In the table below, we see that the Targum’s substitute att אתת for ishshah אשה in the Genesis Creation Account.
In Fuerst’s Lexicon p. 157, it states that ishshah is equivalent to ashsh אשש, and Davies Lexicon p. 71 & 73 indicates that att אתת is the Chaldee form of the Hebrew ashsh אשש. In Gesenius’s Hebrew Lexicon p. 84, אשש means ‘found, establish, show yourselves firm’. In Fuerst’s Lexicon ** p. 167, and Davies’ Lexicon p. 71, אשש means 1 ‘to be powerful, strong, to make strong, firm, to establish’, derivitives include the ish איש (a form of esh אש), or 2 ‘to glow, to burn’, Fuerst’s Lexicon indicates it is comp. Aram. את, derivatives are אשה,אש, and אשת.
In my analysis of ishshah אשה in Fact #145, I concluded it means ‘mighty toward fire’, because it is the same as ishsheh אשה (Strong’s 801 65 occurrences) that means ‘offering by fire, made by fire’, that in Numbers 28:9 has a sweet aroma to Yahweh, and the root is the noun esh אש (Strong’s 784) that means ‘a fire’, with the he ה suffix that ‘expresses the concept of movement toward’, thus ishshah and ishsheh mean ‘toward fire’. Since Yahweh יהוה is like a consuming fire (Exodus 3:2 & 24:17), it isn’t a stretch to conclude ishshah and ishsheh mean ’mighty toward Yahweh’.
The Lexicon’s give the traditional meaning for ishshah אשה as ‘woman, wife’, which simply identifies a female personage, and fails to encapsulate her power and close relationship with Yahweh. This broader meaning is found in Davies’ Lexicon p. 66, where it states that ishshah אשה also means ‘to be firm’, and ‘fig. to heal’, in Gesenius’s Hebrew Lexicon p. 77-8, where it says ishshah אשה also means ‘their fire’, or ‘an offering made by fire . . . means to friendly relations betw. God & man’, or ‘support’ (אשיותיה only found in Jer 50:15 where it is translated ‘her foundation(s)/pillars’), and in Fuerst’s Lexicon p. 157, where it says that ishshah אשה also means ‘to be firm, close, firmly fitted together’. It is obvious that both ishshah and att were translated ‘woman’ or ‘wife’ to support the traditional account that the female was created from and for the male, disquising her true nature.
In the TO, the basic form of ishshah is אתתא in Gen 2:22, 23, 3:1, 4, 6, 13 x 2, & 15, with the aleph א suffix that in Aramaic indicates the possessive ‘our’. When created in Gen 2:22 Yahweh gods called her ‘our mighty toward fire’, then in Gen 2:23 Adam and Satan do the same, perhaps revealing a battle for the heart of the ‘mighty toward fire’. The ‘serpent’, Adam and Satan, claim possession in Gen 3:1, and precede to trick her into breaking Yahweh’s command to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In Gen 3:2, 12 & 16 the yod after the aleph in איתתא may indicate a corruption of the female (however ishshah in the ST doesn’t change form in these verses) , after which Yahweh gods call her ‘your mighty fire’ אתתך in Gen 3:17 and Adam and Eve leave the garden of Eden, no longer with Yahweh gods to provide for and protect them.
The forms in which att אתת is found in the Samaritan Targum on Tanakh.info, אתה in Gen 2:22, אתהא in Gen 2:23, אתאה in Gen 3:1, 15 & 16, are not found in any Chaldee Lexicon, and they do not match the forms found Samaritanische Pentateuch version die Genesis in der Hebraischen edited by Moritz Heidenheim, where all occurrences are in the form אתתה except Gen 3:17 which is in the form אתתך, with the possessive pronoun ‘your’, on which all the text are in agreement. As a result, we can’t be certain whether the text should contain the possessive prefix ‘his’ in Gen 2:24, 25, 3:8, 20, 21, & 4:1, or not.
In Gen 3:20 of the HB and TO, Adam ‘called (qara קרא)’ her (ishshah/att translated ‘wife’ in this verse) ‘life-giver (chavvah חוה translated ‘Eve’)’, but in the ST, Adam ‘cried/lamented/complained (zaaq זעק)’ her appointed name ‘life-giver’. The word qara, makes it appear that Adam was a god, calling creation into existence the way the gods (elohim) did in Gen 1:5, 8, & 10, but zaaq reveals that Adam was upset with the females power to create life, a more likely scenario.
From the beginning of time, the fact that females have the ability to bear offspring has caused men great angst. Procreation – carrying on their lineage is important to many men, especially powerful ones who desire an heir, but before the advent of DNA testing, they could never be 100% certain a child was theirs – a rather dis-empowering state of affairs.
In looking at the History of the Hebrew Bible, the Masoretic and Samaritan texts, it becomes apparent that there are very divergent opinions on the accuracy and reliability of all the source text of the Hebrew Bible, leaving us no option but investigate the matter for ourselves.
Having studied the Hebrew text of Gen 1:1 to 2:24, we are in a better position to compare the text of the Targums for similarities and differences, to see if they differ from our original interpretation. We learned some interesting facts in the History of Hebrew Language, the Hebrew Bible and the Targums, which will help us with our study going forward.
We will use the following Chaldee Lexicons (free in pdf format on archive.org) to analyze and translate the Targum text:
Lee’s Lexicon, short for ‘A Lexicon of Hebrew, Chaldee, and English’ by Samuel Lee, 1840
Fuerst’s Lexicon, short for ‘A Hebrew & Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament’ by Dr Julius Fuerst, 1885
Davies’ Lexicon, short for ‘A Compendious and Complete Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament’ by Benjamin Davies, 1879
Gesenius’s Hebrew Lexicon, short for ‘Gesenius’s Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament’ translated by Edward Robinson 1907
Gesenius’s Chaldee Lexicon, short for ‘Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures’ translated by S P Tregelles 1857
Harkavy’s Dictionary, short for ‘Students’ Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary to the Old Testament’ by A Harkavy 1914
In addition, we will consult with the books Christological Aramaic Grammar by Dr. Gary Staats, and A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic by Alger F. Johns, to assist with Aramaic grammar, prefixes and suffixes.
We will begin comparing the names/titles used for the male and female in Genesis 1 to 4:1 found in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible (HB), the Targum Onkelos (TO), and Samaritan Targum (ST). We will compare the ST text found on Tanakh.info with the Samaritanische Pentateuch version die Genesis in der Hebraischen edited by Moritz Heidenheim, 1884. Then we will incorporate the comparison of the text into our study beginning with Gen 2:25. After we are complete Genesis 3, we will go back and compare the text of Gen 1:1 to 2:24.
In his article The Samaritan Pentateuch, http://classic.net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Pentateuch,%20The%20Samaritan author J. E. H. Thompson presents the history of the Samaritan Pentateuch. The Greek’s knew of the Samaritan Pentateuch in the 1st century AD – “Origen knew of it”, “Eusebius of Caesarea in his Chronicon compares the ages of the patriarchs before Abraham in the Septuagint with those in the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Massoretic Text”, and “Cyril of Jerusalem notes agreement of Septuagint and Samaritan in Gen 4:8” (I 1). The Samaritan Pentateuch must have been written at the same time as the Targum Onkelos and Jonathon.
Thompson states in his introduction, the fact that the Samaritan community in Nablus had a “recension of the Pentateuch which differs in some respects from the Massoretic has been long recognized as important.” The Nablus roll was examined by Dr. Mills who indicated it “has the appearance of very great antiquity, but is wonderfully well preserved” (II 1), “the Jews admit that the character in which the Samaritan Pentateuch is written is older than their square character” (II 2), it is written in the same Aramaic “in which the Jewish Targums were written, sometimes called Chaldee” (V).
