Peshitta Forum
Adam the original Gabra - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Aramaic Primacy Forum (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Adam the original Gabra (/showthread.php?tid=3435)



Adam the original Gabra - gregoryfl - 01-16-2015

In other threads here, the subject of what a Gaw-ra is has been adequately shared. As I was re-reading the Peshitta Tanach of Bereshiyt 2:23, a thought came to me that seems to tie in nicely with the idea of this word also containing the idea of guardian.

The text does not say that Adam became a gaw-ra after the woman was taken from his side. It says that she was taken from his side as a gaw-ra. Simply put, he fulfills both aspects of the word. While she was part of him, he was her gaw-ra (guardian, protector). When she was taken from him and brought to him, he became her gaw-ra (man, husband), in a different way and function.

Any thoughts?

Ronen


Re: Adam the original Gabra - Stephen Silver - 01-16-2015

gregoryfl Wrote:In other threads here, the subject of what a Gaw-ra is has been adequately shared. As I was re-reading the Peshitta Tanach of Bereshiyt 2:23, a thought came to me that seems to tie in nicely with the idea of this word also containing the idea of guardian.

The text does not say that Adam became a gaw-ra after the woman was taken from his side. It says that she was taken from his side as a gaw-ra. Simply put, he fulfills both aspects of the word. While she was part of him, he was her gaw-ra (guardian, protector). When she was taken from him and brought to him, he became her gaw-ra (man, husband), in a different way and function.

Any thoughts?

Ronen

Shlama Akhi Ronen:
Gowra, or GaBoR in Hebrew means "mighty one/guardian/protector", and in context father as well as husband. How did Adam protect/guard Khava his wife from sinning? No, Adam was rather cowardly not to act more responsibly before YHVH Elohim. In looking back, hindsight is 20/20 but Adam did not count the cost before his flagrant disobedience. Adam was commanded by YHVH Elohim to do one thing and one thing only....

Genesis 1:17
"....concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you may not eat of it: for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

It was YHVH who was "gowra" to both Adam and Khava. Together, they were lavishly blessed in Gan Eden. The expectation upon Adam was that he follow the instructions of YHVH. Did Adam impress upon his wife the dire consequences of their disobedience? I cannot answer that question but As a married man I do know what it is to take the reins firmly, as it were, and lay down the Law at the appropriate time. Adam failed miserably in this solemn task, and both he and his wife suffered the consequences of sin.
Now, Joseph was "gowra" and husband to Miryam; the guardian and protector of Jesus and his mother. Joseph obeyed Alaha, in all that he was commanded. He walked blameless in the halakha of the Torah and was called a righteous man. Young Joseph sold into slavery, grew in grace to become "father" to Pharoah and gowra to his brothers as well as to his father. He had a special affinity with Benjamin whose soul was bound up with the soul of his father. Joseph preserved their lives in Egypt through the famine. Joseph kept himself from sin and he was a righteous man in doing all these things. Actions speak louder than words.

Shlama,
Stephen


Re: Adam the original Gabra - gregoryfl - 01-16-2015

Thank you for your comments.

I understand what happened after she was brought out of Adam. What I was referring to was before then, not after. To be taken from something means that the something existed as that something before. Sorry for the tongue twister. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> If I take a steering wheel from a car, that automatically means that what the steering wheel was taken from was a car before the steering wheel was taken from it.


Re: Adam the original Gabra - Stephen Silver - 01-16-2015

Shlama Akhi Ronen:
It's not good hermeneutics to build an allegory upon an allegory. An allegory like a steering wheel taken from a car isn't the same thing as Khavah taken from the "side/tzela" vlc of Adam. Khava was literally non-existent apart from the Mind of Elohim, according to the passage, and before "their" transformation. The word "tzela" without exception, is used everywhere, in the TaNaKh to mean "side". Adam was created complete. Nevertheless he was alone and in some way that we can not fully understand, was prone to loneliness.

YHVH Elohim said, "It's not good for the man to be alone. I will make him a help meet/fit for him."

Khavah was formed to meet his need not to be alone. Both were created in the image and likeness of Elohim.
I have read much of your work Ronen and I would like to "steer" you away from the improper use of hermeneutics, if that's possible. Beating around the bush using allegories and symbols can be a distraction from the declared truth. If you're trying to flush out the truth then use the Word of God rightly.

Shlama,
Stephen


Re: Adam the original Gabra - gregoryfl - 01-16-2015

The last thing I want is for anyone to feel like I am misleading them. While I cannot just quit my work on researching the concrete meanings of semitic words (which I believe you are referring to when you speak of my work) I will refrain from posting my thoughts here.


