God removed a CELL from Adam?

First off, thank you all for the kind words, I'm honestly flattered! I'm genually happy with your feeling oblidged to thank me for simply sharing what wonderful a world lies behind the veil of knowledge, good and evil left aside. If you take the Bible and apply knowledge, it is a remarkable piece of literature, unmatched anywhere. As the record goes, "I am merely a dwarf standing on the sholder of giants", but to me, this piece of information that I give in the OP, is or should have been common knowledge, and anyone baseing their entire lives on the 'book of books' should be able to read the text in it's original languages and be able to translate that into their own language on their own or be in the power to question any questionable translation or interpretation. I am not fluent in any of the ancient languages involved, but I know how to maneuver through dictionaries and lexica and get a decent overview of the lexical specima, and know enough about linguistics to understand syntax and gramatics &c, so at least I have a slim chance of actually knowing what I read in this or that translation of the Bible.

That aside, I have a few remarks to the replies in this thread, I will try to explain my sentiments:

#1: Adam (man and woman) was a clone (or were clones) of God.
-- The 'manwoman' Adam of Genesis 1, was a direct clone of Elohim. However, in Genesis 2, Eve doesn't seem to be a direct clone of Adam, because of the introduction of sexual genera in this second out of two creation stories found in Genesis. Firstly: Genesis 1 is a separate standalone myth, just as the myth of Genesis 2f is. This reflects the different traditions connected to the two major divisions in Judaism: Judah and Israel, the two kingdoms. Secondly: The original Masoretic text is written without vowels and syntactical marks and all in lower-case. The complete Torah is written as one single winding sentance with no spaces, commas or dots or even vowels ("The Old Serpent"-- ring a bell?). Thus, the text basically says that Elohim created Adam as both man and woman. A hermaphrodite clone of the Elohim in other words.

#2: The bible says gods, not God, created humans.
-- As some of you have noticed, both Elohim and Adam are plural words. However, don't confuse this with modern Germanic gognates and forms. Heb. 'Elohim' is the royal 'we'. Just like the queen of England say 'we' instead of 'I', or something along the lines of "The queen would like to thank…", or when the KJV says Thy, Thine and Thou &c or in German when you say "Sie" instead of "du" to strangers and officials. Note how when the text says "Let us create humans"-- the verb 'create' here or 'Bara' which is normally tuned to the subject, in this case a plural intensive word (Elohim), but here it isn't. Thus, Elohim is to be treated as singular, the -im suffix has to do with God representing the 'Powers of the Universe', not it being a plural group of gods or an assembly of gods or whatever dreamers around the world can dream up to explain their feelings connected to sertain Hebrew letters arranged on a piece of parchment.

#3: Eve is of lesser perfection compared to Adam.
-- Bollocks! Life as we know it is technology (just wrote technomoly, oh my). Eve is an upgrade of Adam imho. and unlike Adam, no surgery was needed, since I interpret the text to mean God gave Eve a unique design. A design that wasn't yet fully engeneered at the time Adam was let loose. The Greeks even explained the introduction of woman as Zeus' genial plan to subdue and completely dominate Man. Zeus designed Pandora and sent her down to Earth with a certain jar or box under her arm. Man is like a tractor. Woman is like a spaceship.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


It doesn't match up with what we know about prenatal biological development. We all start as females, somewhere in the first days of development a hormonal switch is thrown if the eventual child is to develop as a male.

Looks more like 'god' took a 'cell' from woman and turned it into a man.

reply to post by FyreByrd


We don't start out as females or males.

We start out as a clean slate, think of it as an unpainted doll that has the sexual features of both men and women( Nipples for guys, penis " clitoris" for women).

Then we get assigned our sex and the already present features of either male or female become pronounced.

OrphanApology

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.

There actually is an English word for woman that is unique for women. 'Queen' is the word I am refering to. It is a gognate of the Norwegian word 'Kvinne' which means 'a female adult', or rather the old Norse 'Kvendi' or similar with the same meaning.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


This is from etymology.com:

queen (n.) Look up queen at Dictionary.com
Old English cwen "queen, female ruler of a state, woman, wife," from Proto-Germanic *kwoeniz (cf. Old Saxon quan "wife," Old Norse kvaen, Gothic quens), ablaut variant of *kwenon (source of quean), from PIE *gwen- "woman, wife" supposedly originally "honored woman" (cf. Greek gyné "a woman, a wife;" Gaelic bean "woman;" Sanskrit janis "a woman," gná "wife of a god, a goddess;" Avestan jainish "wife;" Armenian kin "woman;" Old Church Slavonic zena, Old Prussian genna "woman;" Gothic qino "a woman, wife; qéns "a queen").

The original sense seems to have been "wife," specialized by Old English to "wife of a king." In Old Norse, still mostly of a wife generally, e.g. kvan-fang "marriage, taking of a wife," kvanlauss "unmarried, widowed," kvan-riki "the domineering of a wife." English is one of the few Indo-European languages to have a word for "queen" that is not a feminine derivative of a word for "king." The others are Scandinavian: Old Norse drottning, Danish dronning, Swedish drottning "queen," in Old Norse also "mistress," but these also are held to be ultimately from male words, e.g. Old Norse drottinn "master."

Still property.

Chamberf=6
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.

edit on 1/12/2014 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

Fair and well. The question in the title of this thread is of the rhetorical kind. I'm just messing with your head

I am aware of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2f are two separate stories. Genesis 1 is actually a song BTW. Apparently the pillars of Solomon's temple shook when the Asaphim applied David's melody to it. The Cohenim still sing it to this day, even in diaspora. Dear lord…

OrphanApology
reply to post by 13th Zodiac

 

Both of you are wrong.

