John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
Also, do your scholars use context in understanding passages?
. . . That's an odd question. There is no interpretation of text without context; even as there's no exegesis without eisegesis.
John
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Also, do your scholars use context in understanding passages?
So this is a scholarly interpretation, and opinion... based on what scripture(s)?. . . In a nutshell, so to say, immortality means you're not programmed or preordained to die by your very nature. But you can still die, if a car hits you, or a lion eats you, or a meteor takes out the planet. . . Everlasting life, not so much.
The incredibly ironic point that is the genesis of this thread is the fact that not only does Professor William R. Clark, an atheist, and a Phd biologist, point out that the scripture is correct about "programmed death" originating in the original sin of sexual congress, but, without knowing it, he uses his scientific expertise to show that not only can immortality be returned to the biology of the human body, but, beyond that, the very evolution that brought about death, for a purpose, has found that purpose in the evolution of everlasting life.
Without knowing it or saying it directly, Professor Clark, as I had intended to show, explains not just how death evolved, and how immortality can be returned, but how everlasting life is now an evolutionary product of the biosphere.
John
So nothing on Genesis 19:5, 8?. . . That's an odd question. There is no interpretation of text without context; even as there's no exegesis without eisegesis.
John
So nothing on Genesis 19:5, 8?
Look, God made Man in the form of two sexes. Why, if not so they could reproduce as he commanded them? "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it". That entails the sexual act, obviously. No other means by which a man and a woman can multiply is known, nor is any suggested.. . . In a nutshell, so to say, immortality means you're not programmed or preordained to die by your very nature. But you can still die, if a car hits you, or a lion eats you, or a meteor takes out the planet. . . Everlasting life, not so much.
The incredibly ironic point that is the genesis of this thread is the fact that not only does Professor William R. Clark, an atheist, and a Phd biologist, point out that the scripture is correct about "programmed death" originating in the original sin of sexual congress, but, without knowing it, he uses his scientific expertise to show that not only can immortality be returned to the biology of the human body, but, beyond that, the very evolution that brought about programmed-death, for a purpose, has found that purpose, in the evolution of everlasting life.
Without knowing it or saying it directly, Professor Clark, as I had intended to show, explains not just how death evolved, and how immortality can be returned, but how everlasting life is now an evolutionary product of the biosphere. His tremendous scientific logic shows how death is actually an evolutionary prerequisite for everlasting life. And he shows this through science, not dogma, ideology, nor even theology.
John
Look, God made Man in the form of two sexes. Why, if not so they could reproduce as he commanded them? "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it". That entails the sexual act, obviously. No other means by which a man and a woman can multiply is known, nor is any suggested.
This command was given was before the sin of Adam, the wages of which are death according to the allegory.
It therefore follows, quite plainly, that the sexual act itself cannot be the sin in question. If they had sexual relations in the Garden Of Eden it would have been no more than faithfully carrying out God's command to multiply. Sex was evidently part of God's plan from the beginning.
Your thesis is plainly wrong, not to mention being a diseased idea.
And a good thing too. Right now the world population is listed at 7.7 billion. If no had died since 8,000 BC, there would now be approximately107 billion people on earth; about 14 times the current population. . . ."Your sleeping pod will be ready in 11 to 12 months Mr. Whirlingmere."The origin of death was when sin entered the world.
Man sinned and death followed
"the wages of sin is death"
Bones are just a living tissue of collagen and calcium.That's a good theory, but not say any is right or wrong, but consider this.I would go with necrosis, which means cell death due to disease or injury. not a injury as in accidental (phyiscal) or programmed death, but a choice or choices of DEATH. in a necrosis state, When untreated, the dying cells release substances that lead to the death of surrounding cells, so untreated necrosis can lead to death, so death can be progressive, or reversable, so it's not certian. example in supportive scripture, . Genesis 2:16 & 17 "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:" 17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.". well Adam didn't die in that same 24hr day, but it was progressive. sin is a disease when unchecked is a progressive death, for the "wages" of sin is DEATH. and DEATH can occure from Anxiety. which is more mental or spiritual in nature. so I don't believe Genesis 2:21 with the invention of Sex is the only or pre req.cause of some deaths. but don't hold me to that, ok.
but there is something else to consider. a bone is a mineralized connective tissue that exhibits four types of cells. but also notice our bones are who we are. not our flesh. it is the bones which are resurrected and not the natural flesh. and Eve was made, from the same bones, and flesh as Adam but not from blood. which bones play a key role in.
so we should examine or start with the bones.
PICJAG.
And a good thing too. Right now the world population is listed at 7.7 billion. If no had died since 8,000 BC, there would now be approximately107 billion people on earth; about 14 times the current population. . . ."Your sleeping pod will be ready in 11 to 12 months Mr. Whirlingmere."