Re: Adam the original Gabra - Stephen Silver - 01-16-2015

Shlama Akhi Ronen:
Please don't stop posting your insights on my account. Aren't we both being a little testy? I don't know everything and neither do you. We learn from one another don't we?. It's important to challenge one another and also to stand corrected, rather than to just withdraw and take the ball home, so no one can play...ahh allegory!! <!-- s:oha: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/oha.gif" alt=":oha:" title="Oha!" /><!-- s:oha: -->
Stick around and let's hash this thing out. We're mature enough to do that, aren't we? Khabiva, don't take my challenge the wrong way. Dig deeper and "drash" it out with me. Let's do this thing right for the benefit of all.

I just read a portion on "tzela" which tested me and in some way I have to concede that my thinking may be a little shallow.

Tzarich Iyun: Adam?s Rib
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_adams_rib/">https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzar ... adams_rib/</a><!-- m -->

I need correction as we all do. Take a deep breath and breath out a sigh of relief. <!-- sConfusedigh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sigh.gif" alt="Confusedigh:" title="Sigh" /><!-- sConfusedigh: -->

Rise to the challenge Akhi Ronen. <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: -->

Shlama,
Stephen


Re: Adam the original Gabra - gregoryfl - 01-17-2015

Shlama Stephen,

For myself, I take very seriously how other people may take what I write or say. I truly mean it when I say that I do not wish anyone to come away reading my posts as having been misled. If that is what is gained, then I have failed in my intent. While in my younger years I used to love to debate and try to get others to see things my way, while others are great at that and enjoy it, it (the love of it as well as the ability) has been taken from me.

Because of that, I probably will not hash things out if I sense that things might get argumentative. For me it is not worth it to either get frustrated or cause frustration by that type of interchange. You might have seen that in one of my other posts concerning the translation I have been working on. For the most part, it is considered bad hermeneutics and not worth investing time into. While I disagree, I also respect that when someone brings something new to the table, it is often and rightly met with skepticism. It is what keeps us from being suckers with every wind of teaching. That is why I did not press any further to try and show why I think people should give the principles I am using in that translation an honest look.

With regard to this post, my basic reason for sharing that Khawah came from Adam is because some believe (and I currently do as well) that Eve was in Adam in the sense that he, as a human, exhibited male and female characteristics, and that God, in envisioning Khawah as a separate person, formed another person from Adams' side, and presumably separated the femaleness from him for her to possess.

I agree that the wheel and car analogy is not exactly the same, and I should have put more thought into it before I posted. Ultimately though, the spirit of my post was to lend support to what Paul has shared concerning the meanings of gowra. Perhaps, in light of the plain meaning of the text, it might be better worded that Adam was created (yet failed in Eden) to be the gowra (both guardian and husband) of Khawa.


Re: Adam the original Gabra - Stephen Silver - 01-17-2015

Shlama Kabiva:
I'm 63 and I understand well not to be contentious. Mar Ephrem used allegory to point to truth. If I understand you well I perceive that you are makin a valiant attempt to bare your soul without wearing your heart on your sleeve. I am the same and so are many others on the forum; both those that contribute to the discussions and those that don't. We're touching on "naked truth", yes, Adam and Khawa were both naked and cunning as well. The Hebrew word "arumim" in Genesis 2:25 shares its root with "arum" in Genesis 3:1. This passage is so beautiful in its depth. Stay with me venerable friend.

Shlama w'Burkate,
Stephen


Re: Adam the original Gabra - aux - 01-18-2015

Great discussion, I love this topic. BTW, in bone grafts, surgeons will typically use a rib as it is well known that it will regenerate itself. I always like to point out how just as Eve was taken from Adam's side in his sleep to be his wife, the bride of Christ was taken from his side when he was pierced shedding his blood (and water) as he also "slept" (was dead). The blood of the sacrifices also flowed out the side of the temple washed out with the waters of the Gihon spring.

This topic goes right to the heart of the mysteries of marriage, the passion, the holy of holies, the nature of Elohim, the union of opposites.. it's kinda a big deal. It's so all-encompassing I imagine we will spend eternity exploring it with Yeshua himself as our guide no doubt, first in the kingdom when He as Melchizedek teaches in the new temple, then forever after in the new heavens and earth.

There's lots to say, and we may disagree - and that's fine, but I thought rather than reinvent the wheel I would copy a snippet from a post I made on a book review that touches on this subject in a wider context. To get the full background you might have to read the book description and then the review I'm replying to. The book itself seems to rely on the biblical ignorance of the reader and strawman arguments, but nevermind that.