Thompson says the Samaritan Pentateuch was missing for a millennium, until 1616 when a copy was purchased in Damascus by Pietro de la Valle, in 1623 presented to the Paris Oratory, then published in the Paris Polyglot, by Morinus, a priest of the Oratory, who emphasized the difference between it and the Massoretic Text, to have the church intervene to settle which was Scripture, and a fierce controversy resulted (I 2). The controversy makes it challenging to find unbiased opinions about the Samaritan Targum.
In assessing the Relation of the Samaritan Recension to the Masoretic Text and to the Septuagint (III), Thompson criticizes Gesenius’s assessment of the differences because it was “founded on the assumption that the Samaritan Pentateuch is the later” (III 1), and “the assumption of Gesenius and of such Jewish writers as Kohn that the Massoretic text is always correct due to mere prejudice” (III 1. 1 c). He classifies the variations as being due to either accident or intention, providing examples each in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Massoretic Text, and the Septuagint and Peshitta (III 1 1 & 2). In his review of the hypothesises (III 2), Thompson states “One has only to compare the Samaritan, Septuagint and Massoretic Text of any half a dozen consecutive chapters in the Pentateuch to prove . . . neither is dependent on the others.”
Thompson provides a list of recommended books on the Samaritan’s and the Samaritan Pentateuch, all of which can be found in pdf on Archive.org:
The Samaritan script is found in the Paris and London polyglots. Walton’s text in the London Polyglot is transcribed in square characters by Blayney, 1790. (See the paragraph below which contains Abraham Tal’s concern about amendments made by Walton to the Samaritan text published in the London Polyglot in 1657.)
Three Months’ Residence at Nablus and an Account of the Modern Samaritans by Rev. John Mills, 1864.
Fragments of a Samaritan Targum by Nutt, 1874.
The Samaritans, the Earliest Jewish Sect by J. A. Montgomery, 1907.
The Samaritan Pentateuch and Modern Criticism by J. Iverach Munro, 1911.
In Abraham Tal’s rendering of the event in The Samaritan Targum to the Pentateuch, Its Distinctive Characteristics and Its Metamorphosis, he confirms the Samaritan Targum was found by Pietro della Vale in the Samaritan community of Damascus, who brought it to Rome in 1616, and nearly 30 years later, in 1645, it was published by Morinus in the sixth volume of the Paris Polyglot. Since this agrees with Thompson’s account, we can be fairly confident this information is accurate.
In the same paper, Tal alleges that Walton made many amendments to the Samaritan text published in the London Polyglot in 1657, and Walton’s text was used in the Das samaritanische Targum zum Pentateuch published by A. Brull, even though it had been copied in 1514, after Aramaic was no longer spoken in the Samaritan community, and the scribes unfamiliar with the language of the text. These charges are addressed in the Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the Right Rev. Brian Walton, D. D. (1821) which includes Dr. Walton’s Own Vindication of the London Polyglot which is available on archive.org (in pdf) or purchased for a reasonable price from Amazon. Given the differing opinions, we must test the text and come to our own conclusions, but this is always the case regardless.
That biased opinions exist about the Samaritan text should come as no surprise, since the conflict between the Jews and the Samaritans may go back to “the time of Judges (1100 – 1025 BCE) . . . the beginning of the Samaritan Schism” according to David Steinberg in The Origin and Nature of the Samaritans and their Relationship to Second Temple Jewish Sects. Steinberg reveals that the foundation of their conflict is their common heritage with the Samaritan’s considering themselves to be direct descendants of the line of Aaron, whereas the Jews consider the Samaritans to be gentiles.
The conflict between the Jews and Samaritans is evident in the New Testament. The Jews had a negative attitude towards Samaritan’s, even accusing Yahshua of being one in John 8:48. The Samaritans did not receive Yahshua on his way to Jerusalem because he was a Jew in Luke 9: 51 – 56. Both Jews and Samaritans were conditioned by their priests and leaders to hate and avoid contact with each other.
It is a sin to show favouritism James 2:9, God does not show favouritism Acts 10:34, all are equal before Yahweh Gal 3:28. In his parable of the ‘good Samaritan’, Yahshua spoke of a Samaritan showing mercy for a man who had been robbed and beaten, and he commanded his disciples to ‘do the same’ in Luke 10: 30 – 37. When Yahshua healed ten lepers, only a Samaritan, a foreigner, returned to thank him, to whom it said “your faith has made you well” in Luke 17: 11 – 19. A Samaritan woman was surprised when he spoke to her at a well, asking her to give him a drink, and he said if she asked, he would have given her ‘living water’, and revealed himself to her as the prophesied Messiah in John 4: 7 – 29. Yahshua showed no favouritism based on nationality or gender, and we must follow his example.
According to Wikipedia’s article Targum Onkelos, although authorship is often attributed to ‘Onkelos’, many scholars believe it was Aquila of Sinope, who made the Greek translation before he converted to Judaism, then wrote the aramaic translation called the Targum Onkelos in the 1st century or early in the 2nd century, under the direction of Rabbis Yehoshua and Eliezer. Some of the language dates to the late 4th and early 5th centuries, because it underwent “its final redaction” at that time.
The article states the “Onkelos’ Aramaic translation of the Pentateuch (Five Books of Moses) is almost entirely a word-by-word, literal translation of the Hebrew Masoretic Text”. A strange way of stating the relationship between the text since the Onkelos was written centuries before the Masoretic text. The Targum Onkelos contains supplemental material in the form of aggadic (non-legalistic exegesis) paraphrase to minimize ambiquities and obscurities, usually where the original Hebrew contained an idiom, homonym or metaphor which could not be understood otherwise. For example, the translator replaced ‘human-like’ characteristics of God, for example “my face” is replaced with “from before me” in Ex 33:23, and “beneath his feet” is replaced by “under his throne of glory” in Ex 24:10, but as we have discovered in our word studies to-date, the Hebrew text has a broader meaning that is deficient in English translations.
The article lists 25 “more notable changes”, of which the 4 below impact our study of Gen 1 – 3:
Genesis 1:2 Aramaic: וְאַרְעָא הֲוָת צָדְיָא וְרֵיקָנְיָא, in Hebrew characters [= “…and the earth was devastated and empty”], instead of “…and the earth was without form and void.”
Genesis 2:7 Aramaic: הות באדם לְרוּחַ מְמַלְלָא, in Hebrew characters [= “…and it became in man a speaking spirit”], instead of “…and man became a living soul.”
Genesis 3:5 Aramaic: וּתְהוֹן כְּרַבְרְבִין, in Hebrew characters [= “…and you shall be like potentates”], instead of “…and you shall be like gods.” Explained in Reference 25 “The literal words used in the Hebrew text are: ‘and you shall be like elohim.’ The word elohim, however, is a Hebrew homonym, having multiple meanings. It can mean either God, angels, judges, potentates (in the sense of ‘rulers’ or ‘princes’), nobles, and gods (in the lower case). In most English translations of Genesis 3:5 it is rendered as “gods’ (in the lower case), and which, according to Onkelos, is a mistranslation and should be translated as ‘potentates’.”
Genesis 3:15 Aramaic: הוּא יְהִי דְּכִיר מָה דַּעֲבַדְתְּ לֵיהּ מִלְּקדְמִין וְאַתּ תְּהֵי נָטַר לֵיהּ לְסוֹפָא, in Hebrew characters [=”…he (i.e. Eve’s offspring) shall remember what you (i.e. the serpent) did to him at the beginning, but you (i.e. the serpent) shall hold it against him at the end”], instead of “he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”
The change to Gen 1:2 and many others are mentioned in the Raymond Apple’s Book Review of Onkelos on the Torah: Understanding the Bible Text in the Jewish Bible Quarterly. In Gen 1:14 ‘for ancient days’ becomes ‘for counting days and years’. Apple discusses at great length the fact that throughout the Pentateuch, elohim is changed to YHVH, with the exception of Gen 1:27 where the phrase “in the image of God” was too well known to be altered, and where a pronoun is attached to elohim, such as ‘our God’.
