Sunday, February 26, 2017

Adam did not say "she shall be called woman"

Genesis 2:18 And YHWH ELOHIYM said It is not good that audawm[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 audawm to see what he would call them and whatsoever audawm called every living nephesh that was the name thereof 20: And audawm gave names to all cattle and to the fowl of the air and to every animal of the field but for audawm there was not found an ezer 21: And YHWH ELOHIYM caused a deep sleep to fall upon audawm 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 audawm 23: And the man exclaimed here at last [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 

This is an excerpt from the HHBC

[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—homosapiens in general; 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  (for the man) and 'ishshah (for the 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] The word ezer H5828 (meaning help or succour) is used of God himself in Psalm 33:20, so translating this word as helper with the connotation of subordination is misleading at best and deceptive at worst. 

[3] The word, neged, H5048, is also erroneously translated. It 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 “help meet 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 a slave. 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 for Genesis 2:18, the word “meet” or “suitable” is not found. 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, translations. Even the most dogmatic of complementarian teachers admit that no hint of female subordination can be found in the first creation account (Genesis One). In fact, equality of the sexes is explicitly stated in Genesis chapter one. Because of that unalterable fact, role religionists have gone to great lengths 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 they had been 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 never obey this command. 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 in a symbolic show of subservience to him. When these things were done in Jewish or Christian cultures, it was cursed behavior—outright rebellionagainst the inspired Word of the Lord that came to the first husband instructing him as to the will of God concerning the total extent of his relationship with his wife.

No comments:

Post a Comment