.
.
.
So what, we should be shipping people off to the stars? The closest being only 4.22 light-years or so from Earth, which is calculated to take 81,000 years to get to. Better pack a lot of underwear and comfortable shoes.The universe is a big place... there are over 2 trillion stars per person alive
Stars are a dime a dozen, people are rare.
So what, we should be shipping people off to the stars? The closest being only 4.22 light-years or so from Earth, which is calculated to take 81,000 years to get to. Better pack a lot of underwear and comfortable shoes.
.
And any alternative you have in mind wouldn't be?You are dealing with a hypothetical situation.
I give up. What might God have done if the fall did not occur?What might God have done if the fall did not occur?
An "exceedingly paradise like world"???? I didn't mention any such thing.And you are assuming an exceedingly paradise like world may not support larger numbers of number of peoples
Who says so? I assume you're not making this up but have a sound resource.after all animals of dinosauric proportions lived and thrived in its atmosphere, where they would not in today's atmosphere.
That's not what Rashi says at all. Rashi is saying that the phraseology of the verse implies that it's speaking about an event that occurred earlier in the narrative. Meaning that Gen. 4:1 is recounting an impregnation that took take place before Gen. 3.But as Rashi points out, in Genesis 4:1 the verb is used to say Adam had knowledge of Eve from a prior event, not that he came to know her in the biblical way, or that he had sex with her.
I believe that sex was impossible for Adam and Eve to perform before they partook of the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil.In another forum I began a discussion (I'd like to continue here) of Sex and the Origins of Death. I began the discussion with this statement:
In Professor William R. Clark's brilliant book, Sex & The Origins of Death, he points out the difference between accidental death, death to an organism based on factors external to the organism, versus "programmed death"; the latter being death required by the dictates, so to say, of the cell itself, its programming. He shows that this "programmed death," packaged in the cell-instructions themselves, appears to have arisen about the time the cells began experimenting with sex. He quips that sex may have indeed been the ultimate loss not only of innocence, but that it's also the genesis (2:21), of senescence, and thus programmed death.
John
Odd belief, to say the least. If god didn't intend Adam and Eve to have sex, whereby Eve could become pregnant, why did he give Adam the ability to have an erection? Or did he have to eat the apple first?I believe that sex was impossible for Adam and Eve to perform before they partook of the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
So Adam suddenly grew a penis, testicles, Epididymis, etc. And Eve suddenly grew a vagina, uterus, ovary, etc.? You do realize that's a pretty darn tall tale, don't you? Particularly with no evidence------Or, do you have some?It was the fruit that caused the physical changes in Adam and Eve that ushered them into mortality.
That's not what Rashi says at all. Rashi is saying that the phraseology of the verse implies that it's speaking about an event that occurred earlier in the narrative. Meaning that Gen. 4:1 is recounting an impregnation that took take place before Gen. 3.
I believe that sex was impossible for Adam and Eve to perform before they partook of the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
It was the fruit that caused the physical changes in Adam and Eve that ushered them into mortality.
"Genesis 19:5 and 19:8, with quite a few other examples, ...in each case the verb is conjugated to reflect precisely what is being said in the context."Genesis 19:5 and 19:8, with quite a few other examples, use the Hebrew word yada ידע to speak of sexual knowledge, carnal knowledge. . . But in each case the verb is conjugated to reflect precisely what is being said in the context.
Only in Genesis 4:1 is the verb yada ידע conjugated in a manner that although the context seems to be imply that Adam had sex with Eve, gained carnal knowledge of Eve, implies instead that he knew ידע something about Eve gained from a prior event.
When yada ידע is used for a man gaining carnal-knowledge of his wife the word implies he "knew" or came to "know" his wife. But as Rashi points out, in Genesis 4:1 the verb is used to say Adam had knowledge of Eve from a prior event, not that he came to know her in the biblical way, or that he had sex with her.
John
So Adam suddenly grew a penis, testicles, Epididymis, etc. And Eve suddenly grew a vagina, uterus, ovary, etc.? You do realize that's a pretty darn tall tale, don't you? Particularly with no evidence------Or, do you have some?
.
.
"Genesis 19:5 and 19:8, with quite a few other examples, ...in each case the verb is conjugated to reflect precisely what is being said in the context."
"Only in Genesis 4:1 is the verb yada ידע conjugated in a manner that although the context seems to be imply that Adam had sex with Eve..."
That's all I need, thank you.
I think if we are going to be good scholars here, we need to be consistent, and not twist things according to our ideas and opinions. Don't you agree?
The context in both cases says the Hebrew word refers to knowing sexually. So I can't agree with your scholars, and many scholars do not agree either.
However, if you prefer the opinions of your scholars, that's okay.
I am on the other side. Is that okay with you?