Man Dust

The precedent- setting (aka: first mention) chapter of the 'Holy Bible' in regards to the LORD God is Genesis 2. It's this same chapter which contains the canon's first mention of a "not good" situation: and this in respect of the same LORD God.

In connection with the manner in which the (according to apostolic succession and the twofold children of Abraham they proselytized-- not to mention the text itself:) "omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, wholly- responsible- for- all" LORD God makes the "man" Adam: the LORD God himself admits he did it "not good [Genesis 2:18]." This simple admission is one of the very good proofs in scripture that the LORD God of chapter 2 is not God in chapter 1.

Genesis 1 states God called all God created (including the sons God calls men) "good" and "very good." The diametrical opposition present between the God of good and very good (Genesis 1) and the LORD God of not good (Genesis 2) is concurrent in one God, according to all the beliefs of all "believers" I'm aware of. This false belief embraces a schizophrenic state in God as an "all good, all the time" situation, in the estimation of those who profess this peculiar faith.

As to how the LORD God made Adam, the text of chapter 2 says: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul [Genesis 2:7]." If one doesn't take a moment to filter out the italicized "of," it can easily escape one's attention how the passage makes more sense, doctrinally, without it.

The Hebrew of the original manuscript had no punctuation, so it's hit- and- miss the way anyone-- including translators-- apply it; but this is how it reads to me: "And the LORD God formed man (the dust of the ground), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul [Genesis 2:7]."

There are several references to man as dust; as well as many references to dust, generally, in the canon. Genesis 2:7 is the first- mention- precedent for the expression and the word. Chapter 3 of Genesis directly mentions men as dust, five verses after calling dust serpent's food in the second mention of dust (and the first mention of dust as serpent's food), in verse 14.

In Genesis 13:16, Abram (before he's called Abraham) is promised (or is it threatened?) by the same LORD which made both statements in chapter 3 that his "seed" will be "as the dust of the earth;" a promise (or threat) which is likewise made to Jacob (before he was called Israel), in chapter 28 (ibid.). Following these initial mentions on the subjects: men, serpents, and dust are connected throughout the canon.

So why didn't the translators render the translation of Genesis 2:7 directly? Why 'help' a text which makes perfect grammatical (not to mention doctrinal) sense when left alone? My belief about this sort of thing is: The text should be helped as little as necessary to achieve wholeness. It shouldn't be a translator's prerogative to alter a work. If they do: who's work is it?

I grant: most of the canon is caveman- speak, without verbs being applied discretely; and some of the canon is gibberish altogether without most of a given thought or statement being supplied at the translators' discretion. Going farther than absolutely necessary with these corrections is going too far, however, if I'm to judge. 

Ultimately, in the above case, the over- correction on translation could be a deliberate fig- leaf over Abraham's serpent's- meat- seed- nakedness, enforced by the propaganda ministers of a kingdom which would ultimately claim to be the new kingdom of David. Governmental entanglement in religion has been known to produce such conflicts of interest.