During the creation of the universe, somewhere in between that time, the Creator of all had gotten in His mind that He wanted to create some being that would be the mover and decider of the world He was to establish for them.
The first man, as it were, was not actually a man, as it’s so spoken and so easily used in many patriarchal mannerisms of speaking as to raise the male perspective above a woman’s voice in particular.
The first man is more closely related to the term human, as it was without gender.
How can one say that this could be true? Because without duality, there cannot be specification between two. This means that for there to be a discernment between a gender, there must first be two genders.
If a male exists without a female, how can one actually say that this person is male if there exists nothing else to define such a thing as?
Male did not exist before there was a female, because there is the fact that the two genders were only made as they were for the sake of the other.
Many religious teachers will tell you many things while being hard on their dogmatism and sticking to the post-interpertive words of their bible. While not explaining to the further note that those words that their bible consists of were translated from words that would not be understandable were they translated in the plain sense.
The words that had been chosen and organized to define the gest of what has been firstly said are done so on behalf of what the translator best thinks sums it up within the limits of context and their interpretation.
The words in themselves, within any interpretation of the original biblical Hebrew, do not represent their real and true meaning. The real and true meaning is much more illusive than that, even when directly reading the scriptures themselves within their original language.
To understand the scriptures, it still takes an interpretation, even without translation. As it is with any time-sensitive text in general.
The words that have been used are not the type of words that plainly and always clearly speak to you what meaning was to be directly gathered by reading them.
There is a gray area in many scriptures, thusly meaning that one must apply much contextualization and wisdom of material in order to even find out what the may mean.
So for one to say that they have, simply by re-reading any word of the Bible, the full and total meaning, as to show that this is exactly what the text says, is in fact being at least halfly disingenuous.
They’re indeed being dishonest if they deny that the words display clear and single meaning if they aren’t giving acknowledgement to the art of what the transliterating process is.
Many people who without the current means of doing their own textual discovery and learning based on their own reading, are easily led astray by any type of practice such as this.
In this same way, just because the Bible may say that “man” was created doesn’t then mean, in the original written tense, that this was indeed man as we now come to know and use of the term.
In reality, as stated above, it presents a problem when one attempts to look at and interpret the text in this manner. This is again because, in order for a man to exist in the male form, there must first exist a difference to that in the form of something that is explicitly not a male and not a man, but a woman, a female.
This human being that was created from the dust was thoroughly not a man but a human, which was a form before there would be both a male and female form of humankind.
This human being would have possessed both male and female distinctive spiritual qualities.
Yet, this, as it is stated in the text, would not be what God would judge “good,” or rather complete, as we can see as stated with most of the other creations of the universe at this time before completion. (Which is also interestingly enough to state, which is often not noticed by many discussing biblical things—the second day of creation was explicitly not declared as good as this declaration is missing from that piece of text.)
Thusly, as it was stated, ‘it is not good for this human being to be alone’ and skipping the assessments of animalkind in order to unsuccessfully assign this human with a companion, there would be an alteration to this being that created them two.
This was the origin point of gender. This was the origin point of the two becoming opposite beings. The beginning of male and female.
This was the creation of man as we know it.
The beginning of man and woman as a unit, which would start humankind in its good and completed form, which would become mankind as we see and now know it today.
This is significant because it flies in the face of anyone or any one religious pretense that speaks about the woman being made for the sake of a man or that men are above women.
There is no way that this could be true, because in the time of creation, as in today, both male and female were made both with strengths and weaknesses, and not only that, they were made to be biologically predisposed to the other.
So regardless of however it shall be put, both men need women, and women need men. It is in this way and only this way, as to the relations of a male and female, that things will truly be made complete or good.
Leave a Reply