A Fail Grade To The Translators!

(Some Examples)

Adam and Eve:

Adam and Eve are not names. The word adam means mankind or man in general or men including women. Eve means life.

In Numb. 31: 47 Moses took one portion of fifty ‘of man’ and gave them unto the Levites. The word for ‘man’ is adam, even though these were girls. Adam just means ‘human’ and the word is connected to humus, Hebrew: adamah, just like there is a connection between human and humus in Latin and also in English.

Gen. 1: 27 says according to most English translations: ‘So God created man (the adam) in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.’ Eve is not mentioned in this verse. Some translations say, ‘in the image of God created he them; male and female created he them.’ Even though this seems to make more sense in English, it is not correct.

First of all, the word for man here is the expression ‘the adam’. Nearly always when the word ‘adam’ occurs in the Bible it occurs with the definite article. In these cases certainly the man or the mankind is meant, not a person called by this name. Unfortunately there is no indefinite article in Hebrew. So, the few times the article is left out, it is unclear whether man in general is meant or a person called Adam. However from the context it is nearly always clear that man in general is meant.

Secondly it has to be considered that in Hebrew all nouns have a gender, they are either male or female. Words ending on -ah are usually female, eg.: ishah, woman. However even when the gender doesn’t seem to have any gender specific meaning words still have a grammatical gender, eg.: Torah is female. Adam is male. Therefore it says in the Hebrew text in the middle – section of verse 27, ‘in the image of God created he him.’ The word ‘him’ however is not an indication that a single person is meant. The word refers to the adam, the mankind, since the word is male in Hebrew and therefore should be referred to as ‘him’ in that language. To use the English word ‘him’ in this sentence is incorrect literality, since in English all nouns are referred to as ‘it’ except in the case of persons.

Therefore the verse should be translated as, ‘So God created the mankind (the adam) in his own image, in the image of God created he it; male and female created he them.’ This last word refers to the individuals which God created.

Regarding the word Eve see the comments on Gen. 3: 20 below. This word only occurs twice in the Old Testament. The other verse is Gen. 4: 1.

Gen. 3: 20

King James: And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

The Hebrew word for ‘she’ really means ‘he’.

The word for ‘because’ is ‘ki’. ‘Because’ is its most frequent translation, however it can mean ‘but’, eg.: Gen. 17: 15, ‘And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but (ki) Sarah [shall] her name [be].’ The word ‘because’ would not fit here.

If this meaning ‘but’ for ‘ki’ is used in the translation of Gen. 3: 20 then the verse becomes:

Gen. 3: 20          And the adam called his woman’s name ‘life’; but he was the mother of all living.

How could Adam be a mother? The reason is that prior to Gen. 3 it was not known that men have anything to do with producing offspring. Gen. 3 is the story of this realization. Verse 16 is God’s punishment to the woman, ‘I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.’ ‘And’ in ‘thy sorrow and thy conception’ can have a consequential meaning. In Hebrew it is just the letter ‘vav’ prefixed to the word conception. Ps 119: 41 to 45 all start with a vav and in some of these verses it just means ‘and’, in others ‘so’ meaning consequently. In other words, since realising this fact women shall never again be able to engage in this most pleasurable of all acts without thinking of pregnancy and childbirth. They still shall desire a man and it shall be as if he is ruling over her, meaning even though she might want to avoid pregnancy and child birth, she will not be able to control herself. (This is explained in more detail in Greetings From Paradise, in the chapter ‘The Original Sin’.)

Now verse 20 is to smile upon the lack of knowledge of previous men. However the word father still had no biological meaning. It might have meant ‘counselor’ then. A mother had been a creatress of life, since for some unknown reason every so often she grew a big belly and later she would bring forth a living child. In Gen. 3 the theory arose that the gooey substance coming out of the penis was an early form of the child which had to be put into a woman to turn into a baby. The woman became an empty container, which is a thought engrained in Hebrew Language. The word ‘bath’ means ‘daughter’ but at the same time it also means a hollow measure of volume of about fourty litres used in Ancient trade.

The thought of the gooey substance from the penis turning into a child is not that far fetched. To the ancients gooey stuff did turn into living things. An obvious example is a chicken egg. If it is cracked open, there is a lot of gooey stuff inside, but if left intact, the gooey stuff turns into a chicken.

All this is not inherent contempt against women but an early form of science. The ancients did not have microscopes to check out that in an ejaculation there are millions of sperm cells. They did not know that there are egg cells inside a woman and that in these cells there is some hereditary information which is also passed from the mother to the child. The monk Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, lived in the nineteenth century!

