Deconstructing the history of Adam

I must admit that I have been on a little bit of a tailspin lately.  The more I examine, the more I question.  And the more I question, the more I doubt.  It can be absolutely paralyzing! When you uncover deception, the last thing you want to do is be a part of it.  So I tread as carefully as I can, trying to be honest with the text but also pushing boundaries, giving myself permission and patience.  Keeping in mind that this is a long process, one that can’t be done overnight and that even through it all, I still may not find the answers.  I hope that you also are patient with yourself and others as we all try to understand our history and our present.

As we deconstruct the history of Adam found in Genesis 5, it is interesting to note that we find again the retelling of God creating Adam. That adam was created in the likeness of God, which in our modern translations, continues by saying male and female.  But did you know that the 2 words there, zakar (zawkar) and nekeba (nekayvaw) are not root words?  That if you strip it back to the roots, it would read, in the likeness of God, to remember and to pierce or possibly designate or specify.  This would also apply back to Genesis 1 as well.  Previously I have written a post on man’s creation, God creates man and I currently don’t have any plans to change that yet but it has definitely given me pause to reconsider what the true meaning of Adam’s  creation may mean.  To remember and to pierce.

However the other words for man (is, eesh) and woman (issa, ish shaw) found later aren’t root words either and it is exhausting to continue to jump through hoops.  One of my hang ups though continues to be that if this was read out loud to the people, the words and the understanding would have had to be basic right?  They would have had to know exactly what was being said without having to interject a million different meanings of words before they found the right one that was intended.  Doesn’t it have to be plain and simple?  If someone is reading something to me, it’s hard enough to not get distracted and to stay focused let alone rearrange or redefine.  That is why I am stripping it down to the root words only in an effort to understand but I digress.

It is our current understanding that when God created Adam in his likeness or form, it was an intersex person, both male and female.  In Genesis chapter 2 we are told how God made women from a side of Adam .  At this point in the story, it is possible that there were still both, an intersex person and a separate male and female.

Back to chapter 5, then we are told that Adam had a son in his own likeness, in his own image and named him Seth.  We believe this is significant because just like Adam is now fully male, so is his son, born in his image and form.  Why it wasn’t worded this way at the birth of Cain and Abel is uncertain but I’m not going to stumble over that.  Also there is nothing in the text here that says a sinful nature was passed on.  Yes, mankind does and will continue to possess the knowledge of good and evil or function and dysfunction but that doesn’t mean that they will always choose dysfunction.  Next, we are provided a list of  the generations through Seth including the length of their lifespan.

At the point in the lineage where Noah enters the scene, we are given a hint for what’s to come.  Did you know that the name Noah means rest?  With a root word translation the following text reads, To say this to sigh to do labour hands a part of the ground which cursed to exist. Mankind was exhausted from the toiling to eat because remember man was not cursed, the ground was.  And man has been toiling by the work of their hands and the sweat of their brows since.  How would Noah bring them rest?  What changes after the flood?  More on that in a future post but first we must address what comes next, another odd and puzzling section, or is it?

Chapter 6 begins by saying existed when followed by the Hebrew word ‘halal’ Adam, let me pause here.  We have seen this word before and after much study, we have extremely high doubts in the modern translation of begin or began, so moving forward our working definition is empty or void.  If we get to a point that this meaning no longer applies, then we will reconsider.

So back to the text, to exist that empty Adam increased upon to turn the earth daughters were born.  To see sons of God the daughters of Adam at that time tov, remember which means functional, they took women of all which to prove.  First off we see two groups of people if you will, sons of God and sons of Adam.  Why is this?  Is there a plain and simple meaning to be found?  Remembering what came before, the lineage of Cain and the lineage of Seth, both are in fact sons of Adam but maybe the text is giving us a way to differentiate between the two or between people in general?  One of the reasons I even bring this up, is that the root word of ben, bana (which has been translated as son) means to build.  So we have builders of God and builders of Adam.  Is it possible that those who were sons of God, were those of mankind that were still walking with God, still turned to God?  And is it possible that the sons of Adam were those that turned from God to walk after their own passions?  Would those two groups of people be at odds with one another?  What might be the implication though if this scenario is correct?  If godly men choose ungodly wives, a negative outcome is plausible, that the offspring or even the godly men may turn from God furthering the dysfunction of mankind and even creation?  Keep in mind what we have been told about how long these people lived.  A lot of dysfunction can be brought about in hundreds of years. And I’m not implying that an entire lineage was one or the other.  Based off of personal experience I think it is safe to assume that you could find builders of God and builders of Adam or men in both lines.

