bertot:
I finally got caught up. Here is my response to your previous posts. I am sure I have not answered all your questions, but with any luck this response should give you enough information to formulate new questions as our dialogue continues.
bertot wrote:
I think my first question would be, does the rest of the BHS text set out the narrative of Adam and Eve in pretty much the same manner as these two verses.
Gen. 2:21 & 22 establish the BHS Hebrew Eden Narrative context which concludes, (according to my research), in Gen. 3:21.
I know you want to focus on these two verses first and that is fine. The reason I am asking for the rest of the narrative from the BHS text, is, that it might shed a whole lot of light on these two verses in connection with them being actual events verses a poem with no actual connection with reality.
Although the BHS Hebrew Eden Narrative is composed in Poetic, and Proverbial format, (according to my research), the content of this ancient Hebrew Wisdom Text is in
direct connection with actual human & natural reality.
Here is that “link” that you asked for. It is a very good site. graft2vine wrote:
quote:
Autumnman,
So you know Hebrew and translate yourself? What do you think of the concordant method? Here is a link to the interliner that I use:
Scripture4All - Greek/Hebrew interlinear Bible software
I think you said in another post that only the Septugiant mentions the Eden narrative.
The “Story” or “fable” or “myth” of “Adam & Eve” only exists in the Alesandrian-Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Tanakh {OT}. The “Eden Narrative” pertains to the Hebrew BHS Eden Proverbial/Poetic Text.
So my question would be that above. How much and to what extent are they similar. You postd a website once I believe that would allow me to read it for myself, but I have misplaced it, as I know it would be to much trouble to type it all out. I simply would like to see them both in thier entirety before we look at specfic verses and definitions of words out of isolated verses, if this is not to much trouble.
I have posted the web-site above; and here it is again:
Scripture4All - Greek/Hebrew interlinear Bible software I also have another site I can refer you to, but
this cite is mine, so I would rather wait to give you the link until we have become a little more familiar with the text.
Is that agreeable to you?
You bet.
AM quotes
And He took {vayiqach abbreviated form of laqach) one from His sides
What do you {AM} understand this statement to mean, "one of His sides"
quote:
And He took {{vayiqach abbreviated form of laqach) one {>achath) from His {God’s} sides {mitzeleo0thayv.
The Hebrew feminine noun traditionally translated “rib” in the above clause is
tzela0. This feminine noun is never used describe a human or brute animal “rib” anywhere in the Hebrew OT outside of the Eden Narrative. Furthermore, the human body {male & female} have exactly the same number of “ribs”: Twenty-four bones”twelve on each side”which enclose the chest of the human body.
No Rib Is Missing! If,
no rib is missing from the male human ribcage, then
no rib was ever taken from the male human ribcage!
The feminine noun
tzela0 is most commonly used in the Hebrew OT to denote “
a side. However, since the human body has only two sides to choose from, and both male and female human bodies have these two sides, this also strongly suggests that the feminine noun
tzela0 used in Gen. 2:21 & 22
is not referring to one of the human sides. Furthermore, the feminine noun is
plural,
tzale0oth, not dual
tzale0ayv.
This strongly suggests that it is God who is taking
one from His sides.
yhwh >elohiym =
YHWH plural God is taking one of his “plural” aspects of Himself which would correspond to the “helper” which God said the human archetype was in need of in Gen. 2:18. Because God’s Name is the Tetragrammaton, that signifies “four”, we can postulate that the
YHWH plural God would have “four”
tzale0oth =
sides: 1. Almighty; 2. Creative; 3. Destructive; 4. Eternal. It is the “Creative
tzela0 =
Side” of the plural God which God would bestow upon the “human flesh” beneath Her.
and He closely joined {vayiszegor: as a fog or mist) flesh beneath her {thachethenah literally, thachath=underneath, beneath, only in a “transferred sense: in place of, in stead of.
Alittle more explanation here as well.
God closely joined {His Creative Side} to the flesh {
basar beneath her. Here the masculine noun
basar =
flesh denotes the
five mortal senses of the human body: taste, touch, sight, hearing, smell. The verb root of the masculine noun
basar =
flesh is
basar =
tidings, information, intelligence, sensory perceptions. God is "The Most High", thus, the "creative side of God" closely joins to the human flesh "beneath her"; "her" referring to the feminine noun,
tzela0=
side.
quote:
AM wrote: And He builds {vayiben abbreviated (apocopated) form of banah) yhwh God, together with {>eth-) the side {hatzela0 definite article prefixed form of tzela0=side never used to denote a “rib” of man or beast) that He took {laqach) on account of {min preposition: from, on account of) the human archetype, into a support {le>ashah substantive: a support, to heal, solace; compare to “helper”),
Do you conclude from this portion, and it, in its context of the two verses, that he is refering indirectly to mans ability to reason and that is its meaning, that God, here means to convey in poetic form? If so, what brings you directly to that conclusion.
I do
not conclude that the Text “is referring to man’s ability to reason.” It is my opinion that the Hebrew Text is referring to man’s ability to
imagine & create.
I will take you through the context of the Hebrew Eden Narrative that leads me to the above conclusion.
Gen. 2:7 & 19 define the clause,
nepesh chayah as “
a breathing brute animal”. Lexicographically, the clause
nepesh chayah is only used to denote “
a breathing brute animal”.
Gen. 2:9 describes
the knowledge of good and evil {the human mental capacity of “reason”} as being possessed by the metaphorical “tree” which is in midst the garden along with the “tree of the life.” The human archetype does not possess this “knowledge” until Gen. 3:6.
Gen. 2:18 describes God saying that the human archetype is “not good” and in need of “a helper.”
Gen. 2:20 states that this “helper as opposite to the brute animal human archetype was not found among the other brute animals.” In order for the human archetype to become “opposite to the other brute animals” it must possess the distinctly human ability to “
imagine & create.”
I dont really see that aspect of mans attributes implied here. But I could be missing something ofcourse though. Will the rest of the narrative reveal this without any real shadow of a doubt.
In my opinion,
yes!
Is this the conclusion that very many people have come to, is it a widely held view?
This “view” is
not “widely held.” However, there are a number of quotes in the NT Gospels, and a very focused quote in the Gospel According to Thomas, that strongly point to “Jesus of Nazareth” held this view of the Hebrew Eden Narrative.
quote:
and He brings her unto the “ego of blood” {ha>dam= ha=the, > = first person pronoun prefix “I” {Heb. “anokiy”; Greek/Latin “ego”) of dam=blood
"Her", here being an attribute of God that he wants to give to man not a literal female, in your view, correct?
Correct! The 3rd person feminine pronoun, “her”, pertains to the feminine noun
>ashah=
a support. God “builds a support” for the human brute animal consciousness = “the human consciousness of blood.”
Is this the meaning of Adam? "ego of blood"?
The Hebrew masculine noun
>adam means
humanity, mankind, the human species. The Hebrew masculine noun
>adam is derived from the verb root,
>adam which means “
to be red”, i.e. “blood red.”
If not what exacally does that mean and what is its application?
The human brute animal consciousness is being figuratively denoted by
ha>adam =
the ego/consciousness of blood. The human ability to
imagine & create is being figuratively denoted by the feminine noun
>ashah = the “support” which God has bestowed on the human “flesh”, and this God-built
>ashah = the “support” will be figuratively denoted by the feminine noun
>ishah = “
woman/wife for she is the
procreative aspect of humankind.
I hope this brings up to a point that will enable you to ask more questions regarding this view of the Hebrew Eden Narrative.
Sorry it took me so long to reply.
All the best,
Ger
™ Version 4.2