Sunday, February 26, 2017

Adam did not say "she shall be called woman"



18: And YHWH ELOHIYM said It is not good [no longer perfectly ordered] that the man[1] exist alone I will make an ezer[2] neged[3] (a helper who is an equal counterpart)[4] 19: And out of the ground YHWH ELOHIYM formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to the man to see what he would call them and whatsoever audawm called every living nephesh that was the name thereof 20: And the man gave names to all cattle and to the fowl of the air and to every animal of the field but for the man there was not found an ezer 21: And YHWH ELOHIYM caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man and he slept and he took one of his sides and closed up the flesh 22: And the side which YHWH ELOHIYM had taken from the man built he ishshah and introduced her to the man 23: And the man exclaimed here paam [is] bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh she is called ishshah as she was taken from iysh[5] [6] 24: Surely iysh shall forsake his father and his mother to follow hard after (or step in concert with) ishshah [as] one flesh[7] 25: And they were both naked the man and the woman and were not ashamed


[1] The name 'adam H120 Pronounced “audawm” is the name God gave to both the first man and the first woman; the entire human race; mixed crowds in the Hebrew are also referred to as 'adam. In Genesis 2:18, the word 'adam, refers to the man, before the creation of the woman, but had not yet been used as a proper name exclusively for him. Most translators agree that the word, adam, as used in the first three chapters of Genesis, simply referred to "the man." The use of 'adam as a proper name for the man alone did not occur until after The Fall. Before The Fall, both the man and the woman were called 'adam. The words 'iysh (man) and 'ishshah (woman) are also used to differentiate between the female and male in the second chapter of Genesis, though in later biblical usage, mixed crowds are referred to as 'adam, 'iysh, or 'ishshah. Context alone must determine who or what is being referred to in these instances. In the HHBC, the phonetic spelling of audawm is used except in cases referring to the personal name, Adam.

[2] H5828 `ezer [masculine noun] derives from H5826 `azar [verb-primitive root] The word `ezer H5828 (a masculine noun meaning help or succour) is used of God himself in Psalm 33:20. In fact, it is used of humans only three times in scripture—and never with the meaning complementarians attach to it. So, translating this word as helper with the connotation of subordination is misleading at best and deceptive at worst.  
[3] The word, neged, H5048, does not mean “for him,” as most translators have it. Young’s Literal Translation correctly reads “counterpart.” Gender-biased-English-translation-theology transforms ezer neged as “helpmeet for him” or “helper suitable for him.” Using the possessive words “for him,” in this verse, transforms—in the mind of the reader—an equal counterpart into little more than an assistant at best and slave at worst. From this verse in the old English, the compound word “help-meet” came into wide usage and continues so to this day. But, in the Hebrew, no such word or compound word as “help-meet” can be found. The old English used the word “meet” was used instead of words such as “appropriate” or “suitable.” But in the Hebrew, that underlies the A. V., the word “meet” or “suitable” is not found in Genesis 2:18. The last part of the verse, (help [or helper] meet [or suitable] for him), found in most English Bibles, is pure fabrication on the part of translators.

[4] The clear language of the Hebrew text leaves no room for the false “help-meet” tradition force-fed to Christians through gender-biased-English-translation-theology, traditional-role-religion, and its evil spawn, complementarianism. In a literal reading of Genesis 2:18, there is no textual basis for the virtually universal acceptance of the idea that God’s female creation was designed to be subordinate to his male creation. Aside from tampering with the Hebrew text and applying gender-biased-English-translation-theology to this verse, it cannot be inferred that God created the man and woman to be functionally unequal—although it is implicitly implied through myriads of false, gender-biased, Bible translations. Even the most dogmatic of complementarian teachers admit that no hint of female subordination can be found in the first creation account, found in Genesis Chapter One, where, in fact, equality of the sexes is explicitly stated. Because of that unalterable fact, role religionists have gone to great lengths, through falsifying Bible translation and misleading commentary, in covering up the equality explicitly stated in Genesis 2:18—I will make him an ezer neged (helper [equal] counterpart).

[5] 'ishshah Hebrew for woman/wife, but not exclusively so. The word is also used for mixed crowds of both females and males, and therefore, can be used as gender neutral, as context allows, just as the words adam and iysh are seen in gender neutral biblical usage. Context must determine translation.

'iysh H376 Hebrew for man/husband/mixed crowds of both women and men/homosapiens in general, even translated as “you” in Proverbs 3:31 (KJV). The word, Iysh, has no legitimate claim as a word exclusive to males. Context must determine translation.

[6] When the English translation is pared down to a more accurate match with the Hebrew text, we see that the man was ecstatic to receive his equal counterpart but did not name the woman (she had already been called 'ishshah earlier, in verse 22). He was simply declaring the facts as revealed to him by his creator.

[7] It is interesting to note that it was the man who was commanded to forsake the biological family he was born into and to follow closely after the woman he marries in a completely new order of allegiance—not the other way around, as complementarians teach. God predicted what history proved, that (because of the curse of sin) men would not obey this command, at least not for very long. There is historical evidence that the command was obeyed for a time. But in virtually every culture on earth, especially in ancient cultures (or even third world or middle-eastern cultures today), we see the curse playing out with devastating accuracy. In these cultures, when a woman marries, she is taken from (what would normally be) the natural protection of her biological family and transferred (normally to the bottom of the pecking order) into the family of the husband. In many cultures, women may not walk beside their husbands in public but must follow behind them, and must wear veils in symbolic shows of subservience to them. When these things were done in Jewish or Christian cultures, it was cursed behavior—outright rebellion—against the inspired Word of God that came to the first husband instructing him as to the perfect will of God concerning the total extent of his relationship with his wife—leave your parents and biological family to follow closely after your wife. Become a part of her biological family, and stick to her like glue. So, we see that it is not to the home of the husband’s family that he brings his bride, it is to the home of the Bride that he goes when he marries (or at the very least more closely aligns with her biological family than his own, while his allegiance remains exclusively to her).

The above is an excerpt from the Hungry Hearts Online Bible Commentary HHBC
 




Woman this is WAR! Gender Slavery and the Evangelical Caste System, Examines Bible translation and commentary practices which have historically been androcentric (male centered) and even misogynistic (anti-woman). These have adversely effected understanding of the scriptures, relations between women and men, the happiness of men and women, and hindered the work of the gospel. The reader is educated about historic parallels between the twin causes of abolition and women’s rights, while the history of women’s rights is traced back [much further than usual] to the very first feminists…who were Christians—godly women who brought the issue of women's rights to the forefront as they struggled to alleviate the suffering of others, and found they were hindered in doing so for no other reason than the fact of their sex. This book, provides valuable historical insight into Christian initiatives in the movements for women’s rights, that are rarely included in Christian literature.