The Genesis Papers, Continued.
TSELA - A Rib? In making men different from women? What?
Adm the Human;
Aishe the Woman; ]
Essence of the Human Creature.
Ashe the Man.
In Situ. Part I.
Creation Conundra and Genetic Combinations.
Is the common understanding in error.
Originalism in Creationism and Old Genesis 2.
The Adventures of XX and Xy in Eden.
Then s*See XX and Xy in Eden and After, Part II
Add another, by way of update, now up front - see comment that we had left that out. No, Genesis 5 is a recap, not a new story ve: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm
- Get feet on ground on issue of who "Adam" is in the creation stories in Genesis. The hebrew is "adm" or human. Go back to transliterations to check meanings of words, and whether or how culture constructs what it wants out of ambiguous texts.
- Find ambiguities abounding. Why not live with the ambiguities, and let each find a way through, if it is of interest.
- Start with http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen2.pdf
- Genesis 1:27 ff - adm means the human - [that is the story of the both-together male and female adm], and Genesis
- Genesis 2:7 again creation of adm the human
- Genesis 5:2 : again creation of adm the human
- Genesis 5:2 that says (my King James)
- King James translation -- "Male and female created he them: and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."
- Transliteration: "male and female he created them and he is blessing them and he is calling name of them human in day of to be created of them.
- That summary, whether in translation or transliteration, does not mention what process or steps were used in the male and female, or which genetically came first. Look up the transliteration http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen5.pdf.
- The word that the King James gives as "Adam" comes from the hebrew "adm" and adm means human -- the species, not an individual male or individual female.
- The likeness of God is human, but genderless - human species is in the image of -- except by cultural overlay in pronoun systems that developed. Cultural preference, cultural matter.Can we separate it out from "religion."
Back to the creation of genders:
How did we get in the position of making progeny, as we know it. Look up Genesis 2:21. The Great Divide.
We were divided into two by a simple rib? Not so, says ://www.jasher.com/Adamsrib.htm/, translating the word and tracing its usage in the Old Testament.
Track the various interpretations. Track the Hebrew, oldest forms, even as an amateur. How does that word get to be "rib" as in chest-bone.
Where to start. The first entity, we understand, the Human, the Adm, could not multiply and was not asked to. Other cultures have found the first human to be androgynous, or a both-and; and indeed multiplying; but that is earlier than ours. Our Adm is said to have become two separate, other beings, called in the earliest texts, Aishe, the Woman (our XX) and Ashe, the Man (our Xy). See the texts, here. What was that process? Reconstruct, please:
I. Hebrew Creation in a Transliteration, Characters and Story
II. How Adm became Aishe and Ashe
III. Science, Pictures - Chromosomes X and y and combinations
IV. Text - Meaning of Tsela as Rib (bone in chest), or Structure (ribbing); or Costis - rib (Latin) that includes idea of Sussurea Lappen (flower)
V. Translation pitfalls
VI. Creation theories
VII. Working the theories: conclusion conundrum
*Angular organs.. Adm has two, says the text. XX. Aishe keeps one/ Ashe gets the other.
............................TZLO, M-TZLOTHI-U, מצלעתיו
Rib..................... Costis in the Latin Vulgate, from (apparently) Hebrew tsela. Translations for tsela include a vault, chamber idea. Not just "rib" structure outside. This is also true of definitions of costis, but there is an additional botanical name that derives from it. Text: the Force takes one from him, then heals up the place under her where it came from, then puts it in her (another her?) and builds it up. Was the original human a him-her?
2:20 u-igra ............. and he is calling,
e-adm ......................... the human [still not a "man"],
Roadmap of Theories:
1) Partition of two somehow conjoined but genderly separated equals; thus making progeny possible (not likely. Stash that); or
2) Transplant of something related to progeny, something duplicative or incipient perhaps, so that the original entity had both elements M+F; and then a Rebuilding around it. This is the "angular organs" idea, the "ribbing" or structure meaning of tsela (text says "under"), or
3) Transplant of something unrelated to progeny that, the first could well do without, and that then became the foundation for a whole new being. This is the chest-type "rib" idea, from tsela.
Then, what do the choices say about the nature of the Force(s) behind it all. If the first entity created, the Adm, was in the "image" of that Force, and Adm contains both genders, was the first being also co-gendered.
The microscopes. Show and tell. We can't "see" the Force, but we can see what happened. See this fair use thumbnail from ://www.bio.miami.edu/~cmallery/150/mendel/Ychromosome.htm/.
Follow that thought to the Hebrew word, tsela, and through Saint Jerome's translation of tsela it into Latin as "costis". What other meanings to both tsela and costis suggest that "rib" is all wet.
