Genesis 3:12
"This Mystery is Profound"
And the Man is saying, "The Woman whom you have given close beside myself, she, Himself, has given to myself from out of the Tree, and he has eaten."
"What is this?"
"Just as the Woman from out of the Man, in this way also the Man across through the Woman. And the Whole, from out of the God."
(1 Corinthians 11:12 RBT)
"What is it?"
"The fruit of thy womb."
And the man will say, The woman which thou gavest with me, she gave to me from the tree, and I shall eat.
And the man said, The woman whom You gave to be with me, she has given to me of the tree, and I ate.
Error retrieving verse.
And Adam said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me—she gave me of the tree and I ate.
Footnotes
| 127 | Strong’s #5978, immadi. close beside myself. According to Gesenius, “only found with the suffix of the first-person with-me. This word is not at all connected to the root amad [#5975] to stand, but it rather belongs to an unused root to tie, bind together.” It is the same as imm-anu-el, 'close-beside-ourselves-God." Hebrew הוא נתנה לי. She, Himself has given to myself. In this clause, the word which has been manipulated to mean "she" (הוא) even though it is absolutely the masculine pronoun "he/himself", has confused scholars for ages because the entire passage is extroardinarily enigmatic. The traditional prevaling context usurped honesty in the end, and the Writing herself was subverted. The Masoretes in the 7th-10th centuries A.D. scandalously placed feminine vowel points on on these masculine pronouns, and those vowel points remain in many places to this day. For the next thousand years most scholars overlooked it or didn't notice. Gesenius, the "Hebrew Master" noticed, and called out the Masoretes for falsely pointing it, but he also subverted it. He guessed that it was "an orthographic peculiarity" (cf. Gesenius Hebrew Grammar 32) She, Himself. In the context of the Whole, Woman from Man, and now Man through the Woman, it is not hard to see. A man (the old) receives his new man, through the new Woman. Of course, "this mystery is profound" and thus translating what are otherwise simple words, was too dangerous so that even the masters avoided it. |
| 126b | אכל Eat Strong's #398 to eat in the complete form. Without the lamed ל preposition, we don't take it for an infinitive. The difference between okel and akal is a matter of pronunciation. Which one is it here? The dialogue of Adam uses two verbs in the complete/perfect, so the complete "he ate" maintains the consistency here as well as with the previous question posed in the perfect "have you eaten?" rather than "are you eating?" The expected answer would be "I have eaten" אכלתי but that is not the case. אכל okel I am eating (incomplete/imperfect, more properly with a vav אוכל but this creates an identical form with "I am able") אכל akal He ate (complete/perfect) אכלה akalah She ate (complete/perfect)
|