Biblical Translation—Eden, 3

Admin: Under the “Bible Study” Topic heading, we have now reached over 300 posts in the “Biblical Translation”Eden, 2” thread, and we still have a great deal to translate and discuss. I am hoping that you will allow us to open a third phase in our research into the Hebrew Eden Narrative. The title of this new Thread would be “Biblical Translation”Eden, 3”.These “Biblical Translation”Eden” threads of research, discussion, and debate have been immensely popular, because the Hebrew Eden Narrative forms the very foundation of Rabbinic Judaism and Pauline Christianity. Therefore, the word-for-word translation and hermeneutic interpretation of this particular Hebrew Text is crucial to our understanding of Rabbinic Judaism and Pauline Christianity.I hope you will allow us to continue our in depth study of this complex and fascinating ancient biblical Hebrew Text in a new thread: “Biblical Translation”Eden, 3”.Here are the translations of Gen. 2:23 & 24. You can read them over and perhaps begin to see the Poetic and Metaphorical context begin to emerge from the Hebrew text.Gen. 2:23 & 24 interpres word-for-word translation.2:23 vay>omer=and it/he said ha>adam=the human archetype {ego of blood) zo>th=this one hapa0am=this occurrence 0etzem=strength/bone me0atzamay=surpassing my strength/bone ubasar=sensations/flesh mibesary=surpassing my sensations/flesh lezo>th=[b]regarding this one[b] yiqare>=he is called >ishah=woman/wife/support kiy=for me>iysh=on account of an individual looqachah=she was received zo>th=this one.Translation: and it said, ego of blood, this one, this occurrence, is strength surpassing my strength, and sensations/flesh surpassing my flesh, regarding this one he is called {metaphorical} woman, for on account of an individual she is received, this one.Note the 3rd person masculine pronoun prefix yiqare>=yi=he qare>=is called. This is a contextual anomaly that signals the author’s use of a metaphor >ishah=metaphorical-woman/wife/support.Note: The Hebrew masculine noun >iysh is quite often used to denote an individual {male or female). >iysh is a verbal clause: >=fist person pronoun “I + ysh=exist, thus, >iysh=I exist; an individual.2:24 0al-=[b]upon ken=thus ya0azab-=he/it will leave >iysh=an individual >eth-=the >abayv=its father ve>eth-=and together with >imo=its mother vedabaq=and remain close to be>ishetho=with its metaphorical woman=creative self vehyu=and it shall be lebasar=regarding flesh {five mortal senses} >echad=one.Translation: upon thus, it will leave, an individual, the its father and together with its mother, and remain close with its creative self, and it shall be regarding flesh one.Note: In a patriarchal society a woman leaves her father and mother when she become wed. The man inherits his father’s house and property. The traditional rendition of Gen. 2:24 conveys a “matriarchal society”, whereas the author would have been living in an Abraham-founded Patriarchal Social EnvironmentThanks for your help,
autumnman/GerEdited by autumnman, : Attached word-for-word translations of Gen. 2:23 & 24 from previous Thread.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

AM saysI will give this another try. Is your only implication here that in some ways man was created the same way animals were, therefore he possed the same characteristics of the animals initially? Is this your implication? If it is then, what do you make of the fact that man was created in Gods image? Where does this come into play. How and what does the E/translation affect. What are the implications and consequences of it not being translated correctly. Would it indicate that it might not be inspired? What exacally is you implication here? Do you hold the rest in the same regard as the Eden narrative? Do you consider them as possibly affected by Gods influence as you do the Eden narrative.D BertotD Bertot

Bertot quotes You said you believed man (Adam) was created 100,000 years ago. Does the above quote show CREATIVITY and human intelligence before that time period?D Bertot

I understand you percieve this as a poem, not to be taken literally.
However, the above statement does not even follow the emphasis or path of the narrative. It ignores the difference given to man and beast in the context. There is no reason to believe that man was not FULLY human, even if you percieve he was given something extra by God.Do you see what I am saying?Maybe you could wrap your conclusions on these verses and we could move forward, before we spend the next 300 posts on these two. What do you say?D Bertot

bertot:

quote:

---

AM says:This is what the BDB Heb.-Eng. Lexicon says, and I quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"The The nepesh becomes a living being; by God's breathing nishmath chayiym=breath of life into the nostrils of its basar=flesh; of man Gn 2:7; by implication of animals also Gn 2:19; man is nepesh chayah, a living, breathing being Gn 2:7; elsewhere nepesh chayah is always of animals Gn 1:20, 24, 30; & 9:12, 15, 16."

---

“Man was created in God’s image.” In the Eden Narrative this comes into play in Gen. 3:22 where God say, “Behold, the ”man’ has become as one from a portion of Us, knowing good and evil.” God says it right there.Furthermore, the Deity described in the Gen. 1 creation account is not an anthropomorphic Deity. Therefore, the “image” and “likeness” of God would therefore be understood as pertaining to human consciousness: “Creativity and Knowledge”.

quote:

---

AM wrote: I do not have an objection with the Hebrew Eden Narrative. I do have a problem with the expositor interpretive English translation of the Hebrew Eden Text.

