Free The Lost World of Adam and Eve by John H. Walton

article)
Gen 5:1, 3-5
Anomalous
Gen 4:1, 25
Preposition attached
Gen 2:20; 3:17, 21

----
    Figure 1. Use of the word ʾ ādām in the book of Genesis
    Consequently, we can see that the profile of Adam is complex rather than straightforward. These chapters are not just giving biographical information on a man named Adam. Larger statements are being made. When the generic is used, the text is talking about human beings as a species. When the definite article is being used, the referent is an individual serving as a human representative. Such representation could be either as an archetype (all are embodied in the one and counted as having participated in the acts of that one) or as a federal representative (in which one is serving as an elect delegate on behalf of the rest). 3 In either case, the representational role is more important than the individual. Only in the cases where the word is indefinite and by context being used as a substitute for a personal name would the significance be tied to the individual as an individual, historical person.
    The text itself gives us what we need to make these determinations. The use of the definite article tells us that ʾ ādām is being used to refer to something beyond the person. Then the determination between archetype and federal representative is made based on the circumstances of the context. If what is being said of ha ʾ ādām (the form with the definite article) is true of all humans and not of just this one individual, then we can conclude that he serves there as an archetype. If, in contrast, the definite article is used and ha ʾ ādām is acting as an individual on behalf of others, we can conclude that he serves as federal representative.

Proposition 7
    The Second Creation Account (Gen 2:4-24) Can Be Viewed as a Sequel Rather Than as a Recapitulation of Day Six in the First Account (Gen 1:1–2:3)
    Most people reading Genesis 1–2 believe that Genesis 2:7 begins a more specific account of what happened on day six of Genesis 1—a recapitulation giving more detail. They draw this conclusion because day six reports the creation of humanity, and they see Genesis 2 as a description of how God formed that first human being. That view understands Genesis 2 as doubling back to elaborate on a part of Genesis 1 (day six). We need to examine whether such a conclusion is the only possibility.
    While it is easy to see how this conclusion can be drawn, one does not have to read very deeply into the text to detect problems with that reading. First of all, there seem to be some problems in the order that is given for those who are inclined to interpret these texts as representing historical, material sequences. If Genesis 2 is read as a recapitulation, Genesis 2:5-6 is confusing. It says that there were no plants when God created humans, yet plants come on day three and humans on day six in Genesis 1. Another sequence problem is that God created the animals first and then humans on day six. In Genesis 2, Adam is formed before the animals. 1 The second problem exists for those who consider the days to be twenty-four-hour days. That the events of Genesis 2 could all take place in a twenty-four-hour day (among them, naming all the animals, which apparently is completed because no helper was found) stretches credulity.
    Given these problems, it is worthwhile to go back and reconsider the question of whether Genesis 2 is detailing day six or an event that comes later. Therefore, we must consider what evidences the text offers and whether it is possible to read these two accounts as sequels. If they are sequels, we do not have to worry about fitting Genesis 2 into day six. But if they are sequels, it means that the people in Genesis 1 may not be Adam and Eve, or at least not only Adam and Eve. The question would then be why we have a forming account like Genesis 2 sometime after the creation of people as reported in Genesis 1.
    Furthermore, if Genesis 2 is a sequel, it would mean that there