We see in the explanation of the rabbinic exegesis about the two names of God, their lack of understanding of the Messiah’s position in the God head from the beginning of time, which they change to suit their doctrine. Anthropomorphisms are avoided by replacing “God did” with “the word or glory of God did”, and passive “it was done before God”, except in Gen 1:26 it is left as “let us make man in our image”, again because this verse is too well known. Unfortunately, what resulted was an inconsistent mix of redaction for similar words, making the Targum Onkelos a translation of questionable value.
In his article What Is the Masoretic Text? The Beginners Guide, author Ryan Nelson opens with “Most Jews and Protestants consider the Masoretic Text the authoritative Hebrew Bible . . . written sometime between the seventh and tenth centuries AD . . . most English translations of the Old Testament are based on the Masoretic Text”. Nelson’s states that the Masoretic text “was based on the meticulously preserved oral tradition and the best available manuscripts of the original Hebrew text”.
By Nelson’s account “manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible were lost in the destruction of the second temple in 70 AD, so the rabbinic community began transcribing the oral tradition”, and “about a millennium before the Masoretic text was finished, rabbis began notating the original Hebrew with punctuation and additional letters to help readers correctly interpret the text”. He states that “the Mishnah preserved the oral tradition in written form”.
According to Nelson, “by the ninth century . . . a popular Jewish sect known as the Karaites (‘readers’) was advocating for Jews to abandon the rabbinic tradition and read the ‘unadulterated’ (or rather, uninterpreted) Hebrew Bible . . . to save the Hebrew Bible . . . the Masoretes produced a new copy . . . they used rabbinic tradition to add the most intricate system of punctuation and stress marks anyone had ever seen . . . so there could only be one way to read and understand it; the same way rabbis had for centuries.”
Nelson makes this all sound perfectly wonderful, however as Katharine Bushnell stated in her book God’s Word to Women, “when we speak of the Bible as inspired, infallible and inviolable, we do not refer to our English version, or any mere version, but to the original text . . . written without any spaces between words in totally different looking letters from those we call ‘Hebrew’ at the present time; and the language as first written contained no vowels.” (#5).
As Bushnell explains “Hebrew . . . was practically a ‘dead language’ as early as B. C. 250 . . . in the absence of expressed vowels, its pronunciation was likely to become lost. So the Scribes took four consonants, ‘a h w and j’ and inserted them into the text to indicate vowel sounds . . . (that) in the end led to confusion” (#6). She considers these changes to be “uninspired” (#7), added by Jews who were “bitter opponents of the teachings and of the spirit of Christianity”, and “held women in utter contempt” (#8). She demonstrates how “the Word might be changed into insipid nonsense, perhaps, by the manipulation of two or three consonants of a vowel less language” in #9 – 15.
According to the British Library, the first complete printed text of the Mishnah was compiled around 200 by Judah the Prince, becoming the earliest authoritative body of Jewish oral law, containing the teaching of rabbinic sages. The Mishnah supplements the Torah which are the first five books of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, that form the basis of Jewish written law. Around 500 AD the rabbis added the Gemara (‘sea’ of learning) to the Mishnah called the Talmud (‘teaching’). https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/first-complete-mishnah
That the Jewish law was compiled by a man with the title ‘prince’ could only mean the Sanhedrin had been reestablished, after being destroyed along with the temple in 70 AD. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, the Sanhedrin had been the supreme religious body in Israel before the destruction of the temple, headed by a president, title ‘prince’, and vice president, titled ‘father of the court’, with 69 sages, to total 71 members, which according to Hellenistic sources, the Sanhedrin was a political and judicial council headed by the country’s ruler.
The fact that the Sanhedrin, the very people who had Yahshua put to death, are the authors of the Massoretic text of the Hebrew Bible, is very disturbing. Bushnell’s claim that they were “bitter opponents to the teachings and spirit of Christianity” is all the more poignant. Yahshua rebuked the Scribes and Pharisees, saying that Isaiah prophesied about them teaching as doctrine the precepts of men, nullifying, disregarding, seting aside the word of God for the sake of their tradition in Matt 15: 1 – 9 and Mark 7: 4 – 13, and he said “you are of [your] father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own [nature], for he is a liar and the father of lies.” John 8:44.
In a University of Calgary writeup on the Mishnah, it states “Mishnah can refer in a general way to the full tradition of the Oral Torah, as formulated by the Rabbis in the first centuries of the Common Era”, confirming it was “compiled by Rabbi Judah the ‘Prince’, before his death around 217 C.E.” However, it contradicts “to a view that appears in many histories and introductions” that the traditions were written down, “but merely determining and organizing of a fixed text that was subsequently disseminated by memory”, likely because, as Nelson stated, it was “a forbidden project: transcribing the oral tradition.” https://people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/TalmudMap/Mishnah.html
The New World Encyclopedia (NEW) states the Massoretic text (MT) is “the Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible (Tanakh)’, also used in Protestant Bibles, and in recent decades Catholic Bibles. The MT was copied, edited, and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries AD. The Hebrew word mesorah refers to the transmission of Jewish tradition, including the markings of the text and marginal notes in manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible. The MT has numerous differences compared to the Septuagint (and the Samaritan Targum as we discuss in the section below). https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Masoretic_Text
According to NEW, the Hebrew word masorah (מסורה, alt. מסורת) is “taken from Ezekiel 20:37 and means originally ‘fetter’. The fixation of the text was considered to be in the nature of a fetter upon its exposition. When, in the course of time, the Masorah had become a traditional discipline, the term became connected with the verb (‘to hand down’), and was given the meaning of ‘tradition’”. But looking at masoreth and related words below, I believe it means ‘taking captive with false instruction’.
The word masoreth מסרת (Strong’s 4562 1 occurrence) means ‘bind, gird, harness, hold’, used in Ezek 20:37 in the context of Yahweh using the rod to bring Israel into the bond (masoreth) of the covenant, but there is evidence against this text being inspired. The root asar אסר (Strong’s 631 70 occurrences) means ‘to tie, bind, imprison’, found in Isa 61:1 prophesying the Messiah who will “. . . proclaim to the captive’s liberty and to imprisoned (asar אסור) opening of the eyes/prison (peqach-qoach פקח קוח).” The root masar מסר (Strong’s 4560 2 occurrences) means ‘commit, deliver’, from a primitive root that means ‘to sunder, set apart, or apostatize’ – apostatize means ‘renounce religious or political belief or principle’, or mosar מסר (Strong’s 4561 1 occurrence) means ‘instruction’.
In his Ancient Hebrew Timeline, Jeff Benner parallels Biblical events, alphbets, inscriptions, Hebrew Bible’s, and Translations https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/biblical-history/ancient-hebrew-timeline.htm. Benner’s timeline reveals early Semitic (Hebrew) was pictographic, and evolved into Paleo-Hebrew (middle Semitic) that resembled the Phoenician alphabet, and was used by Israel until the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BC, when it evolved into Aramaic (late Semitic script). The Greek adopted the middle Semetic alphabet in the 10th century BC, that evolved into the modern form in the 9th century BC, and in the 4th century BC Jewish scholars translated the Torah into Greek, known as the Septuagint.
In Benners Ancient Hebrew Timeline, he states “The Hebrew language ceases as their native language (135 AD).” In the 1st century AD, the Torah was translated into Aramaic, named the Targum Onkelos after its alleged author, and the prophets were translated into Aramaic by Jonathon Ben Uziel, named the Targum Jonathon. In the 2nd century AD, the writings and prophets were translated into Greek, in the Septuagint. In the 3rd century AD, the Talmud was written in Aramaic (the Late Semitic script) and the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament were translated into Aramaic, titled the Peshitta, and translated into Latin by Jerome (the Vulgate) in the 5th century AD. In the 7th century AD, the English language adopted the Roman alphabet.
Benner indicates that vowel pointings were added to the Hebrew (Modern Semitic) in the 10th century AD, and the oldest known Hebrew Bible was written in modern Hebrew by the Jewish Masorites. In the 15th century AD, the Gutenburg Bible became the first Bible, a copy of the Latin Vulgate, printed on moveable type, and in 1611 the King James Bible was published. In the 19th century AD, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda started a revival of the Hebrew language, which became the official language of the newly established state of Israel in 1948.