- Original Force, and the original human made in that image, would have been/is XXy. Original hermaphrodite. Division and rebuilding moved one of the X's (see text and theories for what the transplant was) out and away.
- The Original Force then built a further X to make the XX, the woman; while leaving a different entity from the original XXy, the Xy, the man. That follows text. People became XX's or Xy's; from the original XXy.
- There was no possible YY. See genetics and DNA: The X remains foundational. The Y is too weak. See fair use thumbnail of comparative sizes, definition, from ://www.bio.miami.edu/~cmallery/150/mendel/Ychromosome.htm/ A YY would never have made it. See Xy, not XY. And the y is a squig. That is why we represent the Xy with the size differential here. Does that size and importance difference mean that the male is mostly female. Consider: Is that why so many Xy's so violently reject the X within them, rejecting homosexuality, the Xy-Xy relationship? The X-men. Always the little y no matter what they do, no matter how big the biceps. Identity issues built in from creation?
ויפל יהוה אלהים
ויישן ויקח אחת
מצלעתיו ויסגר בשר
[early forms had no verse divisions] ... and he is causing to fall Yahweh Elohim stupor on the human and he is taking one from angular organs of him and he was closing flesh under her, and he is building Yahweh Elohim the angular organ which he took from the human to woman and he is bringing her to the human .... (italics emphases added)
... inmisit ergo Dominus Deus soporem in Adam cumque obdormisset tulit unam de costis eius et replevit carnem pro ea
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;
1. The Tsela '
- Saint Jerome, 342-420 ACE, translated the Hebrew Old Testament into Latin, in the Bible version we know as the Latin Vulgate, about 390-400 ACE. He wrote the Latin "costis" for צלע and that in turn became the bandwagon translation as "rib." Perhaps he referred to the entire מצלעתיו
cost.is N 1 1 LOC P F cost.is N 1 1 DAT P F cost.is N 1 1 ABL P F costa, costae N F [XBXCO] rib; side/flank/back; rib with meat; ribs/frame of ship; sides (pl.) of pot;But that string, the rib string, does not include "costis" - the word that Saint Jerome used.It only is the -a or -ae feminine ending.
B2. The Rib "Form" -- Costis Botanical
Costis as flower and parts.
Rib as costis, as referring to a botanical plant, even with
aphrodisiac qualities. The second costis string at the
Whitaker site is botanical: a plant, aromatic, of a certain shape, uses:
cost.is N 2 6 LOC P F cost.is N 2 6 DAT P F cost.is N 2 6 ABL P F costos, costi N F [XAXCO]aromatic plant/its powdered root; (Saussurea lappa);Note that this form shows the also feminine but -os and -i ending.
Fair use thumbnail from a Chinese herbal medicine site, ://tcm.health-info.org/Herbology.Materia.Medica/muxiang-properties.htm
|Costis, costus, sussurea lappen|
The leaves are produced in a dense basal rosette, and then spirally up the flowering stem. The flowers form in a dense head of small capitula often completely surrounded in dense white to purple woolly hairs; the individual florets are also white to purple. The wool is densest in the high altitude species, and aid in thermoregulation of the flowers, minimising frost damage at night, and also preventing ultra-violet light damage from the intense high altitude sunlight..
Tsela, Costis, Rib, Flower
- Why not divide into a YY for the man, instead of Xy for the man? Is it because the Y was the weaker, as it still is - a shaky shape. A double Y would not survive as a double X has, disease resistant, stronger, longer lived. Is the weaker Y and the strong X a reason for fear, for fear of the X in the man, that there may he homosexuality there. The X-Man. The X-Files. Fear of the woman element. Another day.
|X as in XX or Xy|
There are definitions in Strong's list of Hebrew words that suggest a meaning for tsela as a chamber, a part enclosed by support-ribbing (think of the function of ribs of a ship's hull). That functional entity was moved. Walls surrounding a room. It is the ribbing in its functional context that matters.
- Follow that thought: no baculum? no ability to do The Dance at will. It is intended that Xy should not do The Dance at will. So Viagra is immoral and against scripture. History: as patriarchy evolves, because one gender is anatomically free to dominate year-round and the other gets pregnant too often to be able to fight back, the logical happens. Xy forces XX into subjugation so he can do The Dance with multiples anyway.
- Conservative Creationists-Literalists, being literal may be more than you bargained for.
**** The feminine side of men, the masculine side of women stems from Creation? And the fear of women, and of homosexuals, stems from denial of the X in the man?
Instead, dogma-sites morph all these issues into the culturally accepted one, see ://www.purposeoflife.org.uk/heavens/birth%20of%20humanity.htm/. Skip that. No starting from dogma and moving to interpretation.