (Gen 3:15). As a token of that promise the Creator caused the 'ădāmâ to give of its fruit (blessing) to 'ādām (note the curse on Cain, Gen 4:12,14, whereby the 'ădāmâ was no longer to give its strength to him). Because of disobedience 'ādām received a curse from the 'ădāmâ rather than life. Thus, we see that 'ādām/'ădāmâare deeply involved in the pattern creation-fall-redemption.
This pattern is repeated throughout the ot. After the flood God said he would never again curse the 'ădāmâ because of 'ādām(Gen 8:21). He made a new covenant (creation) with Noah (Gen 9:1–17) who became the father of 'ādām (since only Noah and his immediate family were in the ark, Gen 7:7). Noah became a tiller of the 'ădāmâ (Gen 9:20), and God blessed his efforts. However, Noah sinned. In Abraham the promise (redemption) given by God through Noah to Shem emerges in the form of Paradise regained, i.e. the promised land ('ădāmâGen 28:14–15).
In the Mosaic legislation God gives the 'ădāmâ or takes it away according to the obedience of his people (Lev 20:24). Its fruitfulness depends upon their obedience (Deut 11:17). Solomon repeats this creation-fall-redemption pattern around 'ādām/'ădāmâ (I Kgs 8:34, 40). This cycle governs the history of Israel (I Kgs 13:34; 14:15; II Kgs 21:8; 25:21). Nehemiah recognizes the same theological pattern (Neh 10:37 [H 38]).
In the eschaton God will change the inner constitution of 'ādām (fully restore the divine image) so as to eliminate the possibility of a fall and assure eternal possession of the 'ădāmâ which yields its fruit freely (Ezk 36:25–30; cf.Jer 31:33–34; II Cor 5:17; Heb 8:8–12)—the return to the garden of Eden (Ezk 36:35).
Bibliography: Asselin, David Tobin, "The Notion of Dominion in Genesis 1–3," CBQ 16:277–94. Bloom, Alfred, "Human Rights in Israel's Thought," Interp 8:422–32. DeFraine, J., "Individue et Societe dans la Religion de I'Ancien Testament," Bib 33:324–55, 445–75. Koehler, Ludwig, Hebrew Man, Abingdon, 1957. May, Herbert G., "Individual Responsibility and Retribution," HUCA 32:107–20. Oehler, G. F., Old Testament Theology, Funk & Wagnall, 1883, pp. 146-47. Payne, J. Barton, Theology of the Older Testament, pp. 221–31. Porter, J. R., "The Legal Aspects of the Concept of 'Corporate Personality' in the Old Testament," VT 15:361–80. Richardson, TWB, pp. 14–15. Thomas, D. W., ed., Archaeology and Old Testament Study, Oxford:Clarendon, 1967. Wright, J. Stafford, Man in the Process of' Time, Eerdmans, 1956. TDOT, I, pp. 75–87, 88–98. THAT, I, pp. 41–56, 57–59.L.J.C.

[WhiteWings]

Note that the scholars use "possible", "likely", "assumed" and "unknown" quite often when giving defenitions for adam/enosh/Ish
It's so vague word meanings are of little use to prove anything. Genesis 3:6 and Genesis 3:8 are proof of that. The verses are about the same Adam and Eve, but if we take the most likely meaning of the Hebrew word Eve was married to 1 man in verse 6 and to every male on the planet in verse 8.
Luckily there was only 1 man on the whole planet so 1 man equals mankind :winkgrin:

[WhiteWings]

Alternative view
Mankind created on day 6. Adam created on day 8.

- http://www.biblestudysite.com/creation.htm
- http://www.religioustolerance.org/pers01.htm

[Molly]

Alternative view
Mankind created on day 6. Adam created on day 8.

- http://www.biblestudysite.com/creation.htm
- http://www.religioustolerance.org/pers01.htm

Two seperate creation events in gen 1 and gen 2 and Adam is the 8th day man.

Of course I've been saying this for years, but does anyone listen to me?

noooooooooo   :laughing7:

[thinktank]

I don't remember you saying anything about the 8th day creation, when I presented my findings. I remember heard you arguing about the gap theory though.

Thanks for those links wings.

[WhiteWings]

I don't remember you saying anything about the 8th day creation, when I presented my findings. I remember heard you arguing about the gap theory though.

There is a "gap" between the sixth and eighth day. Often called the seventh day :winkgrin:
The duration, reason and events during that gap is a different discussion.

Thanks for those links wings.

At your service Sir Tank  :hihat:

[thinktank]

I don't remember you saying anything about the 8th day creation, when I presented my findings. I remember heard you arguing about the gap theory though.

