VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:27:11 12/20/02 Fri
Author: schwabra
Author Host/IP: dialup-67.29.192.235.Dial1.Cincinnati1.Level3.net / 67.29.192.235
Subject: I agree, but
In reply to: PAUL 's message, "There doesnt have to be a way to explain." on 11:12:58 12/20/02 Fri

They did not "add" to the original, and the newer story became a way to teach the subtleties of the Hebrew in a way the literal reading could not to children of future generations.

There is an accepted complexity that allows an interpretation to be taught as long as it remains true to the original text. So, the words could provide the basis for Lillith, even if it is not expressly there.

In the perfection of the text itself the ability to teach everything can be found. The case of Lillith express that man and woman were created equal (this can also be found without Lillith).

I agree that both alleged stories are told in differing levels of detail.

The name "Adam" does not come into use until the second half of Gen 2:20. Before this ha-adam is used. It could be said to mean "the man" or "the human." "Adam" in Hebrew means both, and if it was used as a name, it would not be "ha-adam."

Woman isn't named until Gen 3:20.

Originally the description of male and female is not common, but obvious. There is the "one that pierces" and "the one that is pierced." Forgive the translations they need more words in English. These words occur in Gen 1:27 when God creates both "one the pierces" and "one that is pierced." The obvious indication is that the only difference comes from their relative sexual function, and in no way implies dominance or their common origin.

In Gen 2:21-23 tends to show that the two equal halves were merely separated, not that only a "rib" was used to create the woman. This is the first time the words that are literally "male" and "female" in common language are used. (Ish and Ishah in Hebrew) The word most commonly translated as "rib" also means "side" or "half."

So you see how the idea that women should be lesser than men could have entered the translations as using "rib" to show that women are not equal but of a lesser part of man.

This is not the only place this occurs in translation, but you can see the imperfection of the translation, although it could be addressed in commentary (but usually is not).

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.