Abimelech and Rebeccah

In Gen. 26 Isaac travelled to Gerar because of a famine. Now when he was asked about his woman Rebeccah in verse 7, he said she was his sister, so that the men of the place would not kill him for her sake. So after a long time (verse 8) one day Abimelech looked out of a window and saw Isaac and Rebeccah ‘sporting’ in nature, which led Abimelech to the conclusion that she was his woman. He called him and said in verse 10, according to King James, ’… one of the people might lightly have lien with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us.’

Now in Hebrew there is no conjunctive verb form. The above translation seems to imply that Rebekah had not had sex with anybody else, but the words ‘might’ and ‘should’ do not exist in Hebrew. Abimelech said, literally translated, ‘… a little (lightly) one of the people lay down (qal, normal narrative form indicating it did happen) with your woman and you brought us into (bow in the hiphil form, the causative passive) guilt.’ Anything else is interpretation. The verse said someone lay down with her and Isaac did bring guilt upon Abimelech and his people for having sex with a woman who was meant to be ‘known’ to bear an heir to Isaac, even though Isaac had lied about her. The Hebrew text says, it did happen!

The same applies to Gen. 12: 19 in a similar situation in which Abram (Abraham’s original name) had gone into Egypt with Sarai (Sarah’s original name). When the pharaoh returned the woman, he did not say in the Hebrew text, ’… I might have taken her to me to woman, …’ but, ’I have taken her …’!

The Chathan

Most modern tranlators render this word as ‘father in law’. This gives a completely wrong impression of its meaning. The chathan had the task to allocate girls to boys for sex in his tribe. He also exchanged girls with chathans of other tribes. He may very well have done this under considerations which we today would call breeding, trying to achieve offspring with favourable results. Leviticus 18 appears to be a set of rules for use by the chathan when considering partners for reproduction. In any case, read this chapter, Dear Reader. Have a look what is forbidden there. If the rule would have been, ‘you are only permitted to have sex with your married partner,’ this whole chapter would be superfluous.

Moses had three different chathans. He is only reported to have been given one woman, Zipporah. (He also had had an Ethiopian woman, probably from his time in Egypt, Numb. 12: 9. However, none of his chathans were Ethiopian.) In Ex. 3: 1 his chathan is called Jethro, even though the man who gave him Zipporah in Ex. 2 was called Reuel. These may be two different names for the same person, however, the third chathan is certainly someone else. His name is Hobab, the son of Reuel (Numb. 10: 29, it is the same name as in Ex. 3: 1, even though for some odd reason English translations usually say Raguel in Numb. 10: 29.) In Jdg. 4: 11 Hobab is called the chathan of Moses. No Bible Commentary has any explanation for this, except copying mistakes, since they think about the matter in terms of the modern concept of a father in law. The explanation is quite simple, if the above meaning of the chathan as the one being responsible for allocating sex partners within his tribe is accepted. Reuel died and another took over the function in the tribe of Zipporah. By taking over this office he became the chathan of Moses, who had been given Zipporah by the previous chathan.

The words chathan and kallah are explained in Greetings From Paradise in the so named chapter.

Song 2: 7

Kind James translated, ‘I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake [my] love, till he please.’

The word ‘my’ he inserted. It does not exist in the Hebrew text. Also, it does not say at the end, ’till he please,’ but ’… till she please.’ King James ‘corrected’ the verse probably, because a woman is speaking it. Again King James failed to recognise the role of the gender of words in this verse. The word for ‘love’ is ahabah. The -ah ending indicates, that it is grammatically of female gender and therefore the pronoun ‘she’ should be used in Hebrew language for it. However, in English the word ‘it’ should be used, as for all nouns which are not persons. This makes the verse:

I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake the love, till it please.

This means, do not try to force love, just flow in it. There is an art to love. Read from verse 3 on, Dear Reader!

Matt. 1: 25

And he (Joseph) knew her (Maria) not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

This is the actual correct translation, but others render the verse, ‘And he touched her not ….’ It says ‘know’ in Ancient Greek.

There is the tradition that ‘knowing’ in the Bible means sex. However this may be a misunderstanding. Since Gen. 4: 1 for the first time speaks of a man ‘knowing’ a woman, this may just mean that he put a head dress on her, castrated a couple of guys and told them, ‘Make sure nobody touches this woman while I’m out.’ Then he knew, that her child is his child! Having sex went without saying.

There is another expression used in the Bible which explicitely means sexual intercourse. It is ‘to come in’ or ’to go in’. Both are translations of the Hebrew word ‘bow’ to enter, which is what Noah did when he entered into the ark.