There is a "gap" between the sixth and eighth day. Often called the seventh day :winkgrin:
The duration, reason and events during that gap is a different discussion.

Thanks for those links wings.

At your service Sir Tank  :hihat:

By Gap theory I mean between gen 1 and gen 1.2, where something happened between creation and the darkness.

I believe that gap theory is a term that mostly is ascribed to this.

I'm not familiar with the gap you speak of between 6 and 8. That God rested on the 7th day, I assume that 6th day creation continues living for 1000 years, until God decided to create Adam the first man, which would be the 8th day, but since there is no record of numbers, that day could be the 12th day or any day after 7.

[WhiteWings]

Days are very flexible.... Day can also be an era. http://www.fossilmuseum.net/PaleobiologyVFM.htm
Imo the 1 day is a 1000 years starts when Adam is created.

The part about the 7th day being a gap was just a little joke.
If there is really a gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 it's can't be the 7th day because several days follow that gap. Not just one.
At best the gap is part of day 1.

[Molly]

I don't remember you saying anything about the 8th day creation, when I presented my findings. I remember heard you arguing about the gap theory though.

There is a "gap" between the sixth and eighth day. Often called the seventh day :winkgrin:
The duration, reason and events during that gap is a different discussion.

Thanks for those links wings.

At your service Sir Tank  :hihat:

By Gap theory I mean between gen 1 and gen 1.2, where something happened between creation and the darkness.

I believe that gap theory is a term that mostly is ascribed to this.

I'm not familiar with the gap you speak of between 6 and 8. That God rested on the 7th day, I assume that 6th day creation continues living for 1000 years, until God decided to create Adam the first man, which would be the 8th day, but since there is no record of numbers, that day could be the 12th day or any day after 7.

Gap theory is something else.

ww's link is talking about how Gen 1 and Gen 2 are looking at two different creations.

That God rests on the 7th day, and on the 8th day he creates Adam [having already created man on the 6th day].

In other words, Adam is not the first man, he is the first covenant man, created to tend and keep God's garden.

The first set apart man, set apart in the garden of God.

[micah7:9]

I don't remember you saying anything about the 8th day creation, when I presented my findings. I remember heard you arguing about the gap theory though.

There is a "gap" between the sixth and eighth day. Often called the seventh day :winkgrin:
The duration, reason and events during that gap is a different discussion.

Thanks for those links wings.

At your service Sir Tank  :hihat:

By Gap theory I mean between gen 1 and gen 1.2, where something happened between creation and the darkness.

I believe that gap theory is a term that mostly is ascribed to this.

I'm not familiar with the gap you speak of between 6 and 8. That God rested on the 7th day, I assume that 6th day creation continues living for 1000 years, until God decided to create Adam the first man, which would be the 8th day, but since there is no record of numbers, that day could be the 12th day or any day after 7.

Gap theory is something else.

ww's link is talking about how Gen 1 and Gen 2 are looking at two different creations.

That God rests on the 7th day, and on the 8th day he creates Adam [having already created man on the 6th day].

In other words, Adam is not the first man, he is the first covenant man, created to tend and keep God's garden.

The first set apart man, set apart in the garden of God.

:sigh: but thats just me :HeartThrob:

[thinktank]

I don't remember you saying anything about the 8th day creation, when I presented my findings. I remember heard you arguing about the gap theory though.

There is a "gap" between the sixth and eighth day. Often called the seventh day :winkgrin:
The duration, reason and events during that gap is a different discussion.

Thanks for those links wings.

At your service Sir Tank  :hihat:

By Gap theory I mean between gen 1 and gen 1.2, where something happened between creation and the darkness.

I believe that gap theory is a term that mostly is ascribed to this.

I'm not familiar with the gap you speak of between 6 and 8. That God rested on the 7th day, I assume that 6th day creation continues living for 1000 years, until God decided to create Adam the first man, which would be the 8th day, but since there is no record of numbers, that day could be the 12th day or any day after 7.

Gap theory is something else.

ww's link is talking about how Gen 1 and Gen 2 are looking at two different creations.

That God rests on the 7th day, and on the 8th day he creates Adam [having already created man on the 6th day].

In other words, Adam is not the first man, he is the first covenant man, created to tend and keep God's garden.

The first set apart man, set apart in the garden of God.

Yeah I know I looked at the website. I remember writing about this issue about a year ago, but I could not find any material on the subject.

I'm not sure though what kind of creation the links are talking about in Genesis 6.

