[open] Ish and Ishshah

[Woodsy]

Yes, related to adamah, earth.

CovenantRay

And "dam" = "blood."

 

[Henaynei]

Adam does not mean "man" - that is what ish means

Adam means earth - as in boray pri haadamah - to bring forth from the earth - the connection with the root word dom=red has to do with the color of earth, red, in that area - and by extension also blood, although all animals have red blood

 

[MattyJames]

And "dam" = "blood."

Not to infer anything, but it is that rendition that Skin Heads use to justify White Supremecy. Scarey stuff.

MJ

 

[Henaynei]

Not to infer anything, but it is that rendition that Skin Heads use to justify White Supremecy. Scarey stuff.

MJ

no - has nothing to do with that, if it did they'd be Red Supremicists as the first man was named A-dom - what they do is cut and paste some scriptures around the Ham/Shem/Japath episode with Noah, picking and choosing ---- and they use that to support their views, not as cause for their views.... the pseudoscriptural connection is strictly "after the fact" as far as they are concerned especially as they totally ignore various scriptures in Exodus and in Psalms that laud those of dark skin

the hebrew word for blood is "dom" - we even mention this word when reciting the first plague during the Seder....

 

[MattyJames]

no - has nothing to do with that, if it did they'd be Red Supremicists as the first man was named A-dom - what they do is cut and paste some scriptures around the Ham/Shem/Japath episode with Noah, picking and choosing ---- and they use that to support their views, not as cause for their views.... the pseudoscriptural connection is strictly "after the fact" as far as they are concerned especially as they totally ignore various scriptures in Exodus and in Psalms that laud those of dark skin

the hebrew word for blood is "dom" - we even mention this word when reciting the first plague during the Seder....

Thats deeper than I can go at the moment, but on a whole, I agree. The White Supreemists agruments are rather Satanic, to say the least.

Not to derail the thread, but I thought they believe that is has something with the ability to 'blush'. In that a White man can, but thoes of Dark skin cannot? But anyway, back onto subject.

Thanks Henny for your insight.

Regards,

Matt James

 

[Henaynei]

Thats deeper than I can go at the moment, but on a whole, I agree. The White Supremists arguments are rather Satanic, to say the least.

Not to derail the thread, but I thought they believe that is has something with the ability to 'blush'. In that a White man can, but those of Dark skin cannot? But anyway, back onto subject.

Thanks Henny for your insight.

Regards,

Matt James

just to answer this and get the thread back on track

black people blush - true it is not as immediately obvious as it is in say a bonny Irish lass, but trust me they blush - I'm a nurse of 23 years experience and I've seen blush and flushing and redness under the pigment of all kinds.... those (like the WSs) who say that they don't are following anecdotal misinformation that reinforces their need to have simplistic explanations for their malignancy - something simplistic enough that those with a need to agree and who have no interested in either the truth or getting to understand other peoples - AND their "shorthand" explanation does not explain their similar attitude toward other peoples with lighter skin

any way - any other input re: the OP, anyone?

 

[MattyJames]

just to answer this and get the thread back on track

black people blush - true it is not as immediately obvious as it is in say a bonny Irish lass, but trust me they blush - I'm a nurse of 23 years experience and I've seen blush and flushing and redness under the pigment of all kinds.... those (like the WSs) who say that they don't are following anecdotal misinformation that reinforces their need to have simplistic explanations for their malignancy - something simplistic enough that those with a need to agree and who have no interested in either the truth or getting to understand other peoples - AND their "shorthand" explanation does not explain their similar attitude toward other peoples with lighter skin

any way - any other input re: the OP, anyone?

