• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Genesis 2:21: Sex and the Origins of Death.

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Continued from my #80.

The B. Shabat and B. Yevamot readings cited in my last message intrigued me for the following reason:
  • Connecting dots, rightly or wrongly, I see a non-Christian Jewish tradition according to which the Serpent seduces and defiles Eve, and that "pollution" is passed from Mother Eve to her descendants until Israel stands at Mt. Sinai. Gentiles, of course, who did not themselves stand at Mt. Sinai nor have anyone to stand there on their behalf, continue to inherit and pass on the pollution inherited from Mother Eve, unless and until they join themselves to Israel (through conversion).
  • Today, Jews reject the Doctrine of Original Sin. After all, why wouldn't they? Their ancestors were cleansed ot it at Mt. Sinai.
  • Gentiles who converted to Christianity, after the earliest Jewish Christians became few and far between, inherited an early oral tradition according to which Mother Eve was seduced and defiled, and passed on her pollution, a pollution from which a righteous Jew, i.e. Jesus of Nazareth, who not only was born without the Original Sin, but also continued be righteous till his death and resurrection, came along and offered two-fold salvation: from Original Sin and as a zaddik himself, earned merit which is now imputed to those who believe on and follow him.
IMO
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
. . . A non-gendered female is a female with just one x chromosome. Gender requires duality. So that after gender, and thus gendered sex, a female ovum can become male or female. If female, a duality of x chromosomes, one of which comes from a male. If a male, the original x chromosome, with the addition of a y.
John
Boy, I looked all over the internet for the term "non-gendered female" and came up empty. :shrug:

.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
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?

Plus, at Genesis 1:28 (which was before they sinned), God tells them to “multiply and become fruitful.”
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
I agree with most everything you've just said, but I wonder where you believe pre-historic man fits in here. Do you believe Adam and Eve were homo sapiens? If so, do you believe there were earlier species of man, such as cro-magnon man? Cro-magnon men most definitely did both live and die. But were they created "in God's image, after His likeness"? Science claims that modern man (i.e. homo sapiens) has been around for 200,000 years. Do you disagree with scientific conclusions on this subject or do you believe that Adam and Eve lived 200,000 years ago? Just interested in how you reconcile the seeming discrepancy between what the religious and scientific communities have to say. I know how I have reconciled it, but would like to hear your thoughts.
So far all of my comments have been confined to time since the formation of Man. Human beings did not exist upon the Earth until Adam and they did not experience mortality until partaking of the Fruit. There was no death in the Garden before the Fall.

However, after reading some books on the subject I have come to the conclusion that there needed to be death upon the Earth before the planting of the Garden.

Just like how you cannot expect a fish to survive in a aquarium full of sterile water, the Earth needed to be properly nourished with organic matter before any complex plant and animal life could be placed upon it.

All mortal lifeforms subsist on death and decay.

As part of God's Creation process He would choose moments to "spice" the planet with simple lifeforms for a time, clear them out in a mass extinction when it was needful, and then replace them with more complex life.

He followed this pattern throughout all the periods of Creation, introducing larger and more complex creations to add even more of their organic matter to prepare the Earth for His children. Just like a parent preparing a investment for their children to inherit.

The fact that there were Man-like ape creatures is very logical if God was in fact preparing the planet for Man. A test-run of sorts. Providing essential organic matter for the physical tabernacle of Adam.

The only contention I have is on the time-table. I don't think we are capable of accurately dating pre-Garden anything because I don't believe the Earth was formed in our current star system.

I believe that the entire Creation process, including the introduction of various forms of life, took place near the throne of God next to Kolob.

Wouldn't being exposed to the radiations of such great celestial bodies like Kolob alter the elements of the Earth?

Not only this, but considering that the Earth entered into a paradisaical state at the time of the planting of the Garden, wouldn't that also affect these things?

How long did the Earth enjoy that state void of the conditions of mortality?

Anyways, this is what I have come to believe and because of these things I am not surprised when people think that Man descended from these Man-like ape creatures because Adam's body was formed from the "dust" that contained the organic matter of these and other pre-Garden creatures.

I hope that answered your questions and was not too wordy. How have you come to reconcile these things?
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
Plus, at Genesis 1:28 (which was before they sinned), God tells them to “multiply and become fruitful.”
Genesis 1 is not describing the physical Creation of the Earth. That is recorded in Genesis 2.

Genesis 1 is describing the spiritual organization of the Earth and all things upon it.