The theory I presented was that mankind of Genesis 6 was a spirit being and Adam was Gods first physical creation of the Earth.
I showed scriptural evidence of how the natural laws did not follow suit, as science currently defines them, so I reasoned that the creation concerning before Adam was a spiritual kingdom, that did not follow laws of nature, due the their spiritual element of being outside of the laws of physics

But with this website I'm not sure what kind of human being he presents mankind as, I think he's looks upon them as physical flesh, which makes his theory slightly different to mine.

[Molly]

I don't remember you saying anything about the 8th day creation, when I presented my findings. I remember heard you arguing about the gap theory though.

There is a "gap" between the sixth and eighth day. Often called the seventh day :winkgrin:
The duration, reason and events during that gap is a different discussion.

Thanks for those links wings.

At your service Sir Tank  :hihat:

By Gap theory I mean between gen 1 and gen 1.2, where something happened between creation and the darkness.

I believe that gap theory is a term that mostly is ascribed to this.

I'm not familiar with the gap you speak of between 6 and 8. That God rested on the 7th day, I assume that 6th day creation continues living for 1000 years, until God decided to create Adam the first man, which would be the 8th day, but since there is no record of numbers, that day could be the 12th day or any day after 7.

Gap theory is something else.

ww's link is talking about how Gen 1 and Gen 2 are looking at two different creations.

That God rests on the 7th day, and on the 8th day he creates Adam [having already created man on the 6th day].

In other words, Adam is not the first man, he is the first covenant man, created to tend and keep God's garden.

The first set apart man, set apart in the garden of God.

Yeah I know I looked at the website. I remember writing about this issue about a year ago, but I could not find any material on the subject.

I'm not sure though what kind of creation the links are talking about in Genesis 6.

The theory I presented was that mankind of Genesis 6 was a spirit being and Adam was Gods first physical creation of the Earth.
I showed scriptural evidence of how the natural laws did not follow suit, as science currently defines them, so I reasoned that the creation concerning before Adam was a spiritual kingdom, that did not follow laws of nature, due the their spiritual element of being outside of the laws of physics

But with this website I'm not sure what kind of human being he presents mankind as, I think he's looks upon them as physical flesh, which makes his theory slightly different to mine.

Yeah.  There's more than one way to look at it.  I think they all are profitable, for their own purposes.

I like the one with Genesis 1 man being created before Adam the best because it, combined with the gap theory, makes the most sense to me from a scientific point of view.

But, all the different ways of looking at those first three chapters are very interesting.

And, for our purposes in this thread, we are asking, why the different words for men?

Some are called iysh, enosh and some are called sons of Adam.  Are they diferent groups?  I'd say yes, in that the generations of Adam lead directly to Jesus in an uninterrupted bloodline.

The Book is about these sons of Adam, --they are the [human] stars of the story.


Genesis 5
1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

[micah7:9]

Okay, from what I can gather it is this "eth haa Aadam" of Gen.1:27  that in my opinion seems to be causing something to stir up.
Now I have listened to this fella out of Gravette, Arkansas, a  pastor Murray of Shepards Chapel, and he is very adamant that there is a great deal of difference to the Gen.2:7 man,
using 2Pe 3:5  for this is unobserved by them willingly, that the heavens were of old, and the earth out of water and through water standing together by the word of God,
2Pe 3:6  through which the then world, by water having been deluged, was destroyed; as his basis,
Mr. Murray, when he speaks of this is very racist in his oration, that is one reason I find him well, very unreliable to say the least.

What I would like to know is just what is the opinion of  "eth haa Aadam" as pertaining to what of we speak, as the man of 1:27 and 2:7?

Thank you. :HeartThrob:  I for one find the idea of an 8th day man somewhat reaching and quite a stretch of the  imagination, this is only my opinion of course.  :icon_flower: :cloud9:

[WhiteWings]

And, for our purposes in this thread, we are asking, why the different words for men?

Some are called iysh, enosh and some are called sons of Adam.  Are they diferent groups?  I'd say yes, in that the generations of Adam lead directly to Jesus in an uninterrupted bloodline.

Maybe we first should find the defenition of mankind.

Not every mammal is human; but every human is mammal.
Not every man is Jew; but every Jew is man.
Not every man in gentile; but every gentile is man. Or not.....?

Let's assume Darwinian evolution is 100% correct. (which I don't think). According to that theory there are animals and humans. At some point in evolution there are animals that are almost human and the next mutation the animals officially became human. The criteria for that are not important for this discussion. The main point is that there is something that divides man from beast.
The Bible classifies whales as fish, while science classifies whales as mammals.
Maybe the Bible has a different defenition of man/beast too. For example a beast becomes man when it knows about God?
:dontknow: