AvidReader
New member
...original creation of man........? ....... that is, from the dust of the ground, it is simply referring to inorganic material in general, i.e., chemical compounds and elements.......... and NOT NECESSARILY direct creation of Adam from soil (i.e. the dust of the ground)?
I wonder because in Gen. 3:19 God says to Adam, "...for dust you are and to dust you will return."
In this case "dust" is not literal dust at all. It is the CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES which at that moment comprise Adam's body, his flesh. So if "dust" is not literal soil in Gen 3:19, why does it need to be literal soil in Genesis 2:7? In fact, is there any reason that it could not be chemical compounds in the form of ancestral organisms (even primates) from which God chose to form Adam?
===============================================
OPTIONAL DETAILS FOR EXEGETES:
In other words, how can one prove from the Hebrew text itself that evolution here is entirely ruled out? (After all, Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 also refers to the other land animals as coming from the dust of the ground. So by that truth, if Adam came from DUST, one can't rule out that he could have come from another animal, which is simply yet another form of DUST.)
So this would indicate that when Genesis refers to DUST, it does not HAVE to be literal "soil" or "dust of the ground" as the poetic illusion would suggest. No, Adam WAS AT THAT MOMENT DESCRIBED BY THE HEBREW WORD FROM WHICH WE TRANSLATE "DUST" in English.
Accordingly, doesn't this suggest that although Adam MAY been directly created from literal dust (as in God somehow grabbing a quantity of the dusty red soil [I'm basing that on the Hebrew connotations of the word]) but it could also mean that God simply used CHEMICAL ELEMENTS/COMPOUNDS and those could have been in some intermediate form or even a length process.
Agree? Disagree?
I wonder because in Gen. 3:19 God says to Adam, "...for dust you are and to dust you will return."
In this case "dust" is not literal dust at all. It is the CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES which at that moment comprise Adam's body, his flesh. So if "dust" is not literal soil in Gen 3:19, why does it need to be literal soil in Genesis 2:7? In fact, is there any reason that it could not be chemical compounds in the form of ancestral organisms (even primates) from which God chose to form Adam?
===============================================
OPTIONAL DETAILS FOR EXEGETES:
In other words, how can one prove from the Hebrew text itself that evolution here is entirely ruled out? (After all, Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 also refers to the other land animals as coming from the dust of the ground. So by that truth, if Adam came from DUST, one can't rule out that he could have come from another animal, which is simply yet another form of DUST.)
So this would indicate that when Genesis refers to DUST, it does not HAVE to be literal "soil" or "dust of the ground" as the poetic illusion would suggest. No, Adam WAS AT THAT MOMENT DESCRIBED BY THE HEBREW WORD FROM WHICH WE TRANSLATE "DUST" in English.
Accordingly, doesn't this suggest that although Adam MAY been directly created from literal dust (as in God somehow grabbing a quantity of the dusty red soil [I'm basing that on the Hebrew connotations of the word]) but it could also mean that God simply used CHEMICAL ELEMENTS/COMPOUNDS and those could have been in some intermediate form or even a length process.
Agree? Disagree?