Continuing on, to say to exist, not rule breath of Adam, concealed to gather he to be fresh, exist days 120 years to cause to fall to exist earth days, to walk to gather after to erect which to come sons God to daughters Adam to bear to walk powerful which concealed men to name.

Guys, I know it’s rough but if we just pause for a minute and think back to what we just read about Cain, remember he walked hidden or concealed from God, carrying great lawlessness.  When I read the section above, I can’t help but see that through the union of godly and ungodly, it brought forth more “hidden, powerful people” possibly even lawless if they were empty godless dysfunctional people and that they were chosen for positions of power.  Maybe that is not what is going on here but it seems as though it could be possible.

Then, to see to exist that increased evil Adam earth all, to form to weave heart only evil all days, to sigh to exist that to do Adam earth to carve heart God’s, to say to be wiped off Adam which was created upon the face of earth, Adam as far as beast as far as moving animal as far as bird sky that to sigh that to do.

Again a little rough but let’s examine it.  Evil mankind was increasing in all the earth, forming evil plots in their heart.  God, who created mankind now decides to wipe them out because of their dysfunction.  Now I know the obvious rebuttal, but if He is truly God, then why?  Why go through all this?  Isn’t that just extremely cruel?  Why couldn’t He have done it all differently, better?

The first thought that comes to mind from my experience is parenthood.  We create children, not to control, but to be with and to guide.  We have high hopes and dreams for them but ultimately it’s their choice.  If they choose a dysfunctional path and to cut us out of their life, it causes great anguish to the parents.  Now I could never conceive wiping them off the face of the earth because I would hope that at some point they would turn around, they would choose the right path but as we continue to examine this ancient text to consider whether it is true about the world and the God that made it, looking for the plain and simple meaning, so far I would conclude that everything has been plausible.  I’m not condoning or saying that I agree with the way in which things were done but there does seem to be a cohesive theme of obedience or the lack thereof and judgement.

Continuing on, Noah to come forth to favor in my eyes to exist. These to bear Noah, Noah man to be right complete, exist to go around/remain, God to walk Noah.  Brought forth Noah three sons, Shem Ham and Japheth.  So Noah comes forth as a man, existing completely to be right, he found favor in God’s eyes, that he would remain, to continue to walk with God and he had 3 sons. Shem which means to name, Ham which means hot, and Japheth which means to spread out or to open.  And that is where we will stop our translation for today.

But let’s try to sum things up, shall we?  While we might not agree with God’s decision, if we think back yet again to something that was touched on in a previous post, that God is the perfect balance of good and evil, function and dysfunction and that we clearly are not, rather than judging maybe we should try to understand.

Maybe the current theology of God is wrong.  Clearly it would seem that our doctrines are in conflict with the text.  If our doctrines are that God can only be good, then it is hard to understand His decision to destroy.  If we have tried to put Him in a box saying He can only be, fill in the blank, we might be missing the bigger picture.  Remember too that hundreds of years have passed.  I would argue that God’s decision to destroy the dysfunction was not rash or made in haste but that it would appear that He was patient, allowing hundreds of years to pass before inflicting judgment. Plenty of time for mankind to repent.

What if what we do affects Him and He reacts and vice versa.  Obviously that’s risky!  To quote Abraham Heschel, “Both justice and mercy as the main attributes of God’s relation to man afford an insight into the polarity of God’s dominion.  Justice is a standard, mercy an attitude; justice is detachment, mercy attachment; justice is objective, mercy personal.  God transcends both justice and mercy.” You can’t have one without the other.

What else might He transcend?