Even if you don't believe that, there is no way you can make your argument - in terms of chronology - because then you'd also have to argue that God created Adam and Eve twice.
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
Yup. I take it you know the difference between a question and an assertion.


Did someone else write "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
."?


Which is why I asked about the physical change you asserted: It was the fruit that caused the physical changes in Adam and Eve that ushered them into mortality."


And overall a very poor attempt to wiggle out of answering my questions about your claim: the fruit . . . caused the physical changes in Adam and Eve.


.
You did not wait for my answers to your first two question questions before you asked your third question which attributed your ridiculous premise to me.

You basically answered your first two questions with your third question and made it seem like I had claimed they had no genitalia.

No where did I say that Adam and Eve lacked genitalia.

I was clear that the "physical changes" were the conditions of mortality, meaning, the ability to experience pain, sickness, weakness and death.

Just admit you tried to put words into my mouth - either intentionally or unintentionally - and get over it or I will report you for misrepresenting my argument.
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
This is the only part of that comment I think is off. What does it mean when it says "naked and were not ashamed"?

(Btw, in Hebrew that's arowm buwsh) Let's not beat arowm the buwsh here. <-- See what I did there?

Genesis 1:1 (NIV)
Genesis 1:1 (NIV)

(Edit: The links are not what they say they are.)
No one is arguing that Adam and Eve were not naked in the Garden.

I claim that they did not have sex in the Garden. That they could not.

No record claims that they had sex in the Garden.

I find it very odd that you believe that Adam and Eve being unashamed of their nakedness means they had sex.

Also, the reason that the record claims they were not ashamed is because they lacked the capability to feel shame.

They had not yet partaken of the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I was clear that the "physical changes" were the conditions of mortality, meaning, the ability to experience pain, sickness, weakness and death.
No you weren't. In fact, there was absolutely no hint of the conditions of mortality i.e. ability to experience pain, sickness, and weakness in your post.


Let's take a look at your postings. Shall we.

In post #54 it is quite clear your subject of discussion was sex, particularly as it relates to A&E, when you said

A) "I believe that sex was impossible for Adam and Eve to perform before they partook of the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil."​

Fine. And lacking any indication you were changing the subject, it is then logical to conclude sex was still your topic when you said

B) "It was the fruit that caused the physical changes in Adam and Eve that ushered them into mortality."​

So in short, from A) we get that sex was impossible, and from B) we get it's remedy plus an attendant consequence.

So with sex still the subject, my question was, what kind of physical change took place? Along with some possibilities, i.e. those relating to sex organs.

Yet now, out of the blue, you say, in effect: "No! No! The physical changes were 'conditions of mortality.' " Mortality, being the attendant consequence, Is now the subject, not sex.

Well you can change horses mid-stream all you like but I'm not buying your pathetic struggle to get out of this self-inflicted mess.

Just admit you tried to put words into my mouth - either intentionally or unintentionally - and get over it or I will report you for misrepresenting my argument.
Be my guest. What does your idea of "misrepresenting an argument" get one these days, a Go directly To Jail. Do Not Collect Two Hundred Dollars card?


.
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
No you weren't. In fact, there was absolutely no hint of the conditions of mortality i.e. ability to experience pain, sickness, and weakness in your post.


Let's take a look at your postings. Shall we.

In post #54 it is quite clear your subject of discussion was sex, particularly as it relates to A&E, when you said

A) "I believe that sex was impossible for Adam and Eve to perform before they partook of the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil."​

Fine. And lacking any indication you were changing the subject, it is then logical to conclude sex was still your topic when you said

B) "It was the fruit that caused the physical changes in Adam and Eve that ushered them into mortality."​

So in short, from A) we get that sex was impossible, and from B) we get it's remedy plus an attendant consequence.

So with sex still the subject, my question was, what kind of physical change took place? Along with some possibilities, i.e. those relating to sex organs.

Yet now, out of the blue, you say, in effect: "No! No! The physical changes were 'conditions of mortality.' " Mortality, being the attendant consequence, Is now the subject, not sex.

Well you can change horses mid-stream all you like but I'm not buying your pathetic struggle to get out of this self-inflicted mess.


Be my guest. What does your idea of "misrepresenting an argument" get one these days, a Go directly To Jail. Do Not Collect Two Hundred Dollars card?


.
After reading our conversation I am inclined to agree with you.

I had made my comments about the conditions of mortality after you had asked your ridiculous questions, but before I had addressed those questions.

That sequence of events caused me to become confused and I apologize for that.