Steve Rudd divides the history of the Hebrew language into four periods based on the evolution of the alphabet https://www.bible.ca/manuscripts/Septuagint-LXX-Hebrew-ancient-earliest-writing-Bible-scripts-alphabets-origin-Mosaic-heiroglyphic-Paleo-Aramaic-Masoretic-Jewish-Greek.htm. First, Joseph borrowed 22 Egyptian hieroglyphic symbols as the character alphabet for each sound in the Hebrew language called hieroglyphic Hebrew (Abstract). Second, the 22 letters were simplified into “Paleo-Hebrew” in the time of Samuel, which was used until the Babylonian captivity (Abstract). Third, Aramaic Hebrew was adopted, “derived from the Hebrew alphabet they replaced” (#9). After Hebrew went extinct about 300 BC, a fourth Hebrew alphabet was invented by the Masoretes in 600 – 900 AD that added vowels, known as ‘Masoretic Hebrew’ (Abstract).
There is consensus among religious scholars and historians that Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic, and whether he knew Hebrew or not is debatable. According to Steve Rudd, at the time of Jesus, the Jews in Judea spoke Aramaic (not Hebrew) and Greek was the language of commerce (Abstract). Britannica contradicts itself, stating that Aramaic replaced Hebrew as the language of the Jews as early as the 6th century BC, confirming that the books of Daniel and Ezra are written in Aramaic, and the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, yet claims that Hebrew remained the language of religion, government and the upper class. Wouldn’t scripture have been written in Hebrew if this was true?
There are contradictory claims about the extinction of the Hebrew language, but the evidence supports that when the nation of Israel went into captivity in Babylon, Hebrew fell into disuse and was replace by Aramaic Hebrew, which is the language the Targums were written in.
In the next article we will take a closer look at the the history of the Massoretic text, for a fuller understanding of it’s history, language, to assess it’s reliability. Then we will do the same for the Targum Onkelos and the Samaritan Targum.
Recognizing that the men in control of scripture have twisted it to elevate themselves to gods while reducing woman to inferior, evil beings has been an awakening for me.
In her article Genesis From Eve’s Point of View, Pamela Milne (written over 30 years ago on March 26, 1989) talks about the negative impact the story of Eve has had on women throughout history, having “ been interpreted in patriarchal and even misogynist ways by male bible scholars and theologians”, to support that women are “the devil’s gateway . . . the unsealer of that forbidden tree . . . the first deserter of the divine law . . . (who destroyed) God’s image, man.” (Tertullian), “helper of less importance” (Ambrose), “misbegotten males” (Thomas Aquinas), that justified “persecuting women as witches” in the 15th century, and “a wife who is not properly subordinate”.
Milne talks about monumental work of Phyllis Trible of Union Theological Seminary in the 1970’s to reinterpret the Eve-Adam story. Trible made some important arguments that we can and must build upon:
1. That Adam need not necessarily be thought of as male . . . the Hebrew text presents us with a word-pay: ha-‘adam’ (“earth creature”) is created from the earth, ha-‘adamah’, and remains basically sexless until the differentiation of female from male occurs in Genesis 2: 21 – 23, only with the advent of sexuality does the term ha-adam acquire the secondary meaning “male”; but even then is an ambiguous term.
2. The serpent speaks only to Eve, which ‘Church fathers’ interpret to mean that the woman is morally weaker than man thus an easier prey, that woman is simpleminded, gullible, untrustworthy; or that she is more sexual and her sexuality is used by the serpent to ruin the man, which is mere speculation. Eve’s “temptation” of Adam is not actually present in Genesis but has been read into the text by commentators.
3. Adam’s specific naming (and implied dominion) of Eve – – after the Fall – – is actually a consequence of sinfulness.
Milne is disappointed that Trible’s ideas “have been almost entirely ignored by mainstream biblical scholarship”, but is it a realistic to expect the Church and the world to change what has existed since the beginning of time? After all, we can only change ourselves. A better goal is to come to the truth through study of scripture with the guidance of the spirit of truth who proceeds from the father John 15:26 & 16:13, knowing that the world cannot receive it because it does not see it or know it John 14:17.
We must accept that we will not change the way the Genesis Creation account is understood by the masses because they have been brainwashed into believing Satan’s lies. He offers males dominion in the kingdom’s of the world if they worship him, an offer that Yahshua refused saying “You shall worship the Lord your God and serve him only” in Luke 4: 1 – 13. Through his suffering and death Rev 5:6, he become the perfect husband for his bride, the saints in the New Jerusalem Rev 21:2.
That is why the world is in the mess it’s in today with rampant greed and violence and why we must “seek first the kingdom” as Yahshua said in Matt 6:33. We must “enter through the narrow gate, for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are MANY who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life and there are FEW who find it.” in Matt 7: 13 – 14.
In the Genesis creation account, we find the very reason for our existence, what it means to be male or female, and why there is pain, suffering and death in the world. But the creation story we have been told since childhood contains many lies, which we have been told so many times, it has become to us an “illusion of truth” that is difficult to overcome. We must forget what we have been told happened and look to the original Hebrew text for answers.
The mistranslated and misinterpreted text in Genesis has and continues to be the predominant ‘proof text’ used by organized religion to subordinate women to men. As a result, many violate Yahshua’s commandment in in Matthew 23: 8 & 10 to call no one teacher or leader, and deny equality among his disciples. God’s warning to the woman that her desire for a mighty one (Hebrew ish) will result in him ruling over her in Gen 3:16 has been true from the beginning of time, and today patriarchy is common place in our homes, churches and society at large.
The text of Genesis 2: 23 – 24 appears as follows:
From the Hebrew Bible without Vowels or Accents created by JesusSpokeAramaic
Samaritan Targum Interlinear Translation
Here’s the interlinear translation of Genesis 2: 23 – 24 from tanakh.info:
Facts About Hebrew
We can add the following to our facts about Hebrew:
146. The pronoun zoth זאת (Strong’s 2063 604 occurrences) means ‘hereby in it, likewise, the one other, same, she, so much, such deed, that’. According to Brown-Driver-Briggs zoth is the feminine of zeh זה (Strong’s 2088 1177 occurrences) that means ‘he, hence, here, itself, now, of him, the one’, often translated ‘this’. Zayin appears to be functioning as a prefix in the case of zoth and zeh, that according to the article – Waw and – Zayin – Biblical Hebrew Study Dictionary on the site Discover The Holy Language indicates ‘result, product’ https://objectivetranslation.home.blog/%D7%95-waw-and-%D7%96-zayin-biblical-hebrew-study-dictionary/.
The root of zoth, by all appearances, is eth את (Strong’s 853 11050 occurrences) alleged by Strong’s and NAS Exhaustive Concordances to not be translatable (see fact #5). The same as the preposition eth את (Strong’s 854 809 occurrences) allegedly means ‘with (denoting proximity), on Shebanq.ancient-data, 779 of these occurrences are translated as ‘together with’, but more specifically means ‘intercourse of different kinds with another, e.g. after verbs of making a covenant or contract, or (less often) of speaking or dealing’ according to Brown-Driver-Briggs. For example in Gen. 4:1 “The man knew (yada) Eve his wife and bore Cain and said ‘I acquired mighty one in covenant with (eth translated ‘from’) Yahweh’”, an important distinction since ‘from’ makes it appear Yahweh fathered Cain.
