And YHWH
ELOHIYM said
It is not good that audawm[1]
(the man) exist alone I will make an
ezer[2]
(help) neged[3]
( Counterpart [an equal and opposite])[4]
[1] The name 'adam
H120 Pronounced “audawm” is the name
God gave to both the first man and
the first woman; the entire human race, homo-sapiens in general; mixed crowds in
the Hebrew are also referred to as 'adam. In Genesis 2:18, the word 'adam, refers to the man, before the creation of the woman, but is not yet
being used as a proper name exclusively for him. The use of 'adam
as a proper name for the man alone did not occur until after The Fall. Before
The Fall, both the man and the woman were called 'adam. The words 'iysh (for the man) and 'ishshah (for the woman) are also used to differentiate between the female and male
in the second chapter of Genesis, though in later biblical usage, mixed crowds
are referred to as 'adam, 'iysh, or 'ishshah. Context alone
must determine who or what is being referred to in these instances.
[2] The word ezer H5828 (meaning help or succour) is used of God himself in Psalm 33:20, so translating this word as helper with the connotation of subordination is misleading at
best and deceptive at worst.
[3] The word, neged, H5048, is also erroneously translated. It does not mean “for
him,” as most translators have it. Young’s Literal Translation correctly reads “counterpart.”
Gender-biased-English-translation-theology transforms ezer neged as “help meet
for him” or “helper suitable for him.” From this verse, in the old English, the
compound word “help-meet” has come into existence and wide usage. But there is
no such word or compound word as “help-meet” found in the Hebrew. The old
English used the word “meet” instead of words such as “appropriate” or “suitable,”
but the word “meet” or “suitable” is not found in the Hebrew for Genesis 2:18.
The last part of the verse (help [or helper]
meet [or suitable] for him) in most English Bibles is pure fabrication on the
part of translators.
[4] In a literal reading of Genesis 2:18, there
is no textual basis for the complementarian teaching that God’s female creation
was created to be subordinate to his male creation. Aside from tampering with the
Hebrew text and applying gender-biased-English-translation-theology to this
verse, it cannot be inferred that God created the man and woman to be
functionally unequal. And even the most dogmatic of complementarian teachers
admit that no hint of female subordination can be found in the entirety of the
first creation account found in Genesis One.
... ...The study entitled, Trinity Marriage
and the Godhead, examines and refutes
the theory of hierarchy within the eternal Godhead (Charles Stanley claims the entire foundation of male headship teaching is based upon a hierarchal Godhead).
No comments:
Post a Comment