God removed a CELL from Adam?

Genesis 2:21 goes as follows:

"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept : and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof" (KJV)

Now if we take a look at what the verse says in Hebrew, things get quite bizarre, for not only does the verse discribe God as removing a CELL (not a rib), but it also possibly shows how Adam initially packed a double set of genitals, male and female-- or what is discribed may possibly even include divine intercourse or even displaying YHWH as being female(!):

"And Yhwh the Elohiym made a trance fall upon the human and he slept, and he took a unit from his ribs and he shut the flesh under her" From: www.mechanical-translation.org...

Firstly, the word translated RIB here, is Heb. TSELA. It can mean rib, but also includes the exact same semantic meaning as Lat. CELLA or CELL in modern English. Infact, etymologically, Tsela (Heb) and Cella (Lat) is the same word, meaning a CHAMBER, as seen in 'monastary cell' for instance.

Secondly, "the flesh instead thereof" is mechanically translated into "the FLESH under HER". The very word translated Flesh here is Heb. BASAR, which is basically a word discribing the male genitals.

I am aware that suddenly changing RIB into CELL is probably concidered an anachronism, since not even the old Romans would use the word CELLA like we do today, and the ancient Hebrews possibly knew nothing of any cells in it's modern semantic meaning all together. But, knowing that the largest human cell is the egg cell (and the smallest being it's counterpart), you can actually see it with your naked eye, without even magnifying it, it may not be as absurd as it initially sounds. The ancients certainly knew of birds' and reptiles' eggs &c, so to go from there to getting the idea that the system must be somewhat similar in humans and other animals is not really absurd.

On a side note, apparently the (seventh century AD) Muslim Koran discribes the initial stages of a foetus' development from fertilising and onwards, but I don't know the exact suras, perhaps someone here could provide them?

Anyway, Genesis 2:21 in it's original language has way more to tell us about the creation of Eve than King James or any other modern translator has been able to provide us with. Why does none of our modern translations contain more info of what I discribe in this OP, at least in a footnote or two? They don't, and it's a shame, and there we probably have it right there: SHAME, the mental disorder Westerners are indoctrinated with. Sex is no no in our culture, accompanied by systematical denial, lies and pelican-stories.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


Remarkable. If this is accurate, and nobody has said it before, you've just rewritten history.

Literally proud to give you this thread's first flag and star.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


Some people will say you mean Adam (man, plural, he and she) may have cloned himself to create Eve. Or was it more he was able to split a cell or chamber off of something else and make a woman. Please pass along those instructions and I'll get right to work.

Wow, you wanna get all the girls into an uproar, just call them clones.....

That's what the good books says, woman is OF man, that which is created cannot be greater than that which created it....

Bla Bla Bla....

Just kidding around, please don't be offended wimmenz.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


Why would god take the easy route and clone someone...are they suggesting that "God" was other than what he is believed to be?

reply to post by Utnapisjtim



Thanks for supplying this more literal translation. In my reading of Genesis, along with just basic scientific common sense, I had come to the conclusion that (obviously) it was the DNA from the rib that was taken and used to create Eve.

As far as Adam having double or both sex organs, I believe that is a bit of a stretch, based on the info you provided. I think what it comes down to, is that Genesis is an attempt to describe something that our brains really aren't capable of grasping.

Aleister
reply to post by Utnapisjtim

 

Remarkable. If this is accurate, and nobody has said it before, you've just rewritten history.

Literally proud to give you this thread's first flag and star.

First, the Bible must constitute as actual history. As far as I'm aware, that's a resounding negative.

Utnapisjtim


Why does none of our modern translations contain more info of what I discribe in this OP, at least in a footnote or two?

Any thoughts?

Because all of the modern "translations" are re-writings of the King James Bible, not actual translations of the original texts.
The problems stem from flawed translation techniques that haven't been updated in hundreds of years.
Hope that answers your question.

AfterInfinity

Aleister
reply to post by Utnapisjtim

 

Remarkable. If this is accurate, and nobody has said it before, you've just rewritten history.

Literally proud to give you this thread's first flag and star.

First, the Bible must constitute as actual history. As far as I'm aware, that's a resounding negative.

edit on 12-1-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

What? No, I didn't mean that. I meant that a portion of religious people take that part literally, that God walked up to Adam, yanked a rib out of the guy, and it became a woman? I don't think so, but they do. Now to find out that the word hasn't been translated correctly. That's what I meant, it changes that narrative and thus that history. History is a multi-faceted endless gemstone, and that facet constitutes a very large belief system, although it sounds like neither of us buy into it.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


So are you implying that Eve could have been an egg cell removed from Adam (Amanda) due to him/her being a hermaphrodite or was Eve a cell taken from the rib that provided the DNA to clone her?

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


Well obviously like many religious believers you have just change history in you own words, so please let rewrite the entire book of the ancient Israeli recollections of their humble beginnings of creations and lineage and make now sense of this next, quote.

