DHW,
David has just unwittingly offered some support to one of the concepts that I was hashing out in our other threads.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/thelivingwords/wisdom.pdf

This is an article talking about the original root of word Wisdom. It is very informative in its simplicity.

But it is not translated as such.

אֵ֥ת

וְאֵ֥ת

In the translation of Genesis 1:1, the first set of characters Aleph and Taw, or 'et' are not translated at all, the second set of characters were translated as 'and'. These are clearly different words, and they are not used interchangeably throughout the entirety of the old testament. Hence, my curiosity about the two untranslated letters.

As pure speculation, the use of Aleph and Taw bear a striking similarity to later use of the Greek Alpha and Omega, first and last, beginning and end. It as led me to speculate as to whether the two letters could used to represent 'everything' or some similar sentiment.

I'm sorry but not in the references I have. I don't know what translations you are using. In 5:22 the lexicon has 'with'. You are using modifers. The Torah does not use those and my lexicon does not show any. But searching:

Best reference I can find supports your proposal:

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/0_logo.html

אֵ֥ת

וְאֵ֥ת

In the translation of Genesis 1:1, the first set of characters Aleph and Taw, or 'et' are not translated at all, the second set of characters were translated as 'and'. These are clearly different words, and they are not used interchangeably throughout the entirety of the old testament. Hence, my curiosity about the two untranslated letters.

As pure speculation, the use of Aleph and Taw bear a striking similarity to later use of the Greek Alpha and Omega, first and last, beginning and end. It as led me to speculate as to whether the two letters could used to represent 'everything' or some similar sentiment.

He doesn't by chance mention a translation or meaning of the letters 'et' did he? It's a word that is not translated into English, but it is found over 11000 times in the original Hebrew.

et means 'also' and 'and' as I look at his translations. My Hebrew lexicon only gives 'also'. Apparently no important meaning, just a connection between important words.

Do you have a link for the book. I would LOVE to get my hands on a copy of it. The translation of Genesis is something of fascination of mine.

I suspected that on your part.

http://books.google.com/books/about/In_the_beginning_of.html?id=hCXFPQAACAAJ

jalel923@aol.com

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords...

Those should help. Amazon has two copies

So, my speculation, what I am curious about, is as to whether or not this first occurrence, along with all of its implications according to the definition, could in fact be referring in some measure to evolution. Not really trying to reconcile accounts here, just curious.

The translation I use is a book: 'In the Beginning of', by Judah Landa, 2004. He is a biblical scholar who has retranlated Genesis. His starts by changing the tranlation of biraishit (the first word) as "in the beginning of" which changes the whole meaning as he explains. He cites other areas where this is the accepted translation.

Excellent book! I really appreciated the research Mr Landa did to bring to the table another look at Gene-sis from his expanded point of view.

So, my speculation, what I am curious about, is as to whether or not this first occurrence, along with all of its implications according to the definition, could in fact be referring in some measure to evolution. Not really trying to reconcile accounts here, just curious.

The translation I use is a book: 'In the Beginning of', by Judah Landa, 2004. He is a biblical scholar who has retranlated Genesis. His starts by changing the tranlation of biraishit (the first word) as "in the beginning of" which changes the whole meaning as he explains. He cites other areas where this is the accepted translation.

For example, this is a set of definitions for the word translated as man in verse 1:27:

another, hypocrite, common sort, low, man mean, of low degree, person

From 'adam; ruddy i.e. A human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.) -- X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.

This is the same word that they translate as the name of Adam, the first man. The difference is that in 1:27-1:28, according to the translators, it is referring to the species.

So, my speculation, what I am curious about, is as to whether or not this first occurrence, along with all of its implications according to the definition, could in fact be referring in some measure to evolution. Not really trying to reconcile accounts here, just curious.

There are NO coincidences.

Just early findings with lots of hype. Science news is now filled with this sort of thing.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-ancient-teeth-modern.html

More dang coincidences. This article implies that H.Sapiens existed in the middle east 200k-400k B.P.

That is quite an inexact spread of time. Lets wait for more study

Another thing that is worthy of mention in identifying these little oddities, is that Adam is used to mean both mankind and a specific man. I am a little at odds about how they determine which is which. As for what it all means, I don't know, and to be quite honest all the pieces are still forming into a cohesive pattern that I can't quite put into words yet.

