Monday, May 24, 2010

M TZLOTHI U. Adm the Human Divides Into Aishe, the Woman; and Ashe, the Man. Tsela. צלע.

XX and Xy in Eden. 
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.
The Rib: What was it?

Is the common understanding in error.
Look at old texts:  M Tzlothi u or Tsela
Originalism in Creationism and Old Genesis 2.
Rib alternatives on the menu.

The Adventures of XX and Xy in Eden.  
Then s*See XX and Xy in Eden and After, Part II

Creation and Science. Look it up yourself. What is in transliterated texts. Start making your own resource list.  Here is one:  http://mirrorh.com/genesis2.html.  Essence of the human creature.  What is it?  Dare we look, when the institutions that run the religions have decided what is truth and what is not. What shall be dogma, and what shall not.

......................................................

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. 

See http://books.google.com/books?id=5bX8EqRvp9AC&pg=PA354&lpg=PA354&dq=rib+tsela&source=bl&ots=mTevRMnKCW&sig=--QdVVJpV42EA0gSDCvoLP0DZ8w&hl=en&ei=EwgUTIjYDYS8lQe8rdz8DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=rib%20tsela&f=false/.

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

I.  HEBREW CREATION IN A TRANSLITERATION 

Word for word. This will be different from the accustomed translations.


Characters.   
.
Adm.................. The original Human.  
M tzlothi u........  Angular organs.*
Aishe...............  Word for "man" -  [NOTE THAT ADM DOES NOT MEAN INDIVIDUAL MAN]
Ashe................. Word for "woman"
Jahweh Elohim.. The Creating Force.

*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?

Genders...........  Unsorted until the Sorting Sleep. He is called woman, then she, etc.  From that we learn, Do ask. Do tell.
 .
Story:
Fair use from Scripture4all's words and a small portion of their entire OT is at scripture4all.com:


2:20  u-igra  ............. and he is calling,
e-adm  ..................... the human,
shmuth  ................... names
l-kl  .......................... to all of
e-beme ................... the beast
u-l-ouph .................. and to flyer of
e-shmin ................... the heavens,
u-l-kl ....................... and to every of
chith ........................ animal of
e-shde ..................... the field,
u-l-adm .................... and for Adam (why not “the human” here for "adm?")
la-mtza ..................... not he found
ozrm ......................... helper
kngdu ....................... as in front of him  [see KNGDV, KNGDU]
.
2:21 u-iphl ................ and he is causing to fall,
ieue .......................... Yahweh
aleim ......................... Elohim,
thrdme ...................... stupor [the Sorting Sleep]
ol ............................... on
e-adm ........................ the human
u-iishm ....................... and he is sleeping,
u-iqch ......................... and he is taking
achth .......................... one
m-tzlothi-u .................. from angular organs of him [there must have been two sets in the human] ** u-isgr ......................... and he is closing
bshr ........................... flesh
thchth-ne ................... under her [under her - now there is a "her", and look where her angular organ  went - not in a rib place. ]
.
2:22  u-ibn ................. and he is building
ieue ........................... Yahweh
aleim ......................... Elohim
ath –e-tzlo ................  the angular organ **
ashr ........................... which
lqch ........................... he took
mn ............................. from
e-adm ........................ the human
l-ashe ........................  to woman
u-iba-e ....................... and he is bringing her
al ................................ to
e-adm ........................ the human [still not a "man"? concept of woman comes before man]
.
2:23  u-iamr ................ and  he is saying,
e-adm ......................... the  human [still not a "man"],
zath ............................ this one,
ephom .........................the once
otzm ............................bone
e-otzm-i  ..................... from bones of me
u-bahr ........................ and flesh
m-bahr-i ...................... from flesh of me,
l-zath ........................... to this one
igra ............................. he shall be called [woman is still "he?" to him?]
ashe ............................ woman
ki ................................. that
m-aish ......................... from man
lqche ........................... she was taken [no, not from "man" - she and the man both came from the "human"] [early story-tampering?],
zath ............................. this one
.
2:24  ol kn ................... on so
iozb .............................. he is leaving [not future - "shall leave" - this is now]
aishe ............................. man
ath abi-yu ...................... father of him
u-ath .............................. and
am-u ............................... mother of him [the human had been both mother and father]
u-dbq ............................. and he clings
b-ashth-u ........................ in woman of him
u-eiu .............................. and they become
l-bshr .............................. to flesh
achd .................................one
______________________________________


II.  HOW ADM BECAME AISHE AND ASHE

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. 
III.  SCIENCE - WHAT DO THE PICTURES, ANALYSIS, SHOW

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/.


