Created from What. Slime? No "Marriage?" What? Equal Rights to Subdue? No! Yes. God's Genesis? No! (Yes!)

Why is Marriage a "Sacrament"
And Other Oddities for the Close Reader

The idea is not new, that there is no necessary sanctity to marriage. Others have noted that marriage is only mentioned in the New Testament, but not "sanctified" - Jesus just went to one, and provided wine from water, a miracle many say, but is it related to the marriage idea? Not at all. Even the Cathars, a group that disagreed with the Roman Catholic Church on this issue as late as the 14th Century (and were killed for it) believed in no marriage - and for those reasons. See Cathar Information at://www.cathar.info/12011405_sacrements.htm/.

So what else lies afoot if we look closely, say, at Creation itself. Look at marriage, look at the stuff from which we came, and what do we find.

Join us now....


Caller to Operator. Caller to Operator.
Researcher down. Researcher needs assistance.
Dogma needs back-up.

Hello? Hello?
Yes. We have some deep water here.
Yes. We'll hold.

Operator. Into headset. We have some Dogma Emergencies here. Yes, they're holding... talking about Creation or something.

Then: from the Researcher's Written statement:

We were looking at early translations of Genesis, or from early versions of Genesis, right before we fell in.

And we found some words and usages that do not comport with Taught Dogma. There is
something called the Douay Rheims 1609, yes, the Catholic one that translates the 5th Century Latin Vulgate. And a Victorian literal one, Young's 1898.

And this is an overview of what we found:

1) Where did man come from? Slime says the authoritative Douay-Rheims Bible (1609, Catholic); and

2) What is required by "the Creator" as to man-woman relationships; and rights of each? what are the meanings and job descriptions of "husband," "wife," in Creation.

Equal dominion over the earth; given to "them". Genesis 1:26. Companion, counterpart. Genesis 2:18. Douay-Rheims again. The English translation of the 5th Century Latin Vulgatel and the Young's Literal Translation 1898. Equal feminism and masculism in western religion's origins.

Then, after Adam is banished: Power shifts the balance. Adam shall have "power" over Eve (but note - the word "power" as in overwhelm, does not include some implicit justification by merit, as in later translations' preference in using "rule" )

"I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee." Catholic Douay Rheims 3:16.

Is all else mere cultural accretions to either issue.

Where does the staircase lead. What translations are later growths, like coral, evidence of power plays and not "divine" ordination at all Follow us, follow.

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


1. Dogmatic Emergency 1 - Man was made out of slime, not dust, says the earliest Latin translation of the Old and New Testaments, the Latin Vulgate. FN 1.

Does that help defuse the Evolution-Creationism debate. Common ground.

Not entirely, because timelines are vastly different, see (scroll down to the end) ://www.cesame-nm.org/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=43&page=3.

It is a start, however. This reference suggests that the Bible itself supports evolution's theory as the means of Creation - Out of the muck, even if the time to get things done differs. That slime recognition, plus the vulnerabilities of literalism with so many sources and translations, helps but does not do away with all the fuss between supporters of evolution (a method) and supporters of the "isms," (belief systems)?

Early translation. The Latin Vulgate uses the words: "de limo." The Latin Vulgate is the Bible translated into Latin by St. Jerome in the 5th Century AD, FN 1. It was in use until abouta 1609 when the Catholic Church then authorized a translation of the Latin Vulgate into English. That English translation is the "Douay Rheims" Bible.

The Douay Rheims translates "de limo" as "slime" - see ://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1609. Genesis 2:7. "And the Lord God created man of the slime of the earth...." Genesis 2:7. "De Limo" Vulgate.

• This "slime" becomes "dust" only in later translations. And, there is reference after the "Fall" to "dust to dust." But that does not refute the original creation substance that was not just "dust." Mankind would be blown away. See Genesis 3:19, at the Douay Rheims ://www.drbo.org/chapter/01003.htm

"But a spring rose out of the earth, watering all the surfaces of the earth." Genesis 2:6.

In later translations "de limo" becomes "out of dust," as dust does appear later after the "Fall" at Genesis 3:19. and this "spring" becomes a mist in later translations. See ://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C001.htm. Nothing is ever absolutely this or that. Ever.

This www.hebrewoldtestament.com site is excellent for comparing multiple translations of each verse, back to old Paleo-Hebrew and its symbold.

• But Latin for "dust" is "pulvis." See ://www.freedict.com/onldict/onldict.php. And "limus" (as in "de limo") means "mud" - out of mud.

We like slime. Someone who knows the Paleo-Hebrew could check on variations of whatever word was used there.

Why bother looking. For us, seeing slime instead of dust raises another issue - who changed the words and why. Are people's egos involved? Say not so. Say not that people have agendas. Don't like to think of slimey beginnings? How can somebody feel superior if he originated in slime? Is there such a political element in all this, just as in any other propaganda effort.

Assuming the Douay-Rheims is oldest and closest to the original texts, does that mean that, as to some forms of Creationism and Evolution - there is absolutely no conflict, after all this effort to pit one against the other?

Looking at Creation more broadly. Do read that cesame-nm.org site. Perhaps common elements are more likely to be true than localized specific beliefs. Go to this creation-oriented site for a long list and description of the various creation ideas around the world - the tales, differing scriptures, scroll down to the New Hebrides, Huron, Norse, Islam, Judaism, and - our favorite - the Finnish. Note the references to flood, and why. All peoples seem to have an interest in their own creation, and explain it many ways.

For us, here we come - crawling out of the slime (on our little front flippers?), the primordial ooze - the Vulgate's "de limo terrae." That ain't dust. Nothing nice and clean. That's slime, folks. Latin scholars, pitch in. De limo.
...................................................................