---

To begin with, if indeed the Hebrew Eden Narrative is perceived as being inspired by God, then a misleading translation of the Hebrew Text would be directly affecting God’s Word to Man. Do you agree? Furthermore, Pauline Christianity founded the entire reason for Jesus Christ coming to earth and dying on the cross on an interpretation of the Eden Narrative that was describing the “Fall of Man” and the “Corruption of the Natural world.” According to what I have found in the Eden Narrative, that Pauline Christian interpretation is in error, and I am trying to point out that translation error.

quote:

---

AM wrote: The rest of the miracles in the Scriptures may well have the same poetic ring to them, but I have not studied them to the same extent that I have researched the Hebrew Eden Text.

---

Yes. Whether I personally perceive one text or another as being “influenced by God” or not does not alter the fact that the Hebrew Tanakh and the Christian Holy Bible have had a strong hand in shaping the human and natural world in which I exist. These Hebrew and English Theological Literary Texts are in fact the most powerful pieces of literature ever to be composed and compiled.All the best,
Ger

bertot:Hold off on the incoming messages. Let me respond to one thing before you lay another on me.I'm going to take a break for a couple hours, and then I will respond to your last two messages. I am not personally "believing" anything. I am translating the Hebrew Test to the best of my ability and the Lexicographic and grammatical sources I have on hand. What I believe or do not believe plays no part in what I am interpres translating.I'll reply more fully in a couple hours.All the best,
Ger

Autunman writes I never said that there were not certain aspects of Good and evil that they were not aware of. It is not described as the tree of KNOWLEDGE, but the tree of knowledge of GOOD and Evil, there is a difference Eating of the tree, simply opened thier minds to all that was Good and Evil. In this respect they became like God, understanding things completley. they knew they were naked, but could understand commands before this.When viewing or interpreting the scriptures it is necessary to take in in all its parts. Doing so will allow for the best possible interpretations. Interpres is very good and it has its place but tere must be the aspect of common sense as well. When we view it form this respect we can see that God never delt with animals or gave specific instructions the way he did with these two people. Again would it seem reasonable to give a command to someone if they could understand it or condemem them if they failed to obey it.I think we have beat this into the ground. My only regret is that I wish other s had commented here. What do you say? My earlier question was, is it not possible that from the BHS text that this could be tken as literal as well. I know you percieve it as a poem, but does that disqualify it as literal completly and absolutley. I understand the implications you are advocating but the conclusions do not follow if it is more than a poem, Correct? Alrighty then.ThanksD Bertot

bertot: Deuteronomy 1:39 is the only place in the Hebrew OT were “knowing good and evil” is contextually defined. I will quote the NRSV of Deut. 1:39

quote:

---

The LORD says this, “And as for your little ones ... your children, who today do not yet know right{good} and wrong{evil} ...

---

{good} {evil} are my additionsWould this not apply to ha>adam prior to Gen. 3:6? Prior to partaking of the knowledge of good and bad ha>adam was like the “little ones” and “children” described in Deut. 1:39. Deut. 1:39 makes it extremely clear what not partaking of the fruit of the knowledge of good and bad indicates; the “little ones” and “children” and “ha>adam” had not yet reached the age of “reason” and “self-responsibility.”The Hebrew Eden Narrative is trying to convey this fact of life to you. The human archetype ha>adam denotes MANKIND, and mankind keeps judging mankind, and mankind keeps killing mankind, and Jesus said “Judge not” and “love your enemy” for God “is kind unto the unthankful and the evil.” Now, compare that to what I am trying to communicate to you. Don’t you see that this fits, that it’s congruent, and in agreement? How does it not fit? What two people? The woman was not even built at the time the command was given. The serpent was not yet formed from the ground at the time God issued the command.I have gone through the entire Hebrew Eden Narrative. I know the Orthodox rendition by heart. And, I also know the interpres translation intimately. I am trying to communicate to you what the Hebrew Eden Narrative conveys, and yet you will not let go of Orthodox Mythology long enough to allow me to explain. No, a just God would not condemn an entire species just because someone at the very beginning failed to obey Him. Jesus said, “For He {God} is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.” Furthermore, God was not condemning anyone, He was pointing out what the consequences of obtaining the knowledge of good and bad were. I can show you that that is what the Hebrew Text conveys. The composition of the Hebrew Eden Narrative was written as a “Creation Narrative”, not a Damnation-History Text. I wish other had participated also. However, I do not think that we have beaten this particular subject into the ground at all. You have not yet considered that the author composed the text so that the Narrative itself was describing the “Creation Process,” and not just composing a record of events. Think about it.

quote:

---

AM wrote: To begin with, if indeed the Hebrew Eden Narrative is perceived as being inspired by God, then a misleading translation of the Hebrew Text would be directly affecting God’s Word to Man. Do you agree? Furthermore, Pauline Christianity founded the entire reason for Jesus Christ coming to earth and dying on the cross on an interpretation of the Eden Narrative that was describing the “Fall of Man” and the “Corruption of the Natural world.” According to what I have found in the Eden Narrative, that Pauline Christian interpretation is in error, and I am trying to point out that translation error.