Start with Biology.  Then go to a transliteration of the Creation Story.  Are there similarities, cues. mutual explanations.  Science tells us about chromosomes: That the XX is big.  And figures prominently in our species as traced farthest back through a female, XX.  There is another, rare - XO - that also produces female.  Then there is Xy. 

Xy produces male.  And there is also a rarer XXy that is male (outside view).  The XXy is called Klinefelter's syndrome today, see ://www.medicinenet.com/klinefelter_syndrome/article.htm/. The site says that 1 in 500 males has Klinefelter's, and doesn't know it. Can that XXy link science with elements of creation that even (with luck) conservative Biblical users of modern translations could accept. Does the beleagured little y in XXy, surrounded with two Big X's, have to act out more to get the y identity? Does the usual y competing with the Big X have to fight harder. Hold that thought.

Looking at the sizes, we show the y in small case to reflect its evolutionary shrinkage, photographed small size and lack of definition, compared.  The y, as we understand it, determines gender. The male is Xy.  If he passes the X on, to mix with the female's X, get female XX. If he passes the y on, to mix with the female's X, get male Xy.
See
 full size image

X and y again. Find this thumbnail at a comparative worldwide distribution of y site, at ://www.karakalpak.com/images/xandy.jpg. See discussion at ://www.answers.com/topic/chromosome/.

IV.  TEXTS

Originalism and Eden; Old Hebrew Origins of Gender

XX and Xy in Eden. There somewhere also is XXy and XO.  Is there a reference in old texts,  particularly transliterated texts, to a process that also fits the scientific.

Go back to mechanical word for word to see what vestiges of earlier wisdom we find, despite millennia of translation-culture spins. We know that the Creation story came from earlier female-oriented cultures, no big deal that.  See, e.g., Creation Stories Kharsag and Sumerian-Type Genesis. What else is there.

Go back to Hebrew. We are pursuing the word known as TSELA '  or
צלע
a/k/a TZIO, or in larger context, M-TZIOTHI-U; or: MTShL'yThYV
or: מצלעתיו
Spellings are difficult, and not really phonetic because early Hebrew had no vowels. We are after meaning.

III. CREATION STORY TRANSLITERATED
 
First, read again the transliteration and cast of characters, derived word for word from the Hebrew. Note the roles, interactions.  The supposed rib part is at our traditional Genesis 2:21, but in the transliteration, it is not a simple rib at all.  It is "angular organ." 

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. 

Conclusion:
  • 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?

A. RIB RIBS What?

1.  Paleo-Hebrew  from ://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C002.htm#V21

No given verse divisions in the old form, no punctuation, capitals, or vowels:


   
   
    -
   
   
.    
2.  Modern Hebrew (fonts need adjusting for us, so go to site 
at ://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C002.htm#V21)
Genesis 2:21
ויפל יהוה אלהים
תרדמה על־האדם
ויישן ויקח אחת
מצלעתיו ויסגר בשר
תחתנה׃
 See the tsela, highlighted here in red, in the middle of other letters.

3.  Transliteration of Old Hebrew put together from the verse at  ://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen2.pdf/.



DISCUSS ALL THIS
[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)


Then the Latin Vulgate, Saint Jerome from the Hebrew 5th Century, see ://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C002.htm#V21

Genesis 2:21
... inmisit ergo Dominus Deus soporem in Adam cumque obdormisset tulit unam de costis eius et replevit carnem pro ea
One of the "costis" says Saint Jerome. What is costis?  King James, see ://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C002.htm#V21

Genesis 2:21 
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;
The rib again.

...........................................................................................

B.  THE RIB-STRUCTURE FORM

1.  The Tsela '
Tsela. One of Eden's creation tales, at Genesis 2:21, involves the tsela' -- and that is familiarly translated as "the rib". Think Adam and Eve. Body-chest-rib bone is the traditional translation, with Eve being shaped from that rib after it was removed.

Tsela' itself is a word in three Hebrew characters, צלע .  But it appears in Genesis 2:21 in a larger context with other letters adjoining fore and aft - as מצלעתיו.  See the transliteration site, http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen2.pdf; and ://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C002.htm#V2/.