2. Dogmatic Emergency 2. There was no "marriage" of Adam and Eve in Genesis; and they have equal rights to subdue, to take dominion. "Husband" and "Wife" meant very different roles from today. Looks like being fruitful, period.

And Adam has, after his banishment, "power" over Eve, which is obvious since the back of his hand silences any debate - but that is not "justification by merit" as the word "rule" suggests, in later translations. Just brute stuff. Origins of abuse - and God's original mistake, it looks like, loosing power like that. Look what Cain did with it.... power cannot be contained....

The terms "wife" and "husband" are plunked in there, but their job descriptions in Genesis contain no reference to mutual obligations, exclude any reference to fam-i-ly.

No marriage.

Now what

We need someone who can research the Paleo-Hebrew here - out of all the versions, to find out where and by whom and when did 'uxor' enter the creation descriptions. We know there were several writers in Genesis - J,E,D and P. See ://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jepd.html.

Evidence of multiple authors is in the fact of the two creation stories, one in Genesis I-II, and one in Genesis II-III. But either way, with either choice, it looks so far as though Adam and Eve are just cleaving companions without mutual obligations beyond.

So why not let any people be cleaving companions? California, are you paying attention?

Is all this "marriage" business around the world cultural. No divine ordination of anything apart from the being fruitful. Fine - civilization needs the uniformity of a culture of some form, and it does foster survival, probably (or does it), but whose interests are served past the childrearing, and was "marriage" set up as a power matter, so men could "claim" rights to children, etc.

What does Creation say about what was "ordained." Look at the job description. The woman is made to keep him company since it is not good for him to be alone (what on earth was he doing?)

• a "helper like himself," see Genesis 2:20; no difference there in ability
  
• his "companion," Genesis 3:12. Vulgate - "dedisti sociam mihi" - Later word, in the Douay Rheims, is "companion' which means "co-bread-man", as seen in the Late Latin companio, panis or bread (wasn't any bread in Paradise, so this word has to have come later), Early English compainoun, Middle Irish companach, see McBain's Dictionary at http://www.ceantar.org/Dicts/MB2/mb10.html. His "counterpart," in Young's Literal Translation 1898.
  
• "[G]avest to be with me," see other translations, at ://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C003.htm#V12 .
• "The woman whom thou didst place with me..." See that same hebrewoldtestament.com site - this from a literal translation given there.

And she has equal rights to subdue, take dominion, Genesis I:27-28. It is given to "them," Not to "him."

No prohibitions at all in the first Creation story. There are two Creation stories. In the first, there are no prohibitions about who could eat what.

Not clear at all which Tree was prohibited in the second Creation story. Only one Tree was prohibited, the one in the center of the garden (remember there were two trees, and one is in the center, but that one is the Tree of Life and no prohibition entered as to that one), God gave out the Tree of Knowledge prohibition to Adam before Eve was Created.

She got hearsay from the guy - and did Adam lie? God didn't tell Adam to tell anything to Eve. Yet Adam said so.

If God wanted her to be prohibited, he would have told her, and told her exactly which tree to stay away from and where it was or they were. She was new to the place, and made of different stuff. He is Paramecium Pond, the experiment. She, springs from the completed rib - the upgrade. Adam was hardly to be taken all that seriously, enter the snake.

Roles of "Husband" and "Wife" are limited. Now, where is romance and eternal mutual support and property rights and all that.

Need to find out. Where then does the word "uxor" suddenly come from in Genesis 2:24. The word "uxor," is Latin for "wife" or "spouse," see ://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/2254. Uxor does not appear until Genesis 2:24, just suddenly there.

If the literal is that she was just placed with him, that is no "marriage." Both free. We see no ceremony, no words said over the two of them, no expectations except a "blessing" to multiply.

Genesis 1:28 - the orders are to be fruitful and multiply. Still no obligation to each other. ://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C001.htm. Cleaving partners.

God said to them to subdue the earth - not just to him. No division of labor here - each gets to do the subduing. One doesn't stay home and spin while the other subdues.

No property.

Look at us today, in our costumes. To be a "wife" in any culture we have found means a formal relationship. Yet, God doesn't care a whit about that in Genesis. He even separates them out - Adam is booted, Eve is not. Read it there. Always the singular "him" - not the "her" and not "them."

God as a radical feminist. Better, a natural feminist. And, at the time, it made no difference other than for cleaving and the fruits thereof. So, better yet - There are no -isms in creation at all. No masculism, no feminism, just people.

But one booted and one not. Genesis 3:23. See ://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C003.htm#V23. Where she can return to the Tree, to take shade, and he cannot.

While we are there:

Look down the page, to the literal about the snake - the snake caused her to forget! No deceit, no beguile - just perhaps a little mood enhancer?
.................................................................................
FN 1 Recap on sources:

We are looking at the Douay-Rheims, the authoritative English translation in 1609 of Saint Jerome's Latin Vulgate Bible (St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate dates from - read it in its entirety, yes, in Latin, at ://www.drbo.org/lvb/chapter/01001.htm)

You can toggle back and forth between the Latin Vulgate and the English Douay-Rheims by clicking at the top left, on the titles. Our regret is that they couldn't leave the Douay-Rheims alone, but somebody had to add little interpretations all along there to shape your understanding. Am looking for an untainted Douay-Rheims.

St. Jerome - Eusebius Hieronymus 347-420 AD. See ://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/jerome.htm. From Dalmatia - Pannonia. Croatia! around there. See Croatia Road Ways.

We see a Greek Bible, but only New Testament. See ://www.greekbible.com/. Ok - here's Hebrew for Old Testament.

Better yet - go to ://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C002.htm. This one gives a multitude of parallel texts, back to "Paleo-Hebrew," 500BC or so.

Here is another Latin Vulgate, and it gives the link to use for direct linking: : http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Genesis+1.1