'And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.... So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them' (Genesis 1:26-27).

You know what that means right? that how could be a clone when both of male and female were created in the image of the gods as it refers to more than one, no cloning and by the way this is one of the most controversial quotes of the bible as it makes God and the Gods look like hermaphrodite for carrying both sexes.

edit on 12-1-2014 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)

I was taught that it was mistranslated. But cell is not quite right either. What was taken was a chromosome, X. That is why women have only X (XX) and men have X and Y (XY).

Well it is why they are called woman.
Woman means "of man"

But Adam's description when he first meets her is beautifully romantic, the boy fell head over heels for her and did everything to protect her and stayed with her even after she was tricked and they were forced out of Eden, Adam never left her side.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


And this line of questioning (mis-translations in general) is one of the things that got me uninvited from my Youth Group so many moons ago. But I'm not bitter, because if that hadn't happened I wouldn't be here reading this right now and feeling completely validated in my questioning these very things in the first place lol.

As usual, fantastic thread Utnapisjtim!

Of course this brings the "Let US create man in OUR image" bit under the microscope yet again. I have heard that early belief systems thought of their "gods" as hermaphrodites, therefor, creating mankind in their image would be making Adam a hermaphrodite... thus leading to a rather ineffective way to "be fruitful and multiply". Even a hermaphrodite would need a partner to procreate.

Now to retranslate the entire hot mess from it's original language... whoa, what a concept!

reply to post by Cito


Of course he stuck with her. It's not really that romantic considering she was the only woman in the whole world. You know that joke of "I wouldn't date you if you were the last man in the world?"...

Yeah....exactly.

She could have looked like a cross between Rosie O'donell and Danny Trejo for all it's worth. Not like Adam had any other choices.

In regard to the OP, the bible steals quite a bit from other creation myths. If you want to start getting literal if Eve was a clone then Adam would have either been a hermaphrodite or a female that used Parthenogenesis.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


This is actually one of my favorite things in the Bible because it shows a knowledge far above what they had or we even had up until recently.
The short ribs....soft little ribs at the bottom of the rib cage are not attached to the cage itself and if removed will grow back. So when God removed this rib....it grew back. Now it gets even more interesting. These short ribs are encased in a protective sack and that sack has to be sown back up to heal correctly and to re-grow the rib. The verse hints at this very thing. Also, these little ribs carry a complete set of building blocks to create new life....it contains all of the human DNA to make a new human with.
This is one of the verses that really speaks to me about the Bibles truth not the other way around.

Cito
Well it is why they are called woman.
Woman means "of man

Rubbish, Woman does not mean of Man. It means man with a WOMB. WOMB-MAN = WOMAN.

IrishCream
reply to post by Utnapisjtim

 

And this line of questioning (mis-translations in general) is one of the things that got me uninvited from my Youth Group so many moons ago. But I'm not bitter, because if that hadn't happened I wouldn't be here reading this right now and feeling completely validated in my questioning these very things in the first place lol.

As usual, fantastic thread Utnapisjtim!

Of course this brings the "Let US create man in OUR image" bit under the microscope yet again. I have heard that early belief systems thought of their "gods" as hermaphrodites, therefor, creating mankind in their image would be making Adam a hermaphrodite... thus leading to a rather ineffective way to "be fruitful and multiply". Even a hermaphrodite would need a partner to procreate.

Now to retranslate the entire hot mess from it's original language... whoa, what a concept!

Well your onto the right track, but I've just finished a book that addresses the "translations" of the Old Testament. Firstly the book, "The Genius of the Few" by Christian and Barbara Joy O'Brien is an outstanding book in that it drills way down to exactly what the Old Testament said. For instance the word "Heaven" literally means just "higher ground", now mention the word Heaven to anybody and you know what they will imagine and say.

This book also addresses translations of the Old Testament, book of Enoch, the Torah etc. They also address the Yahweh/Elohim, and in most bibles the name change to Lord or God is the deception. Also Elohim in Hebrew means "three or more", so can I suggest you get the book, it will astound you. It's only available at Edmund Marriage' web site or Laurence Gardner' old web site.

reply to post by 13th Zodiac



Both of you are wrong.

Woman comes from "Wifman" which actually means "Wife of Man".

Women in the English language are the property of males.

Woman
Female
She

Women don't have any words all of their own and at least in the context of modern language are simply add ons or property of their male counterparts.

"Police Woman" is the funniest one because it would mean "Police Wife of Man" if you got into too deeply.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim

I am aware that suddenly changing RIB into CELL is probably concidered an anachronism, since not even the old Romans would use the word CELLA like we do today, and the ancient Hebrews possibly knew nothing of any cells in it's modern semantic meaning all together.

Evolution and development of languages being what it is, your above quote seems to answer your own question.

Plus, in the first few chapters of Genesis there are two separate creation stories.