The meaning of zoth includes an element of covenant between parties. For example, in the 3 occurrences of zoth in Gen 2:23, the first is the man saying “This one in covenant with (zoth translated ‘this’) self of myself and flesh of my flesh”, the second and third are in the statement “to this one in covenant with (zoth translated ‘she’) call Mighty Toward Fire because from Mighty One taken this one in covenant with (zoth translated ‘she’)”, which I believe are not the words of the man, but Yahweh because of the change from 1st to 2nd person. Similarly, in Gen 12:12 Abraham said to Sarah “when see you the Egyptians, and say ‘his wife this one in covenant with (zoth translated ‘this’)’ and kill me and you live”. In Gen 3:13 & 14 in Yahweh’s words to the Mighty Toward Fire “what this one in covenant with (zoth) have you done”, and to the serpent “because you have done this in covenant with (zoth)”, which is why Yahweh said “Like Adam they he transgressed (abar – bar that means ‘son, clean, pure, grain’ with the prefix ayin that indicates corruption) the covenant” in Hosea 6:7.
The noun eth את (Strong’s 855 5 occurrences) allegedly means ‘plowshare’, but the text is problematic. For example, in 1 Sam 13:20 & 21 there are 6 occurrences of eth, 4 of which are assigned Strong’s 853 and not translated, and 2 assigned Strong’s 855 and translated ‘mattock’, and “sharpen mighty one’s (ish) (eth) plowshare (macharesheth) and (eth) his covenant with (eth translated ‘mattock’) and (eth) his ax (qardom) and (eth) his sickle (machareshah), and was charge pim to plowshare (machareshah) and to covenant with (eth translated ‘mattock’) . . .” The prophecies in Isaiah 2:4 and Micah 4:3 are similar, when “judge (shaphat) between peoples (am) many and rebuke (yakach) nations (goy) strong (atsum in the form עצמים) [upon far off] and beat (kathath) their swords into covenant with (eth translated ‘plowshare’) . . .”, and Joel 3:10 it states the opposite “beat your covenant with (eth translated ‘plowshares’) into swords . . .”.
In A Lexicon of Hebrew Chaldee and English by Samuel Lee, p. 63, it says “It has been shewn, that the real signification of eth את is, as to, with reference to, touching, or the like. It is also worth remarking, that the Arabic particle which is used for the same purpose, has not only precisely the same power, but is derived in the very same way. This particle . . . therefore, will signify, betaking to, coming to, & c., just as את does.” According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, betake in archaic language means ‘commit’, similar to ‘in covenant with’.
Et/eth with the he suffix forms attah אתה Strong’s 859 (1091 occurrences – 747 occurrences on Shebanq.ancient-data) that allegedly means ‘thee, thou, ye, you’, and the verb athah אתה (Strong’s 857 21 occurrences) means ‘to come’ or ‘come’, must in fact refer to a future covenant since the he suffix indicates movement toward. In Gen 3:11 Yahweh said to the man “who made know that bare/desolate (erom) covenant with you (attah) on account of the tree lord (aser) commanded you to not consume from have consumed”, and concludes in Gen 3:14 saying “ . . . cursed covenant with you (attah) from all the cattle (behemah) . . “.
In Ezekiel 38, there are 7 occurrences of eth (Strong’s 853 not translated) in Ezek 38: 4 x 2, 6, 9, 16, 17, & 22 of which 2 (in v4 & 9) are in the form אות, the same form as oth (Strong’s 226 with 79 occurrences) that means ‘a sign, mark’, 4 occurrences of eth (Strong’s 854) alleged to mean ‘with’ in Ezek 38: 5, 6, 15, & 22, and 5 occurrences of attah (Strong’s 859) alleged to mean ‘you’ in Ezek 38: 7, 9, 13, 15, & 17. Used of mankind who are in league with Gog to attack Yahweh’s people who are living securely, in what I believe is the New Jerusalem in Rev 21: 1 – 5. It is difficult to identify mistranslations when a simple word like ‘with’ replaces ‘in covenant with’, but the true nature of the relationship of Gog with his people is only understood when the word ‘covenant’ or ‘mark’ is stated, as we see in this text:
In Ezek 38: 4 – 9 Yahweh says “I will turn you around and put hooks into your jaws and lead those with mark (eth אות translated ‘you out’), and in covenant with (eth not translated) all your army . . .” v. 4, “. . . in covenant with them (eth Strong’s 854 translated ‘with them’ all of them shield and helmet.” v. 5, “ . . . and in covenant with (eth not translated) all it’s troops, people many in covenant with you (eth Strong’s 854 translated ‘with you’)” v. 6, “prepare and ready to you, those in covenant with and all your companies gathered them upon you and be to them prison.” v.7, “You will ascend like storm coming like cloud covering (kasah) the land them be in covenant with you (Strong’s 859 translated ‘you’) your troops and many with your mark (eth אות translated ‘with’).” v. 9.
In Ezek 38: 13 – 17 Yahweh continues “ . . . all villages will say to you ‘take spoil, plunder in covenant with, bring seize booty, assemble your army to carry away silver and gold, to take away livestock and goods, to take plunder great’” v. 13, “and in covenant with (eth misidentified as Strong’s 935 and translated ‘you will come’), from your place, from recesses north in covenant with you (Strong’s 859 translated ‘you’), and peoples many in covenant with you (Strong’s 854 translated ‘with you’) . . .” v 15, “You ascend upon my people Israel like a cloud to cover (kasah) the land in latter years will bebring you upon my land to purpose know the nations covenant with me (Strong’s 853 not translated) in/at/with separate in/at/with you to their eyes (ayin) Gog.” v 16, “Those in covenant with (Strong’s 859 translated ‘you’) that lord declared in days former, in hand my servants, prophets of Israel prophesied in days these, years bring in covenant with you (Strong’s 853 not translated) upon their.” v 17.
In Ezek 38:22 “I will enter into judgment in covenant with him (Strong’s 853 not translated) with pestilence and bloodshed and rain flooding and stones, hail, fire and brimstone rain down upon him and upon his troops and upon peoples many lords in covenant with him (Strong’s 854 translated ‘with’).”
147. The noun paam פעם (Strong’s 6471 118 occurrences) means ‘a moment of time, once/formerly, footstep/pace, stroke/beat’, in the sense of a planned course ‘footsteps’, as a verb means ‘to beat, to strike, to knock’, the same as paam פעם (Strong’s 6470 5 occurrences) that means ‘to stir, to trouble’. In Nahum 1:9 paam is translated ‘a second time’ but ‘stir’ fits the context of the sentence; “. . . He will make not they rise up stir (paam פעם) trouble.”
148. The noun etsem עצם (Strong’s 6106 126 occurrences) means ‘body, bone, selfsame’, in the sense of ‘kin’, and is sometimes used in the context of ‘same day’. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance states etsem is “from atsam; a bone (as strong); by extension, the body; figuratively, the substance”, and atsam עצם (Strong’s 6105 20 occurrences) means “break the bones, close, be great, be increased, be more, shut, become, a primitive root; to bind fast, i.e. close (the eyes), to be (causatively, make) powerful or numerous”. Related to the noun etsah עצה (Strong’s 6098 89 occurrences) that allegedly means ‘counselor’, often translated ‘plan, strategy, scheme’ evidencing it is advice that has been committed to action, from yaats יעצ (Strong’s 3289 78 occurrences) that means ‘advise, consult’, the yod prefix indicating third person, future tense, ‘he/they will’.
149. The adjective ken כן (Strong’s 3651 767 occurrences) alleged to mean ‘so, thus, therefore’, actually means ‘upright station’ as revealed in the article Comparison of the Text and Translation of Genesis 2:24. I am leaving it mistranslated in this article to show the value of using definitions provided by Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon’s to uncover the real meaning.
150. The verb azab עזב (Strong’s 5800 211 occurrences) means ‘forsake, abandon’.
151. The noun ab אב (Strong’s 1 1212 occurrences) means ‘chief, principal’, translated as ‘father’, a title hijacked by Patriarchy to support the rule of males over females. Yahshua condemned Patriarchy, commanding his disciples to call no one father (G3962 pater 418 occurrences) except Yahweh in Matthew 23:9. When ab is used of ‘father’ in the familial way, not of Yahweh as ‘chief, principal’, may be evidence of uninspired text or mistranslation. For example, in Isa. 43:27 Adam is referred to as “your father (ab) that first sinned . . .”.