The differences in usage are further explained in Greetings From Paradise in the chapter entitled ‘The Original Sin’.

1. Cor. 7: 10 & 11: ‘And unto the married (gamein, participle) I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the woman depart from (it does not say ‘her’) the man: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried (agamos, which may mean not having sex), or be reconciled to the (it does not say ‘her’) man: and let not the man put away (it does not say ‘his’) woman.’ If this would mean she should return to her former man, it contradicts Deut. 24: 1 to 4.

What does it mean, ‘… be reconciled to the man …’? The word for to reconcile is ‘katalassein’. This word means ‘to change’. It can be used in the sense of reconciliation. For example Herodotus wrote in book 1: 61: 2 that Megacles ‘patched up his quarrel with the other faction.’ That means he changed the quarrel (to friendship). Paul did not use the word in the same manner. What Paul wrote just says, she shall change the man, Paul did not mention quarrel. So she should change the man. Only this interpretation is in accordance with Deut. 24: 1 to 4! Maybe the remainder of 1. Cor. 7: 11 means that this man should not put away another woman for her. Only Bishops and deakons were restricted to one woman (1. Tim. 3: 2; Tit. 1: 6). They were not required to be celibate.

In any case a woman can leave a man, but a man is not permitted to send away a woman. The reason for that was probably a social one. Men were responsible for women. They could have a woman they did not love, like Jacob hated Leah (Gen. 29: 31). They could have more than one woman. Even Jesus spoke in his parable of the ten virgins and their oil lamps (Matt. 25) of ten virgins to be married to one bridegroom (nymphios) as an edifying parable.

Titus 2: 3 & 4

This is probably the most blatant falsification of the Holy Text. King James translated:

Tit 2: 3          The aged women likewise, that [they be] in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

Tit 2: 4          That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

Luther did slightly better in leaving away the word ‘their’ at the end of verse 4, translating only ‘children’, making it all children, not only their own.

It must be noted, that in both verses the word ‘woman’ or ‘women’ does not occur, neither does the word ‘man’ which King James translated as ‘husband’ whenever he saw fit.

Verse 3: The first word is ‘presbytidas’. This word just means ‘old’ or ‘elderly’. However from the grammatical form in Ancient Greek Language it can be deduced that there are more than one person and that they are female.

The last word is kalodidaskalos, translated as teachers of good things. Kalos really means nice, beautiful, handsome, in other words this does not just refer to useful things, but to pleasant things to pleasure.

Verse 4: Now this verse has been completely falsified in meaning. The expression ‘young women’ does not occur in this verse. The phrase ‘to love their husbands’ is only one word: philandros. This means men – lover, with men in plural. The text does not say that young women are to be reprimanded to be men – lovers, but that young men – lovers are reprimanded to be children – lovers, philoteknos. The two words, philandros and philoteknos have exactly the same structure. Philo for love and the remainder for what is to be loved. Properly the verse should be translated as:

Tit. 2: 4          That they sober up young men – lovers to be children – lovers.

In other words, they are to be reprimanded not to neglect children, all children, not only their own. The word has an exact equivalent in German, kinderlieb, which is something a teacher as well as a parent should be. Paul refers to the young women as men – lovers. He knew that’s what they were and he did not criticize them for this, he only reprimanded them, through Titus, not to neglect children. There is fun and duty, but the fun is not bad!

This is a strong indication, that in early Christian society women were kept in common and had no fixed partners or husbands. How could a man become a martyr, if he left behind a family who would suffer hardship from this act?

Why would Luther and King James falsify the meaning of this verse? Both were protestants, both did not have monasteries in the area of their religion. A major task of monasteries used to be to take care of unwanted children. For that reason protestant women had to control their sexual desires much stronger than Catholic women. That’s why Victorian England is famous for its anti – sexuality, while Catholic France is famous for its sexual generosity. That is the reason why the Beatles used the French National Anthem in the introduction of their hit ‘All you need is love’ and not the English.

But could the commandment Ex. 20: 7 also refer to love? Song 2: 7, ‘I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake [my] love, till she please.’ King James translated, ‘… till he please’, since there is a woman speaking. However the ‘she’ refers to love. The Hebrew word for love, ahabah, is of female gender and in Hebrew it is referred to as ‘she’, not as ‘it’ when using a pronoun. Don’t force love, it is not going to be nice. Be patient, linger in the emotions, and let love take the lead!

If you would like to suggest
An Addition: Please e – mail me at christianadampublications@gmail.com