We need to find out the meaning of those other letters that sandwich the part we highlight in red here, the tsela ' צלע
 What are the parts we highlight in blue here  מצלעתיו.

Those letters may make a difference, because the tsela ' just may make the word mean other than merely the traditional body-chest-rib that became widely disseminated with use of a Latin word for the צלע   There is a similar word to it, the tsala ', that is related to limping, or curved, צָלַע   Easy for mistakes, mis-scribing. And the transliteration site shows that larger word as meaning "angular organ."

2.  Tsela as Costis - Latin Vulgate
  • 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 
Look up costis:  find a site, credited to a William Whitaker, and called ://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?keyword=costis/.  Costis has two strings of meaning:

 Costis Structural.  Rib as costis, as support for a vault.

The first costis string at the Whitaker site is the usual rib-type, and includes the additional element of  ribbing as a function, as support, as in the sides of a pot:  N means noun, F means feminine form

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. 
Which did Saint Jerome mean.  Were there those plant references back then?  Aromatic plant:  look up the Saussurea lappa and findit as a dried leaf used for medicinal reasons:
See
 full size image

Fair use thumbnail from a Chinese herbal medicine site, ://tcm.health-info.org/Herbology.Materia.Medica/muxiang-properties.htm

See it alive at 
See
 full size imageCostis, costus, sussurea lappen

Fair use thumbnail of the living leaf and flower from Flowers of India, at ://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/slides/Costus.html

The spelling is costus, not costis; but it comes up under the saussurea lappa. Check its uses.  An amateur's first look at Wikipedia: fair use from ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saussurea/.  Perennial, herbaceous, can go from small to 10 cm tall, thistle-like:

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.. 

So, we want to find out both references, the letters (reading right to left) like a delta, then the tsela ', then a pi, an apostrophe, and a 7.
.......................................................

V. TRANSLATION PITFALLS
Tsela, Costis, Rib, Flower

Translations can err. Watch the path of the versions here. That original Latin Vulgate version was revised in the 16th Century, to correct what apparently had become many inconsistencies and errors with all the copying and recopying.  The Latin revision to the earlier Latin(s) was made in France, at Rheims and Douay, and called that - the Douay Rheims. See ://www.ewtn.com/library/mary/jerome.htm/.  And that was revised in the 18th Century.
 
In support of the traditional body-rib is this:  It is indeed one of the definitions of tsela ', see www://blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm.Strongs=H6763/  Strong's Lexicon takes Hebrew Words, defines them, finds where they occur in the Old Testament, and their uses. But even there, tsela is a feminine noun (interesting).
.....................................................

VI.  Creation Theories

A. A Partition  happened.  Probably not.

Partition would mean dividing Complete, Severable Entities.

The Human is (XX+Xy).  Hardly likely because some early account would have taken note that we have two conjoined entities here that were simply severed.  The Human would have to be (XX+Xy) that become separate XX and Xy by an Act of Partition that divides the two. The original (XX+ Xy)is no more.  The partition of non-replicated material is indeed possible, see ://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC205270/

This could not be "mitosis" because that would mean replicating the original (XX+Xy) into two (XX+Xy) and (XX+Xy).  Two identical copies. 


Somebody would have told if the original entity had been conjoined - say, with four legs, four arms, two heads, etc; and the DNA/genetics do not support it.

B.  A Division and Building happened.  Probably so.

1. This is a transplant and a rebuilding to receive what is transplanted.

This fits the text.  The original Human is (XXy) --  one entity, elements of both, none dominant. One set of arms, one set of legs, one head, etc.; but with both XX and Xy systems in it; a common "X" for each.  Androgeny or Hermaphroditism.

The steps to separation involve a further creation act:

1) XXy the original human
2) Remove one of the X's from the Human him part  heal the place it was taken from the XXy - text says heal the place under her (showing that the human was both him and her)
3) Build around the X a further X; (this is a further creation act, and is in the text - the rebuilding around the X
4) The old combo XXy now is two different entities: the remaining old entity is now the new entity Xy; and there is the new entity XX.

 Stay with this a while.

  • 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.
See
 full size imageX as in XX or Xy

An X Chromosome, clearly shaped, substantial size, fair use thumbnail from ://rettsyndrome.wordpress.com/2009/04/

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.

So, was a "bone" rib-chest transferred out; or a system, a chamber.  This leads to Theory 2B.