Text where Yahweh is called our ‘father’, means our ‘chief, principal’, not our male parent. For example Isa. 63:16 “for you our father . . .” & 64:8 “now Yahweh our father (ab that means chief) you, we the clay and you our potter and the work of your hands we all”. In the Valley of Vision prophecy in Isa. 22 “in that day (the day of Yahweh) I call to my Servant (Yahshua) . . . v20 I will clothe him with your robe and your sash, strengthen him, and your dominion put in hand and become principal (ab) to dwellers Jerusalem and house Judah v21, and I will put the key of house David upon shoulder and open and no shut and shut and no open v22, and I will fasten him peg in station faithful and become throne honor to house his principal (ab) v23.“. The inspired text becomes more meaningful when we understand no mortal should be our chief, not father or mother, nor husband or wife, nor earthly masters.
Ab is the root of eben אבן (Strong’s 68 273 occurrences) that means ‘building stone’ (see fact #105), translated as ‘son’ and made to appear to apply solely to males, but in the first occurrence found in Gen. 2:12 in conjunction with ‘onyx’ that means ‘blanche, sheep’, is used of woman (ishshah in the form אשה that means ‘mighty toward fire’), not the man (adam) who is a ‘mighty corrupt fire’ (ish that means a corruption of Yahweh’s fire).
152. The noun em, singular אמ plural אם (Strong’s 517 220 occurrences) allegedly means ‘mother, originator, codifier’. Em is the root of amar/emer/omer אמר (Strong’s 559, 560, 561 and 562 5308, 71, 48 and 6 occurrences) mean ‘utter, say, tell, command, speech, word, promise’, the resh suffix adding an element of authority to the ‘speech, word’, thus the meaning of the underlying word em must be ‘speech, words’.
The plural form, im אם (Strong’s 518 1070 occurrences) is translated as ‘if, surely’, but we see in Ezek. 38:19 it means ‘promise, oath’, as Yahweh promises “in jealousy, in fire my fury declare (dabar) promise/oath (em) . . .” In Gen. 3:20 “proclaim the man (adam) appointed name his woman אשתו (‘mighty toward fire’) Life because she become promise (em) all living”.
Where em doesn’t support the meaning ‘promise, oath’ may be evidence of mistranslation or uninspired text. For example, in Hosea 4:5 “stumble the day and stumble also spokesman with you to night and destroy your promise (em translated as ‘your mother’)”. Text which mentions gendered familial relations like Gen. 2:24, Isa. 8:4, Ezek. 16: 44 & 45, 19:2 & 10, 22:7, 23:2 Hosea 2:2 & 5, 10:14, Micah 7:6 and Zech. 13:3, are evidence of uninspired text. Also, in Ezek. 21:21 where em is translated as ‘the parting’ is evidence against the text.
153. The noun dabar דבר (Strong’s 1697 1441 occurrences) means ‘act, advice, affair, answer, any such thing, because of, book, business’, from the verb dabar דבר (Strong’s 1696 1144 occurrences) means ‘answer, appoint, bid, command, commune, declare, destroy, give’. The resh suffix adds an element of authority to the declaration, appropriate when used of Yahweh, and inappropriate when used of mankind. As stated in James 5:12, “do not swear, not by heaven or earth, or by any other oath. Simply let your ‘yes’ be yes, and your ‘no’, no, so that you will not fall under judgment”.
154. The verb dabaq דבק (Strong’s 1692 54 occurrences) that allegedly means ‘cling, cleave, keep close’ is translated as ‘overtook’ in a few instances, figuratively ‘loyalty, affection’. The same as the noun debeq דבק (Strong’s 1694 3 occurrences) that means ‘a joining, soldering, appendage’. I believe dabaq/debeg, like dabar (see fact #153), indicates an oath, and the ooph ק suffix indicates verbalization, meaning ‘declare an oath’.
155. The noun ishshah found in Gen. 2:22, 23, 3:1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 13, 15, & 16 is in the form אשה, and in Gen. 2:24, 25, 3:8, 21, 4:1 & 17 it is found in the form אשתו with a taw waw תו suffix, and in Gen. 3:17 it is found in the form אשתך with a taw kap suffix. In Hebrew, when the he suffix receives a pronominal suffix like waw or kap, the he is replace by taw. In these forms, the underlying meaning ‘mighty fire’ remains, becoming ‘his mighty fire’ and ‘your mighty fire’ respectively.
Constructing the Sentences
Let’s construct the sentence:
Gen. 2:23 The subject ‘the man’, verb ‘say’, and object ‘this one formerly self from myself and flesh from my flesh’, and second verb ‘proclaim’, and object ‘woman (‘mighty toward fire’)’, and third verb ‘seized’, and object ‘from Mighty (Corrupt) One this’.
Gen. 2:24 The subject ‘Mighty Corrupt Fire’, verb ‘forsake’, and object ‘his principal and his oath’, second verb ‘join’, and object ‘with woman (‘Mighty Fire’)’, and third verb ‘become’, and object ‘flesh apart’.
Translation
The paragraph translates as follows:
And say the man “this one formerly self from myself and flesh from my flesh”, to this proclaim woman (‘mighty toward fire’) because from Mighty (corrupt) One seized this. Upon thus forsake Mighty (corrupt) One his principal and oath and join with his woman (‘mighty fire’) and become flesh apart”.
Analysis
As discussed in fact #91, all sentences within the chapter except the first (e.g. Gen 2:4) begin with ‘and (taw)’. The fact that Gen 2:24 begins with ‘Upon (al)’, indicates it is either a continuation from the previous verse, or has a different author than the surrounding text.
Taking a closer look at verse 23, in the first half of the sentence, the man (adam) said “this one (see fact #146) formerly (see fact #147) self (see fact #148) from myself (see fact #148) and flesh from my flesh”. The second half of the sentence changes to second person – “to this proclaim woman (‘mighty toward fire’) because from Mighty (corrupt) One seized this”, which continues in verse 24 “Upon thus forsake Mighty (corrupt) One . . .”.
The first part of verse 23 are identified as the words of the man (adam), but the second part of verse 23 and verse 24 are quite likely Yahweh’s words. It is unlikely the man would change from first person to second, and name the one cut from his flesh ishshah ‘mighty toward fire’ and himself ish ‘mighty corrupt one’. Yahweh gods had indicated in Gen. 2:19 they “entered upon the man to first see what proclaim if and all lord proclaim if the man soul living his name/fame”, and this is the outcome. Yahweh foresees the Mighty (corrupt) One will “forsake (see fact #150) his principal(see fact #151) and oath (see fact #152) with his Mighty Fire ishshah and become flesh apart (from Yahweh)” v.24.
As a result of the mistranslation of ab and em as ‘father’ and ‘mother’, many critics believe Gen. 2:24 to be an interpolation, as I also did before digging into the real meaning of the Hebrew text:
In his article The Resumptive Repetition (Wiederaufnahme), Dr. Rabbi Zev Farber called Gen. 2:24 “the famous parenthetical remark about marriage in the Adam and Eve story, narrated in a way that it does not distract readers from the main story line; nevertheless, in translation, it is best inserted in parentheses, which did not exist in the biblical period”.
In Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers it states ‘these are evidently the words of the narrator’, and similarly in Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges.
In Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament it states the words “are not to be regarded as Adam’s, first on account of the על־כּן, which is always used in Genesis, with the exception of Genesis 20:6; Genesis 42:21, to introduce remarks of the writer, either of an archaeological or of a historical character, and secondly, because, even if Adam on seeing the woman had given prophetic utterance to his perception of the mystery of marriage, he could not with propriety have spoken of father and mother.”
In his article, On Genesis 2:24, Angelo Tosato states “A number of exegetes have adverted to a certain lack of continuity in the transition from Gen 2:23 to 2:24”, who sees it as a post exilic gloss. Tosato references scholars who also see it as a gloss – C A Simpson in The Early Traditions of Israel, C. Westermann in Creation, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary, and Genesis: A Practical Commentary, also W H Schmidt in Die Schopfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift), and others who see it as “an addition” (P Weimar in Untersuchungen Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuchs supported by F. Langlamet’s positive comments on his works, and C. Dohmen in Schopfung und Tod Die Entfoltung theologischer und anthropologischer Konzeptionen in Gen 2/3.