---

Literally finding dust on the ground after the whole surface of the ground is watered?Literally “forming” something out of dust from the ground?A literal tree of life and a literal tree of the knowledge of good and bad?One literal river being the headwaters of the literal Tigris and Euphrates rivers; the same literal Euphrates River described in Gen. 15:18?God literally searching for the “helper” among the brute animals first?God literally “building” a “weak woman” out of a human rib?A literal “weak woman” that God chooses to be the “helper”?A literal “talking serpent”?I could go on and on, but, in my opinion, no the Hebrew Eden Narrative pretty much has to be read as a Proverb, a poem, an allegory, and metaphorically, either that or as a poorly written myth. I’m not sure what you mean. Let me just say that in my opinion the Hebrew Eden Narrative is a Wisdom Text that is describing the early human race becoming agrarian {tilling the ground} and urban {chavvah=tent village for she is the mother of all inhabitants).We’ll see where this response takes us.All the best,
Ger

AM I was just messing with you alittle bit last night when you asked me not to post again and I did, i was seeing if you could take the heat.
You are always beating me down with your gigantic brain activity and your overwhelming post responses. What do you do, do you pop up at about 4am, feed the cows, then start on the posts. Do you have a farm much like that of Mr. Oliver Wendell Douglas, off of 'Green Acres', my favorite tv sitcom. I always dreamed of living in a place like that (hooterville), it sounded and looked lkie a lot of fun. Even if there were a lot of nutty people, I suppose I would fit right in.Any who, I will get to your responses in a little while.ThanksSam Drucker.

I cant remember, what it was. Was it two bangs and a kick, or two kicks and a bang to open the safe at Sam Druckers store, Hmmmm. No this would not apply in the case of Adam, for several reasons. 1. Adam was created as an Adult. 2. Children are no where in the scriptures told the consequences of there actions like that of Adam and Eve. Children do not have the capacity they did. I have demonstrated how it both fits and does not fit at the same time. You are mixing oranges with apples here, you live on a ranch, figure it out. You failing to see that Adams was a unique situation that no one else has experienced except himself and Eve, since that time. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to see that, communication is a two way street, how about applying the above quote to yourself? I have already admitted that if it were only a poem it would not effect the the overall scriptures as he word of God. I do not believe it is a poem, but atleast I am trying to see it from your position, Jerk, Just kidding holmes.More in a minute.Your friend,Eb Dawson

bertot: You wrote: I am truly trying to grasp what you are conveying to me. And I'm not trying to "mix oranges with apples" so to speak.What I am hearing is that the "Adam & Eve" experience has nothing what so ever to do with "actual humanity" except that they "deligerately disobeyed God's Command" so this "Loving God" then cursed not only them but ALL HUMANITY that descended from them. And, according to Paul, that is the principle reason that God came to humanity two thousand years ago as Jesus Christ, so that we who have heard of Jesus Christ have a chance to beleive in Jesus Christ and thus be saved from the curse of death that "Adam & Eve" and God brought into the natural world on planet earth.Am I hearing you correctly?All the best,
Ger

AM writes Well 'damnation' and 'hell fire', then. Just kidding there AM. Your still missing the point. Your definiton of justice,is not Gods definiton of justice, as much as you would like it to be. But a just God would make provisions, as he did through Jesus Christ to counter the condemnation that was pronounced in the beggining. You like to quote Jesus, how about applying this aspect of his life and work. He is a just God. "There is nnow no condemnation, to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.yes he is kind to the unthankful and to the evil, but let God do it his way, quit imposing your will on him.Also, what were the consequences of knowing good and evil? Given the rest of the OT, i again repeat myself that there is no reason to believe that it is not a literal situation, your examples notwithstanding. You simply will not let go of your humanistic stance to see that with God, all things are possible.I certainly could do the same thing with Gods word, every time I come to a passage that I dont agree with I simply turn it into a myth or fable, or something of tht sort, but that would not be a logical or scriptural way to proceed. Ok fine. I am looking forward to next installment.ThanksD bertot

No No, you are over applying what i am saying about Adam and Eve. There situation had everything to do with humanity. How do you explain Gods justice. there is also a very good indication here that man certainly could not have made up such a thning. Gods nature is such that it cannot tolerate sin. His decision as to what the peanalty for it is, is his alone. ther is overwhelning evidence for his existence and the scriptures as his word. However, there are somethings that we have to accept on some faith. Regardless of the consequences, I do know he is just in the respect that he has made more than adequate provisions to counter our stupidity. A person simply has to decide for themselves wehether evidence is enough to support that. If you do not, then that is your choice.D Bertot

Am I have got to get a bunch of stuff done, dont think that if I dont respond quickly i have abandoned you. I am truely enjoying our discussion, keep them coming Mr. Douglas.D Bertot