In the recent translation I use it is quite clear that God intended a race of humans to have dominion over all: see 1:28. So the no sex/ expulsion and sex as a theory makes no sense. Also original sin is a Christian theological supposition to my Jewish way of looking at the story.

More dang coincidences. This article implies that H.Sapiens existed in the middle east 200k-400k B.P.

Another thing that is worthy of mention in identifying these little oddities, is that Adam is used to mean both mankind and a specific man. I am a little at odds about how they determine which is which. As for what it all means, I don't know, and to be quite honest all the pieces are still forming into a cohesive pattern that I can't quite put into words yet.

But, for the sake of argument, lets posit a scenario and see where the chips fall.

IF, as we have speculated elsewhere, there is some form of cyclical nature to humanities existence, and IF each cycle runs a full course from hunter gatherer to techno-industrial societies, how would the survivors of the fall of such a civilization try to preserve their knowledge.

The answer of course would be stories, either verbal or oral traditions. However, we can assume that survivors of a techno-industrial civilization thrust back into cave man status would lack the means or know how to generate simple things we take for granted, like pens, paper, ink, etc. So, within a dramatically short time span, knowledge becomes stories, stories become legends, legends become myths, and myths become religions. We can assume that language would devolve as well over time due to multi-lingual survivors having to come to a common language. This language would almost by necessity lack the complex structure needed to explain complicated scientific ideas.

So, with that in mind, taking everything that you personally know about evolution, cosmology, and all, if you were going to pass on that knowledge orally to your grandchildren, what would you tell them? How much of it would they remember? And how would they pass it on to their children?

How long until "Man evolved from lifeless particles via a process known as abiogenesis in the primordial soup of the oceans.' becomes, "Man was formed from the elements(dust) of the earth?" How long until, "As humans became bipedal, their hips migrated forward, greatly increasing the difficulties of labor." becomes "And the gods punished women by greatly increasing her labor pains?"

I don't know whether this actually happened or not. It was just a thought that struck me as I read the original article you linked.

I didn't know that Adam & Eve could have lived together forever, if not eating the forbidden fruit of knowledge. Please remember I do not follow the Bible in my quest for knowlewdge.

No worries, and yes, death came part and parcel with the Sin thing.

If A&E started to have sex, it could only be outside of Eden? Was God creating a human race or just A&E in solitude. The ideas don't match up. God was intending to create a race of humans I thought. It seems He went about it the wrong way.

"Humans are unique among the primates in how walking fully upright is our chief mode of locomotion. This frees our hands up for using tools. Unfortunately, the changes made in our pelvis for moving on two legs, in combination with babies with large brains, makes human childbirth unusually dangerous compared with the rest of the animal kingdom.

A 90 degree turn and a 90 degree rotation and a good squeeze to the lungs to clean out that nasty amniotic fluid, if you are head-first like you should be.

Mothers should deliver by squatting but no one does anymore. And as I noted in my book, how did the enlarging head get matched by an enlarging pelvic opening: two different individuals with differing DNA's? ID anyone?

I didn't know that Adam & Eve could have lived together forever, if not eating the forbidden fruit of knowledge. Please remember I do not follow the Bible in my quest for knowlewdge.

No worries, and yes, death came part and parcel with the Sin thing.

Sex began when unfavorable seasonal changes in the environment caused our protoctist predecessors to engage in attempts at cannibalism that were only partially successful. The result was a monster bearing the cells and genes of at least two individuals (as does the fertilized egg today).

There is an amazing similarity here between the process described and the Genesis account we have been discussing in the other thread. In the account, to provide the comparison:

Adam was a single individual which was not subject to death
Some form of division took place culminating in the existence of Eve who was also not subject to death.
Something was eaten that was not supposed to be
Only after this point is explicit mention of sexual relations made with subsequent offspring and the guarantee of death.

I just find the parallel striking. Any thoughts?

I didn't know that Adam & Eve could have lived together forever, if not eating the forbidden fruit of knowledge. Please remember I do not follow the Bible in my quest for knowlewdge.