Many thanks

Yes...LOL...those Bonnie Irish Lasses can't cover it up eh!

regards,

MJ

 

[ChavaK]

I had a little trouble trying to follow his logic, but he seems to be saying Adam & Chava are titles while ish
and ishah are proper names..I am certainly no expert
in Hebrew grammar, but I don't see how he comes to
this conclusion after looking at the Hebrew text.
He is correct that adam should not be capatalized as
a proper name in most of the text, as the Hebrew uses
ha (a prefix used to denote a definite article, and which
is not used with proper nouns, ie names) so, it would better to transalate it as "the man".
In Bereshit 3:17 and 3:21 Adam is capatilized as a name
because the L- in front of adam indicates that there was no "ha" in front of it, and thus it is a proper noun
(name)- since ha is not used in front of a proper noun.
In Bereshit 2:23, the term ish is used twice, but here it is lacking the "ha" and means the non-definite word "man", not a specific name. I think the usage here is in
the sense of "mankind".
I would also argue against his saying that ishto is mistranslated as "his wife", instead of "woman", as
ishah means either wife or woman.
Chava is clearly given her name in Bereshit 3:20, along with the explanation for the name. I don't see how there can be any arguement there...
I hope this all makes some sense...

 

[Henaynei]

thanks for the clarification of the actual linguistic issues related to the Hebrew and the text!

 

[plum]

very informative, ChavaK! thanks

 

[ChavaK]

well, that is my reading of it and again I am far from a Hebrew grammer expert. Hopefully someone far more
knowlegable than I can shed better light on it...

 

[ChavaK]

nice to "speak" with everyone again....

 

[MattyJames]

nice to "speak" with everyone again....

Ahhh good to see you again.

Regards,

Matt James

 

[Henaynei]

nice to "speak" with everyone again....

you bet'cha!!

 

[debi b]

Genesis 1: 26 And God said, Let us make man (adam) in our image…

Being used as a title.

Genesis 4: 25 And Adam knew his wife again…

Being used as a name.

there has been at least two threads that i tried to show that the first couple's proper names were ish and ishshah and that their titles were adam and eve.

This appears to be his main point. Here is where I will consider any merit at all to what he is saying. Are ish or ishah ever considered to be definite without a definite article? Yes.

Leviticus 20: 14 And if a man takes a wife and her mother, it is wickedness; they shall be burned with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

hva-ta xqy rva vyaw

And a man (ish) that he will take (et = definite direct object marker) ishah….

The definite direct object marker is never translated into English. In this verse ishah is being referred to as a definite noun without a definite article. This only happens with proper names or if there is a possessive ending. However, I will point out that in verse 16 there is a definite article on the same noun to make the same type of construction.

Exodus 21: 28 If an ox gores a man or a woman, that they die; then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted.

In this verse there is a definite direct object marker before both man and woman. If an ox gores et ish or et ishah….

This is certainly interesting to me. And something I have observed in the past. I would not draw the conclusions he did. Nor was my connection to what he was saying come from the points that he made.

ishshah is explicitly being given a title, in fact, the meaning fo the title is even given. the problem in english is that the word ishshah in Gen 3:20 is translated as wife rather than the proper name for the Women… it is literally:
(the)Man cried out Women's title Eve

this I would not agree with.

titles slowly became proper names…
The same process happened with the name of Jesus.
his name is Yeshuah in Aramaic, his title is Messiah.
which was Latinized to Jesus and formed as our common first and last name form to
Jesus Christ, when in fact it is a title Messiah and a proper name Yeshuah
so properly:
Messiah Yeshuah or Christ Jesus.

This I would agree with based on people that I have met that did not understand that Messiah/Christ is not a name but a title.

 

[Henaynei]

when he was the only one - adam and Adam were both meaning "man" and were equally accurate as there was no need to differentiate him from any other of his kind - BUT

*as soon as there was a second "one"* things changed - and this is the first time ish is used and where the term Man is capitalized as denoting the kind (Man) for the very first time - prior to that there was only one, and such proper distinction or generic labeling was unneeded. After that Adam referred to the First Man and all other men (generic - ish) afterward were given their own names too.....

It is likely a little over-simplistic, but I guess it is not unlike Kleenex - all paper tissues are called Kleenex in the US - because the *first* paper tissue was called Kleenex - and were not called 'tissues" - but once others were created there came the need for distinction and thus the "generic" label of "tissues" was created.

the *first time* ish is used is here:
Ge 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. <<- there
{so you see, "Woman" (ishshah) REALLY was created before "Man" (ish) }

b'Shalom
Henaynei

 

[plum]

Ge 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. <<- there
{so you see, "Woman" (ishshah) REALLY was created before "Man" (ish) }

silly woman