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

Nonsense, you can keep your Wifi theory. Absolute dribble.

OrphanApology
reply to post by Utnapisjtim

 

Still property.

Try saying that to a proper viking fruentimmer. I'd say good luck with that and wait for the kewl doppler-effect these women are able to turn men into on their way to oblivion in timeless space. Good luck indeed

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


This was discussion about etymology of words not feelings of people who use the words.

I am a lesbian so my personal feelings toward the word "woman" is that I am certainly no wife of man.

However, that doesn't change the origin of the word woman.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


I don't know. If Enochwasright was still here he could tell us what he thinks as he was big into the hebrew meanings and what some scripture actually stood for.

I have always viewed it this way...whatever he did, it was like an explosion that multiplied into many beings with opposite genitals. Male and female.

Took the rib and used it like a magic wand? lol

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


Hello and welcome to the truth!!!!

These guys are way ahead of you, and on the same track: thechronicleproject.org...

Given your current research I think you'll love the link and what they have discovered and revealed with the retranslation.

reply to post by OrphanApology


Sorry if I offended you, but the old Norse women weren't anybody's wife. Having children was about taking responsibility, not being sold to a sweaty Barbarian. For instance, a viking woman would be in charge of the household, including property like slaves and to important extent also economic assets. She would carry the keys in her belt, and if her husbond (lit. 'House-peasant') or anyone else just as much as touched them, she was in legal right to do him off at the spot or bring him to Ting (court of law) and have him judged for treason or worse. Scandinavian women can still be quite a challenge. They can be vicious and mean, like serpents, the dragons I've loved and lost. Take care

Utnapisjtim

"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"

When was the trance lifted? I mean, does the text actually say that this supernatural trance was lifted, or are we meant to assume that someone could snap out of something like that on their own?

What if everything that happens after that trance was induced, including us, is in the supernatural dream of Adam?

Just a thought.

reply to post by MamaJ


Where did the OP make that claim?

Everything he's posted aligns with the re-translation being done by the wonderful crew at The Chronicle Project.

Just wait until the OP realises, if he checks out the link, that there are two entities.....The Ruler of All (GOD) and the Originators (Watchers)....who partake in the terraforming of planet Earth. That's right.....terraforming!!!

The work done by them (The Chronicle Project team) has resolved EVERY conflict I've had with the Genesis stories!!!! That's saying something.

reply to post by LightAssassin


I used the mechanical translation(™ ?) simply because it was the first and best direct word for word translation I found. Since I haven't read the other verses' translations on the site, I can not approve of the rest of it, but as for Genesis 2:21, it was an OK translation. I could have done it using dictionaries, but I'm lazy. I regret it if I unknowingly promoted some sect or cult of evil linguists and dark magicians, but as for 2:21, it's allright. Sounds a bit like a fine project at first glance.

The translation uses the term Trance for sleep. I'd use the term narcosis. Same same.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim



Utnapisjtim, the content you share of ADAM & EVE is very interesting. @ times I try to reach back and see.
To 1 if today biological practices and processes & testing along with genetic modifying of crops livestock(hormones etc.) & BLK LB chimeras is done, its not a far reach to consider the abilities of the LORD GOD CREATOR however the awareness interprets "THE" making EVE from parts of ADAM. As said the rib material-tissue an area close to the human heart and so containing possible different genetic/conscious(feelings) features as opposed to using say his finger. These features may of made here more compatible for ADAMS then mind state as opposed to his = said to be first wife LILITH, maybe that's why it mentions women mentioned more then once in Genesis? So to reiterate 1 fee your OP may come closer then some may think.

1 doesn't doubt the potentials for this or other genetic practicing done by THE LORD. ADAM & EVE mankind's genetic parents over time evolving as man today.

Now there is a story of LILITH in the book of Tobit. LILITH niece of INANNA/Ishtar and daughter of ERESHKIGAL Queen of the netherworld, ADAMS said to be first wife... What would man today be if they had offspring ADAM and LILITH? Perhaps there was AN plan of many that included these 2.

NAMASTE*******

Ophiuchus 13
What would man today be if they had offspring ADAM and LILITH? Perhaps there was AN plan of many that included these 2.

Who said they didn't, and if so, is it a credible source? The demonizing of Lillith is She is the Night Owl, the Seerin in the Dark. She will find refuge someday, if she hasn't already.

LightAssassin
reply to post by Utnapisjtim

 

Hello and welcome to the truth!!!!

These guys are way ahead of you, and on the same track: thechronicleproject.org...

Given your current research I think you'll love the link and what they have discovered and revealed with the retranslation.

I couldn't get past the first page of your link because it said this "new translation" is based on some "new code" they found in the text.
Protect your minds folks.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


We ALL* find it eventually as our transitions are experienced and learned from 1 feels Utnapisjtim.

NAMASTE*******

reply to post by Bone75


And deny ignorance.

It's fine, you can judge a book by its cover.....but they go to the absolute finest detail on how they went about it, and discovered the code, and even give you the tools to participate.

At the very least it's genuine research by modern, YOUNG, scholars!!!

I guess you ignored (IGNORANCE) their advice:

Welcome to the Chronicle Project Home Page
If you are new to the SDH System for Ancient Hebrew Text Restoration, please read our research notes on page 2 ( research notes and dictionary link found at the top of this page) before proceeding. This will inform you regarding our discovery and help you understand how the system works.

Here's their research notes (but let's be honest....you've already shown your ignorance!!!)