However, do you now understand that I am not advocating that Adam and Eve lacked any genitalia at any time?
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
After reading our conversation I am inclined to agree with you.

I had made my comments about the conditions of mortality after you had asked your ridiculous questions, but before I had addressed those questions.

That sequence of events caused me to become confused and I apologize for that.

However, do you now understand that I am not advocating that Adam and Eve lacked any genitalia at any time?

:thumbsup:

.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Genesis 1 is not describing the physical Creation of the Earth. That is recorded in Genesis 2.

Genesis 1 is describing the spiritual organization of the Earth and all things upon it.

Even if you don't believe that, there is no way you can make your argument - in terms of chronology - because then you'd also have to argue that God created Adam and Eve twice.

What makes you say that? Genesis 2 simply follows Genesis 1, with a concise summary, a recap.

I do agree that Jehovah took means (requiring time) to prepare the Earth, using the natural Laws that He installed.

Take care
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
What makes you say that? Genesis 2 simply follows Genesis 1, with a concise summary, a recap.
It cannot be a "recap" because the sequence of events is very different and many things (like the commandment to multiply) do not reappear in this "recap".

I contend that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are describing two separate and distinct events.
I do agree that Jehovah took means (requiring time) to prepare the Earth, using the natural Laws that He installed.
That He did, but the record does not claim that Adam and Eve had sex until after they left the Garden.

This idea that the "fruit" is a euphemism for sex is ridiculous in light of the text.

"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

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." (Genesis 2:16-17)
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Continued from #79
  • Here are my copies of the underlined sources:
    • B. Shabbat 145b-146a:
      • Rabbi Yoḥanan then explained to them: Why are gentiles ethically contaminated? It is because they did not stand on Mount Sinai. As when the snake came upon Eve, i.e., when it seduced her to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, it infected her with moral contamination, and this contamination remained in all human beings. When the Jewish people stood at Mount Sinai, their contamination ceased, whereas gentiles did not stand at Mount Sinai, and their contamination never ceased. Rav Aḥa, the son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What about converts? How do you explain the cessation of their moral contamination? Rav Ashi said to him: Even though they themselves were not at Mount Sinai, their guardian angels were present, as it is written: “It is not with you alone that I make this covenant and this oath, but with he that stands here with us today before the Lord our God, and with he that is not here with us today” (Deuteronomy 29:13–14), and this includes converts.
      • Gee, ... that kind of looks like the makings of "an Origin of the Christian doctrine of Original Sin" story from where I sit. We Gentiles just missed the cleansing effect of not having ancestors standing with the Israelites at Mount Sinai.
    • B. Sotah 9b:
      • And, so too, we found with regard to the primeval snake who seduced Eve, for he placed his eyes on that which was unfit for him, as he wanted to marry Eve. Consequently, that which he desired was not given to him, and that which was in his possession was taken from him. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I initially said that the snake will be king over every domesticated animal and non-domesticated animal, but now he is cursed more than all the domesticated animals and all the non-domesticated animals of the field, as it is stated: “And the Lord God said unto the serpent: Because you have done this, you are cursed from among all cattle, and from among all beasts of the field; upon your belly shall you go, and dust shall you eat all the days of your life” (Genesis 3:14).
      • The baraita explains the elements of this curse. I said that the snake will walk upright, but now he shall go on his belly; I said that his food will be the same as the food eaten by a person, but now he shall eat dust. The snake said: I will kill Adam and marry Eve, but now: “I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed” (Genesis 3:15).
      • Yikes! The snake used walk on at least two legs and wanted to marry Eve? Sunday School could have been so much more interesting. Kids would have come from miles around to hear that story.
    • B. Yevamot 103b:
      • The Gemara answers: He implants filth in her and contaminates her, as her body accepts his semen. As Rabbi Yoḥanan also said, based on his understanding that the serpent seduced Eve into having sexual relations with him: When the serpent came upon Eve, he infected her with moral contamination, and this contamination remained in all human beings. When the Jewish people stood at Mount Sinai their contamination ceased, whereas with regard to gentiles, who did not stand at Mount Sinai, their contamination never ceased.
      • That underlined part sure looks to me like a possible original version of "the Serpent's Seed" story in the Proto-Gospel of James story that you opened your OP with, doesn't it?
    • B. Avodah Zarah 22b:
      • And if you wish, say instead: Even when he finds the wife, he also engages in bestiality with the animal, as the Master said: The animal of a Jew is more appealing to gentiles than their own wives, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: At the time when the snake came upon Eve, at the time of the sin of her eating from the Tree of Knowledge, it infected her with moral contamination, and this contamination lingers in all human beings. The Gemara asks: If that is so, a Jew should also be suspected of engaging in bestiality. The Gemara answers: With regard to the Jewish people, who stood at Mount Sinai and received the Torah, their contamination ended, whereas in the case of gentiles, who did not stand at Mount Sinai and receive the Torah, their contamination has not ended.
      • From this ignorant Gentile's perspective, the B. Avodah Zarah section seemed--on a real quick scan--to mostly be about bestiality issues and whether Jews should buy animals from Gentiles, who apparently often preferred their animals to their wives.
    • This last source merits a brief run-through of a couple of verses from Genesis:
      • Genesis 2:25 And they [Adam and Eve] were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
      • Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.
      • Genesis 3:21 And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them.
      • Midrash Genesis Rabah 18:6 addresses the question "Why the big gap between Adam and Eve walking around naked (in 2:25) and God putting clothes on them (in 3:31). The explanation, as I understand it, was so that the author could work in the story of the serpent's temptation and Adam & Eve's "fall from grace" and not end there. Instead, God clothes Adam and Eve, which is a more positive note to end on.
      • From Midrash Genesis Rabah 18:6.
        • AND THEY WERE BOTH NAKED, AND WERE NOT ASHAMED .... NOW THE SERPENT WAS MORE SUBTLE, etc. Now Surely Scripture should have stated: “And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife garments of skin” (Gen. in, 2I)[1] [immediately after the former verse]? Said R. Joshua b. Karhah: It teaches you [2] through what sin that wicked creature inveigled them, viz. because he saw them engaged in their natural functions, he [the serpent] conceived a passion for her.[3] R. Jacob of Kefar Hanan said : It is thus written in order not to conclude with the passage on the serpent.[4]