In Marital Imagery in the Bible, Colin Hamer admits that “the union of Genesis 2:24, unlike that of Genesis 2:23, is not a literal one-flesh union”, and sees the meaning of ‘flesh’ in this verse as metaphorical for one’s own kin or family.
The misquotation of God’s words in Matthew 19:3 – 9 and Mark 10: 2 – 9 is an outright lie, to which they added “what God has joined together, let no man separate”, turning what really happened in Gen. 2: 23 & 24 upside down. The text of Eph 5:22 to 32 (80% of scholars believe that Ephesians was not authored by Paul) replaces Yahshua, the Messiah, with the church and male headship, quoting Gen 2:24 in support. This bold faced lie hidden to this very day in our English Bibles and in the theology of organized religion, deceive us into believing marriage to be a God ordained institution, a covenant Malachi 2:14 – 16.
The idea of becoming ‘one flesh’, clearly alludes to a sexual relationship, which is Gnostic. 1 Cor. 6: 12 – 20 is a Gnostic interpolation falsely attributed to Paul which confirms the one flesh union is sexual in stating “the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her, for he says ‘the two shall become one flesh’” v. 16. In The Gnostic Apostle Thomas, Chapter 24, Saying 22, Yahshua replies “When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner as the outer, and the upper as the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male shall not be male, and the female shall not be female: . . . then you will enter [the kingdom].” http://gnosis.org/thomasbook/ch24.html.
Inspired writings speak of becoming one spirit with the Messiah and God, and overcoming the flesh, not joining flesh together sexually to become one as we see in 1 Cor 6: 12 to 20, which is evidence that these verses are likely an interpolation. In 1 Cor 6:15 & 16, Paul contrasts using ones body to be members of the Messiah or a joining with a prostitute, which is alluding to sex because it isn’t talking about marriage, is said to be becoming “one flesh” quoting Gen 2:24. In verse 17 it says “he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit”, then verse 18 is again about sex with Paul saying “flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a man can commit is outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.” He goes on to say “your body is a temple of the holy spirit” in verse 19, and “you were bought at a price, therefore glorify God with your body” in verse 20.
The opposing sides of good and evil are represented by the spirit and the flesh respectively. Yahshua warned that “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak”. Paul explains that only those who walk according to the Spirit are pleasing to God, the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God, for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is unable to do so, in Romans 8: 1 – 14. When Adam was created a ‘living being’ in Gen 2:7 he was flesh and blood, a mortal body which Paul calls “this body of death” in Romans 7:24. Yahshua told his followers to “allow the dead to bury their own dead” in Luke 9:60, because his disciples are led by the Spirit not the flesh. When Adam called the Mighty Fire “flesh from my flesh” in Gen 2:23 he revealed his choice, and his desire to have the Mighty Fire by his side apart from Yahweh v. 24.
When taking a closer look at eth (Strong’s 853) in fact #146 , which I originally accepted as being a non-translatable mark as stated by Strong’s Concordance in the translation of Genesis 1 and 2, before I realized it contains a covenant element that is critical to fully understanding the text. Reviewing the 28 occurrences in Gen 1:1 to 2:3, which I believe is a prophecy of ages until the end of time, we see god’s covenants first with the light v. 4, the firmament v. 7, the sleeping (shenayim translated ‘two’) lights v. 16, set in the heavens to shine upon the earth v. 17, the sea creatures and every living thing v. 21, to fatten filling the waters and the earth with living according to their kind v. 22 & 25, the man in image (Yahshua), male and female (those who become Yahshua’s bride) v. 27, to fatten them to fill the earth and subject and rule in fish the sea and birds v. 28, with all herbs yielding seed lord upon face all the earth and all the tree lord in it fruit yielding seed to consume v. 29, all living the earth and all birds the air and all creepers the earth lord in it soul life all green herb to consume v. 30, on the day made clean (shishshi translated as ‘six’) god’s saw everything made was very good v. 31, god and the sons of god in covenant rested on the day of rest (shebii translated as ‘seven’) Gen 2:3.
In Gen 2:4 to 15, we see man’s covenant with Yahweh change and man form a covenant with Satan. To begin with, the man was not a slave in covenant with the ground v. 5, then man formed a covenant with Satan whose vapour rose up from the earth and irrigated/poisoned in covenant with all face the ground v. 6, resulting in forming Yahweh gods in covenant with the man the dust from the ground v. 7. Then planted Yahweh gods garden in Eden from aforetime and appointed name in covenant with the man lord formed v. 8, river (eminency) went forth from Eden to irrigate/give drink in covenant with the enclosure and from appointed place parted and became sprawling overlords v. 10, appointed name set apart selfish pride encircles in covenant with all land v. 11, And appointed place the river (eminency) the sleeping burst forth, it surrounds in covenant with the whole land fat v. 13. As a result, seized Yahweh gods in covenant with the man and cast down him in garden of Eden to serve and take heed to self v. 15.
In Gen 2: 18 – 24, we see how the man devises a plan to have the mighty toward fire (ishshah translated as ‘woman’) form a covenant with him. And say Yahweh Gods “not good become the man, separation I will make if only help opposite” v. 18, And formed Yahweh gods from the ground every living the field and in covenant with every bird the air and entered upon the man to first see what proclaim if and all lord proclaim if the man soul living his name/fame v. 19. And cast down Yahweh gods chastise upon the man and he slept and seized kindred [echad] from lame side and isolate flesh underneath. And build/repair Yahweh gods in covenant with the lame side seized from the man to mighty toward fire and come upon the man v. 22. And said the man “in covenant with now, self of my self, and flesh from my flesh”, proclaim mighty toward fire because from mighty one (ish translated ‘man’) to take covenant with v. 23, upon therefore forsake mighty one covenant with his principal and covenant with promise and join in his woman and become flesh apart v. 24.
Looking again at Ezekiel 31:4, a verse which has striking alignment with the text of Genesis, the ‘four rivers’ verses in particular, we find two occurrences of eth translated as ‘with her/its’ and not translated, that reveals a covenant between Assyria (Adam) and the waters (mayim) of the deep (Satan) and the rivers (sprawling heads) running around the planting place (Eden), a covenant with (eth) therivulets (t’alah) stretching out upon all trees the field.
Next, we will compare the text of Genesis 2:24, from the Hebrew Bible, with the Targum Onkelos and Samaritan Targum, using definitions from Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon’s to replace those provided by Strong’s Concordance which are often faulty.
The text of Genesis 2: 18 to 22 appears as follows:
From the Hebrew Bible without Vowels or Accents created by JesusSpokeAramaic
Samaritan Targum Interlinear Translation
Here’s the interlinear translation of Genesis 2:18 to 22 from tanakh.info:
Facts About Hebrew
We can add the following to our facts about Hebrew:
133. The word low לו in Gen. 2:18 is not assigned a Strong’s number, but in other instances is identified as lu לו (Strong’s 3863 22 occurrences) that means ‘if, if only’.
134. The noun ezer עזר (Strong’s 5828 21 occurrences) means ‘help’, from the noun oz עז (Strong’s 5797 92 occurrences) that means ‘strength, might’, the resh suffix incorporates the element of headship, which is always used of Yahweh’s ‘help’ except in the mistranslated text of Gen. 2:18 & 20 where it appear to be used in reference to the woman as the man’s ‘helper’.
135. The verb bo בוא (Strong’s 935 2573 occurrences) often found in the form בא, mostly translated as ‘come/came’, similar in form to biah באה (Strong’s 872 1 occurrence) that means ‘an entrance, entry’.
136. We had accepted in fact #79 that the verb raah ראה (Strong’s 7200 – 1306 occurrences) means ‘to see’, but the resh prefix indicates the beginning, origin, starting point of ‘seeing’, perhaps ‘observing’.