2.  In support of the division and rebuilding. The missing Baculum; there is no missing Rib.

Some like the idea of a bony entity, but not the location as rib. No logic lies in chest-ribs. Male and Female have the same number of ribs. Nobody got one rib from the other, leaving one with fewer. See ://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio105/ribs.htm/

Follow the theory that the bony entity refers to the baculum, that small arc-shaped thin bony bone found in all primates except for spider monkeys and male humans.  Its function is to aid in The Dance. 


Read all about it at this site:  //archaiologia.wordpress.com (maybe these unvetted people have it all wrong, but parts are very interesting, especially the anatomical evidence that something was divided out and got lost in the translation).  

  • 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.

Logic: Just think of combined anatomies, hat that would look like, and what it takes to divide them out, and who has what fissures or remains of fissures. One remains an outie, the other becomes an innie.

3.  Transplant and a rebuilding:  These suggests the original human as hermaphrodite, androgyne.  

See the Text.  Go back to transliteration:From One, came different and separate others.  There was divided from the human, a separate man, aishe and a separate woman, ashe, by the transplant of one of the angular organs of the Human. If there was XXy as the original human, a division out leaves Xy and, as the text says, there was a building around the transplanted entity to make the X an XX. Done.

Angular organs. One of the angular organs was transplanted; not a bone -- no rib, but "rib" is the Latin Vulgate translation given.  See also ://asheis.com/timeline-1st-7days.htm/
.
.
Both genders originally in one being, originally?

Hermaphrodite, dare anyone say? Androgynous? Apparently so, and follow more reasoning at  ://www.gtft.org/Library/condon/
/TheMakingOfWomanPriddy.htm/ (the Priddy site).  There, find that the meaning of one of the organs is a "vault" concept. Adm had, how shall we say, origins of innies and outies? See the saussurea lappen.  Resemblances to genital-kinds of things?   And organ, not bone.

Prototypes. How are genders separated out and why are all ancient concepts, see ://everything2.com/title/Aristophanes%2527+Speech+from+Plato%2527s+Symposium.  The ancients saw the original human as self-fertilizing hermaphrodite or some such (enter Spielberg), and a division into two from that.



VII.   Working the Theories
.
Narrative summary and comment. 
.
What do we think. It matters only to us who like working through issues.  We do not swallow easily. And, there is an element of aghast in seeing how the XX has been denigrated culturally - see XX and Xy in Eden. Part II Small poem.

Note that "man" as a male  form in the transliteration version was not created first and woman second.  The "human" who was both-and XXy  - not a "man". And if the Human is both/and and created in the image of Jahweh Elohim, then is Jahweh Elohim also both/and.

The Force is XXy also.

The human called names for the beasts and the birds.
But Jahweh had not found for the human a helper as in front of him
Jahweh caused a stupor to fall on the human and the human slept.
And Jahweh took one of the angular organs of the human XXy [leaving an __Xy].
And Jahweh closed the flesh under her [closed the part of the XXy that had been female in the both-and].
And Jahweh built the angular organ which he took from the human [built one of the X's] to the woman [making XX]. **
And Jahweh brought her to the human [who now was only Xy].
And the human [now the Xy] said,
This one, the once bone from bones of me
And flesh from flesh of me,
To this one he shall  be called woman [even the Xy does not know this one in front of him is XX yet], 
That from man [the human] *** she was taken, this one. 
And so he is leaving, man [finally we have the man Xy],
Father of him and mother of him  [leaves behind the concept of XXy, as both father and mother]
.

And he clings in woman of him [the XXy had contained the XX as well as the Xy] ****
And they become to flesh, one.
____________________________

* Is this one the "vault" part, see Priddy site, for an examination of the meaning of "angular organs" at ://www.gtft.org/Library/condon/TheMakingOfWomanPriddy.htm/  There is a concept of a vault-type structure.  No rib involved.

**   Transliterating the oldest Hebrew we can find for the "angular organ" part -

1)  MTShL'yThYV  .......... an alternate sounded-out spelling from ://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C002.htm#V21/

2)  In Latin, the translation (Vulgate) is given as unam de costis eius - Latin translation, see hebrewoldtestament.com.  "Costis" in the Latin does mean rib, but the issue is if that is the appropriate translation for the oldest Hebrew, or was it an error in translation from early Latin use?  Expert in Paleo-Hebrew needed. 


*** No, she was taken from the "human" - who now sees self as "man" and the "human" is not even left. "Man" becomes man only when there is woman as counterpart?] [first reference to "man"]


****  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.