Monday, May 20, 2013

News for DOMA. Woman she was; wife she was not. Go, Genesis.

DOMA Alert.  The Defense of Marriage Act is based on non-original Biblical translation concepts, including ideas of ceremony and obligation and possession not present in the oldest texts. Original old Hebrew reflects none of that formality or hierarchy.  Later insertion of "marriage" and "wife" reflects cultural evolution as the patriarchists later shaped it.  Example:  He took his woman, he got his woman, but from whence cometh "marriage" out of the oldest days?  It was woman and man.  Period.  No his, no hers, in the Paleo Hebrew. The only thing not "good" at Creation was man -- it was not good to leave him on his own.  He needed guidance. Help. What else?  Where did the idea of ordained Biblical "marriage" come from, except from later usual Hebrew inflicting its established preferences.

We already know that Eve had privileges not left to Adm.  We already know she was not forced out of Eden -- she could even go back there. She was made "like" him, a help (as in O God our help in ages past??) but only the man was expelled.  Go back to Tyndale's translation and see:

Accordingly, Hear ye. All translations and transliterations shall be corrected forthwith such that the woman is referred to as such, and not as the number 2 in some ceremonial culturally defined get-up. 

Genesis and further Old Testament locations that now use the word-concept "wife" in its many spellings through the centuries (as meaning the relationship of the man and the She, as in formal marriage as we know it with roles and property allocations and hierarchical entitlements), shall instead read "woman."

There is no Biblical Hebrew word for "wife" instead it is "his woman", "my woman", etc.
 DOMA, then, reflects cultural history, not religious requirement from texts.  Mistranslation and institutional self-serving impositions do not make marriage the will of any deity-deities.  Is that so?  Does it matter when feelings and identity get wrapped up in culture?  Can the tangle untangle, when even Tyndale and Wycliffe, see failed to go back to Old Hebrew and fell in lockstep adoration of the concept of "wife".  

If Muslims, Christians and Jews pride themselves on being People of the Book, shall they now convene with their scholars and arrive at a theological construct all three can agree to?  Of course not.  Each must be right, and the woman left.

Would a just deity require "marriage" as it has evolved, putting her beneath him?  Would a just deity create man to till and tend; then when it comes to playing favorites between Cain who was the tiller, and Abel who was the herder, would the deity reject Cain in favor of the upstart Abel?  Conundrums abound.