137. The word mah מה (Strong’s 4100 745 occurrences) is often translated as ‘what’, but used by God to question the woman saying “what (mah) have you done” Gen. 3:13, Cain “why are you angry” and “why has your countenance fallen” in Gen. 4:6 & 10.
138. The verb qara קרא (Strong’s 7121 734 occurrences) means ‘to call, proclaim’, used in Gen. 1: 5, 8 & 10 of God calling the darkness – night, the expanse – heaven, the dry land – earth, and the waters – seas.
139. The noun mots מצ (Strong’s 4671 8 occurrences) means ‘extortioner’ and is translated as ‘chaff’, is the root of the verb matsa מצא (Strong’s 4672 455 occurrences), the aleph suffix indicates 1st person singular.
140. The noun tardemah תרדמה (Strong’s 8639 7 occurrences) is from the verb radam רדם (Strong’s 7290 7 occurrences) that means ‘dead sleep’, from a primitive root that means ‘stupefy (with sleep or death). Similar to radah רדה (Strong’s 7287 27 occurrences) that means ‘chastise, tread, trample’ but is often translated as ‘rule, have dominion’ in Gen. 1: 26 & 28.
141. The noun tsela צלע (Strong’s 6763 41 occurrences) means ‘side’, the same as tsela צלע (Strong’s 6761 3 occurrences) that means ‘limping, stumbling, figurative of calamity’, and tsala צלע (Strong’s 6760 4 occurrences) that means ‘lame, limp’.
142. The verb sagar סגר (Strong’s 5462 91 occurrences) means ‘close, isolate, quarantine’ often translated as ‘shut’.
143. The noun basar בשר (Strong’s 1320 270 occurrences) means ‘flesh’, the same as the verb basar בשר (Strong’s 1319 24 occurrences) allegedly means ‘to preach, announce good news of salvation’, which is unlikely given the disparate meaning which doesn’t fit the context of ‘flesh’. For example, Yahweh promised to “pour out my spirit upon all flesh (basar)” in Joel 2:28.
144. The noun tachath תחת (Strong’s 8478 504 occurrences) means ‘underneath, below’.
145. The noun ishshah אשה (Strong’s 802 781 occurrences), is the same as ishsheh אשה (Strong’s 801 65 occurrences) that means ‘offering by fire, made by fire’, that in Numbers 28:9 has a sweet aroma to Yahweh. The root is the noun esh אש (Strong’s 784) that means ‘a fire’, with the he suffix that ‘expresses the concept of movement toward the word’, thus ishshah and ishsheh mean ‘toward fire’. Since Yahweh יהוה is like a consuming fire (Exodus 3:2 & 24:17), it isn’t a stretch to conclude ishshah and ishsheh mean ’toward Yahweh’.
It is an error to translate ishshah as ‘woman’, making it appear ishshah is a lesser version of the man (adam), when ishshah are the building stones of Yahweh’s temple Gen. 2:12, built from the lame side taken from the man Gen. 2:22. To avoid confusion, I will use the term ‘woman’ but include ‘mighty toward fire’ in brackets to draw attention to the enormity of this corrupt translation and acknowledge the true nature of ishshah, which is the opposite of the mighty one (ish) who is a corruption of Yahweh’s fire, a mighty one against Yahweh and his people.
Constructing the Sentences
Let’s construct the sentences:
Gen. 2:18 The subject ‘Yahweh gods’, verb ‘say’, and object ‘not good become the man’, compound verbs ‘separation make’ and ‘help’, and object ‘opposite’.
Gen. 2:19 The subject ‘Yahweh gods’, verb ‘formed’, and object ‘from the ground every living the field and every bird the air’, and a second verb ‘entered upon’, and object ‘the man’, and a third verb ‘to observe’ and object ‘what proclaim . . . the man soul living name/fame’.
Gen. 2:20 The subject ‘The man’, compound verbs ‘observe’ and ‘appoint’, and object ‘names to every cattle and to birds the air and to every living the field’, and a second subject ‘to man’, verbs ‘chaff (mistranslated as ‘found’) and ‘help (mistranslated as ‘helper’), and object ‘opposite (mistranslated as ‘suitable’.
Gen. 2:21 The subject ‘Yahweh gods’, compound verbs ‘cast down’ and ‘chastise’, and object ‘upon the man’, and compound verbs ‘slept’ and ‘seized’, and object ‘kindred from lame side, and verb ‘isolate’, and object ‘flesh underneath’.
Gen. 2:22 The subject ‘Yahweh gods’, verb ‘build/repair’, and object ‘the lame side’, second verb ‘seized’, and object ‘from the man to woman (mighty toward fire)’, and a third verb ‘come’, and object ‘upon the man’.
Translation
And say Yahweh Gods “not good become the man, separation I will make if only help opposite”. And formed Yahweh gods from the ground every living the field and every bird the air and entered upon the man to first see what proclaim if and all lord proclaim if the man soul living his name/fame. And observe the man names to every cattle and to birds the air and to every living the field and to man not chaff help opposite. And cast down Yahweh gods chastise upon the man and he slept and seized kindred from lame side and isolate flesh underneath. And build/repair Yahweh gods the lame side seized from the man to woman(mighty toward fire) and come upon the man.
Analysis
The common translation of Genesis 2:18 is very different from the text. In ALL Bibles it is translated as “it is not good for the man to be alone, I will make a helper suitable for him”, when the text really says Yahweh identified the man (adam) as being ‘not good’, and a ‘separation’ (see fact #123) necessary, if only (see fact #133) to help/save (see fact #134) opposite (see fact #41). Ishshah is the opposite of ish, as stated in fact #144. This mistranslation works in conjunction with the rib fable, to make it appear God made the woman (toward fire) from the man (adam), for the man (ish), to support Patriarchy which is the foundation of organized religion and society.
It does NOT say the man named the animals in Gen. 2:19! It says Yahweh formed ‘from the ground every living (see fact #24) the field and every bird the air’, then Yahweh gods ‘entered (see fact #135) upon the man to observe (see fact #136) what God would call (see fact #138) the man, HIS name/fame (see fact #94 – translated as its name but in the same singular form שמו in Gen. 4:26 is translated as ‘his name’) . The new living and birds formed in Gen. 2:19 are not from the dust/ashes/rubbish (aphar see fact #68) like the man (adam) was in Gen. 2:7, indicating they are not as lowly as the man.
I have stroked out Gen. 2:20 because it shows evidence of being an interpolation. It indicates the man named the cattle (behemah see fact #31) and birds, to support his supremacy over God’s creation, contradicting v. 19 which states God is observing the man to decide his name/fame, and v. 21 – 22 where the ishshah, mistranslated as ‘woman’, is now separate from the man (adam) who is an ish, ‘mighty corrupt one’ mistranslated as ‘husband, man’. The end of the sentence is translated ‘not found helper suitable’ when it says ‘not chaff (see fact #139) help opposite’, to shore up the mistranslation of v. 18.
In Gen. 2:21 And cast down (see fact #126) Yahweh gods chastise upon the man and he slept (see The Real Meaning of Numbers 1 to 7 under heading Two or Sleep (in death)) and seized (see fact #115) kindred (echad – see The Real Meaning of Numbers 1 to 7 under heading One or Apart) from lame side (see fact #141) and isolate (see fact #142) flesh underneath. Then in Gen. 2:22 And build/repair (see fact #105) Yahweh gods the lame side seized from the man to woman (mighty toward fire) (see fact #145) and observe (see fact #135) upon the man.
Birds represent God’s people who make their nests in the boughs of the mighty ones, and remain on their branches even after they are destroyed Ezek. 31:6 & 13. When judgment takes place, mighty ones like Pharaoh are given for food to the beasts of the earth and the birds of the heavens Ezek 29: 5, birds that fly in mid-heaven are called to the great supper of God to eat the flesh of kings, commanders and mighty men and their horses in Rev 19: 17 & 18.