          [1] The questioner holds that God made these garments before Adam sinned, and as a natural covering for their nakedness. But in that case it should immediately have followed this verse.
          [2] Viz. the interpolation about the serpent.
          [3] Hence he sought to encompass Adam's death through sin.
          [4] And the curse he brought. Therefore ' And the Lord God made . . . garments' is reserved for the ending, so as to conclude on the brighter note of God's care.
  • A few exchanges between rosends and me, regarding whether early Christian Jews influenced Christian Gentiles or CGs influenced CJs, I posted: #108, in which I summed up, more or less, what rosends was saying, ... and I agreed with him.
    38292_356d0ea1ceb2d46063fcabebce135720.jpg



    NOTES:
    1. The "Jewish Converts" above refers to one or more formerly-traditional Jews, familiar with the Judaic "Story of Eve's defilement by the Serpent", who became Christian.
    2. My understanding is that the Proto-Gospel of James was probably written sometime between 145 CE and (I think) 170 CE. In other words, the Christian version was written considerably before the Jewish version was written.
    3. The Talmud Bavli specifically names "Rabbi Yohanon(sp.?)" and attributes the story in question to him. Is the identity of that Rabbi certain or ambiguous? I ask because I don't know if there were any other Rabbi's who were named "Yohanon" in part or whole,
      • If, by that name, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai is meant, then wouldn't that place "the story" in Israel as early, at the very least, theoretically around 70 CE?
    To be continued.


Thank you Terry. Odd that with that cloud of witnesses Tumah claims not to even have heard of such a thing.




John
 

RedDragon94

Love everyone, meditate often
The book in question was published in 1996 and the credits say:

William R. Clark is Professor of Immunology and Chair, Emeritus, of the Department of Molecular, Cell, and Developmental Biology at UCLA.​



John
Just wondering, is Prof. Clark a theist as far as you can tell from the book? Just wanted some context.
 

RedDragon94

Love everyone, meditate often
I find it very odd that you believe that Adam and Eve being unashamed of their nakedness means they had sex.

Also, the reason that the record claims they were not ashamed is because they lacked the capability to feel shame.

They had not yet partaken of the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Genesis 1:26-28. Focus on verse 28. How does one be fruitful and multiply without having sex?
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Genesis 1:26-28. Focus on verse 28. How does one be fruitful and multiply without having sex?

. . . Like our founder did. . . That's the whole point. . . Was sex required when he was born -----or when you were born-again; assuming you were? There was no sex when I was born the second time. So the idea that sex is required is highly suspect.

Which is not even to mention the point of this thread: that for millions of years organisms reproduced, retained immortality, without sex, which, sex, lead to the end of immortality just as the Bible said.



John
 
Top