So, if you're bored: http://www.amazon.com/review/R1YSAIA2Q3N1CL/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0567032167&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books

[...]
"The authors in this publication -- judging from this review -- seem to perpetuate and set a modern example of the same problem the biblical authors continually encountered because the text of the bible was not considered important anymore or being re-interpreted to fit the sociopolitical climate of the day (as today). This condition sets the whole backdrop to the book of Jeremiah for instance (whether or not it's believed to be 'inspired' is not the issue) and addresses how even then, those who were thought of as the biblical experts and scholars of the day were undermining the text with their 'propaganda' (same word the reviewer used to describe the opposite): "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law [torah] of the LORD [YHWH] is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie." -- Jeremiah 8.8

When it is said "The social contexts of religious belief and expression play a large role in these analyses," this could equally apply to the authors themselves making the analyses as they are not isolated from these influences -- particularly the Atheist-Socialistic political influences -- if not steeped in it more-so in the universities.

As an example of how similarities can exist between religions of opposite intent, we may explore the idea of God having a consort. The biblical authors do not hide the concept of God having a Mrs, despite what 99.9% of "Christians" might say. This fact is plainly shown in Proverbs 8 and She is referred to as Wisdom (Heb. "Chokmah," better known in Greek as "Sophia"). It kinda makes plain sense though if there is a God-the-Father who begets a Son, don't you think? If, biblically-speaking, Man is made in the image and likeness of God ("Elohim," plural noun) and originally Woman was included with Man, shouldn't that logically reflect the nature of Elohim on some level? "In the day when God [Elohim] created man [adam], He made him in the likeness of God [Elohim]. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man [Adam] in the day when they were created." --Gen 5.1-2. They, including the Woman, were included in the name "Adam" as when traditionally a wife takes the family name of the husband in marriage and they have one name, as does Elohim, it's a corporate body, a singularity of plural members. Like Paul said: "The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body-- whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free-- and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Now the body is not made up of one part but of many." --1Cor 12.12-14.

This is one of the deeper understandings of what the "Shema" means in Hebrew understanding. All this is typically ignored by those brilliant biblical scholars of today in their world-class analyses. In traditional Jewish understanding, the two cherubim facing each other -- made of one piece with the mercy seat in the holy of holies between which God's glory resided on earth -- are said to be, wait for it, male and female. In all of this is the divine mystery of marriage, the union of opposites, husband and wife, from which the fruit of life emerges. Only now, as in Jeremiah's day, the faithful bride has been perverted into a temple harlot, ie, the Whore of Babylon, because the faithful have strayed from the words of her husband and committed adultery serving other gods/idols/etc as they did not discriminate between the holy and profane just as some of the authors of this publication make a point to do. It's no accident that the various cults the apostate were seduced into from surrounding nations were heavily into sex/fertility/orgies (adultery) and sacrificed the babies from this practice (abortion) to gods and how this language and imagery is reflected in the harlotry that take place on a spiritual level. Book of Jeremiah has many examples. "Then the LORD said to me in the days of Josiah the king, Have you seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and she was a harlot there." --Jeremiah 3.6

Another example of similarities between holy and profane can be seen in studying the use and misuse of the zodiac in different systems of worship.

"Of considerable significance is the book's opposition to the presumption of a division between "official" religion of the biblical authors, and the "popular" religion of the apostate factions. This distinction is shown to be artificial and derived from an uncritical acceptance of the value judgments of the biblical authors."

This is rhetorically nice but to continue the double-speak -- meaningfully senseless.

If the God worshiped by the biblical authors is the same as the apostates' whom they are trying to lead back on the right path, then why all the fuss (cf Jeremiah)? Why is nearly the whole bible and its history of Israel concerned with separating the holy from the profane if there is really no difference? Why bother? This is like saying my whole post thus far is not really in opposition to the authors' presumption of there being no difference in this area just mentioned, as one might think, but rather this distinction is false and derived from an uncritical acceptance of the value judgements of myself. What?!? It sounds to me like you're saying (some of) the authors of 'Religious Diversity' are saying the biblical authors are not saying what they are saying and we should listen to them (the authors of 'Religious Diversity') who give very little credibility to what the biblical authors are saying, some 2600 years after the fact, to tell us what the biblical authors are saying. Maybe you're not, but it sounds that way.

Despite the unfortunate slant the authors seem to approach this important area of research with, I would still be interested in obtaining a copy someday, as I always like to get views from all sides to see which makes the most sense and answers the most questions."