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

[John D. Brey]

Sure, but Aquinas is writing about the distinction between Christ's conception and ours, that's all. He is alleging original sin is passed through the male line, since he see the male role as being the active one in reproduction, - a rather quaint notion to us nowadays but there we are.

It does not imply it is the act of sex that is itself sinful, or anything like that. After all, God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and fill the Earth. So sex was divinely ordained before the Fall.

. . . The doctrine of original sin is a whole other thread, at least. The ideas intended in this thread take the fact that the original sin is part and parcel of how that sin is transferred for granted; and that death is a result of sex, and sex is how that death is transferred.

Professor William Clark, who is an atheist and a Phd biologist, shows, in the book in the crosshairs of this thread, that science now knows that "programmed death" (in contradistinction to accidental death) is a result of organisms experimenting with, and adopting, sex, as a means of propagation:

The very first life forms, as we have seen, were not animals in the ordinary sense of the word, but free-living individual cells we now call bacteria. The entire being in this case consists of just a single cell. Yet by any biological criterion that would define us as alive, so were they. The earliest of these organisms represented then, as now, the simplest possible structure for carrying out the cardinal functions of all living things: the reproduction of their own kind through replication of their DNA, and the transmission of that DNA to offspring.

But it is less obvious that the earliest forms of these single-cell organisms shared then, or share now, the second cardinal feature of life as we know it----obligatory, programmed death. We, like virtually all other multicellular animals, must die, and there are many mechanisms built into us to be sure that we do. . . Many single-celled organisms may die, as the result of accident or starvation; in fact the vast majority do. But there is nothing programmed into them that says they must die. Death did not appear simultaneously with life. This is one of the most important and profound statements in all of biology. At the very least it deserves repetitions: Death is not inextricably intertwined with the definition of life. . .

Obligatory death as a result of senescence – natural aging – may not have come into existence for more than a billion years after life first appeared. This form of programmed death seems to have arisen at about the same time that cells began experimenting with sex in connection with reproduction. It may have been the ultimate loss of innocence.

Sex & The Origins of Death, prologue xi, p. 54 (bold emphasis mine).
​

John

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(Why do some Christians insist on polluting Jewish scripture with so much nonsensical eisegegis?)

 

[exchemist]

(Why do some Christians insist on polluting Jewish scripture with so much nonsensical eisegegis?)

A good question.

Does Judaism claim death came into the world as a result of sex? I bet it doesn't and nor does mainstream Christianity either, so far as I know.

 

[exchemist]

. . . The doctrine of original sin is a whole other thread, at least. The ideas intended in this thread take the fact that the original sin is part and parcel of how that sin is transferred for granted; and that death is a result of sex, and sex is how that death is transferred.

Professor William Clark, who is an atheist and a Phd biologist, shows, in the book in the crosshairs of this thread, that science now knows that "programmed death" (in contradistinction to accidental death) is a result of organisms experimenting with, and adopting, sex, as a means of propagation:

The very first life forms, as we have seen, were not animals in the ordinary sense of the word, but free-living individual cells we now call bacteria. The entire being in this case consists of just a single cell. Yet by any biological criterion that would define us as alive, so were they. The earliest of these organisms represented then, as now, the simplest possible structure for carrying out the cardinal functions of all living things: the reproduction of their own kind through replication of their DNA, and the transmission of that DNA to offspring.

But it is less obvious that the earliest forms of these single-cell organisms shared then, or share now, the second cardinal feature of life as we know it----obligatory, programmed death. We, like virtually all other multicellular animals, must die, and there are many mechanisms built into us to be sure that we do. . . Many single-celled organisms may die, as the result of accident or starvation; in fact the vast majority do. But there is nothing programmed into them that says they must die. Death did not appear simultaneously with life. This is one of the most important and profound statements in all of biology. At the very least it deserves repetitions: Death is not inextricably intertwined with the definition of life. . .

Obligatory death as a result of senescence – natural aging – may not have come into existence for more than a billion years after life first appeared. This form of programmed death seems to have arisen at about the same time that cells began experimenting with sex in connection with reproduction. It may have been the ultimate loss of innocence.

Sex & The Origins of Death, prologue xi, p. 54 (bold emphasis mine).
​

John

This is both ridiculous and theologically nonsensical.

Sure, programmed cell death may have arisen, in single celled organisms, when sexual reproduction arose. But death was all around eons before that happened. If it had not been, there could have been no evolution. Evolution works by differential rates of death versus reproduction (whether sexual or asexual). So the wages of evolution is death.

And, as I say, there is nothing in the Genesis account suggesting sex was the original sin that brought death into the world, especially in view of the preceding divine command to "be fruitful".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A good question.

Does Judaism claim death came into the world as a result of sex? I bet it doesn't and nor does mainstream Christianity either, so far as I know.

Not to the best of my knowledge.

 

[John D. Brey]

Sure, programmed cell death may have arisen, in single celled organisms, when sexual reproduction arose. But death was all around eons before that happened. If it had not been, there could have been no evolution. Evolution works by differential rates of death versus reproduction (whether sexual or asexual). So the wages of evolution is death.

Evolution can occur without programmed death since accidental death isn't incidental to evolution. And Professor Clark is clear that the original cells were immortal, and that programmed death, as the scripture implies, began with sex.

The topic of the discussion is about "programmed death" as a result of the original sin: sexual reproduction. And again, the punishment for the original sin was painful childbirth therein giving a hint to those not caught in the mainstream or the wide path to intellectual and theological destruction.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

Does Judaism claim death came into the world as a result of sex? I bet it doesn't and nor does mainstream Christianity either, so far as I know.

. . . You gotta get out of the mainstream. . . You know, the wide is the path kinda thing . . . Evolution, like gold too, is found more easily in the side puddles not the mainstream.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

(Why do some Christians insist on polluting Jewish scripture with so much nonsensical eisegegis?)

. . . Why do some Jews assume exegesis is even possible without eisegesis?



John

 

[exchemist]

Evolution can occur without programmed death since accidental death isn't incidental to evolution. And Professor Clark is clear that the original cells were immortal, and that programmed death, as the scripture implies, began with sex.



John

But evolution cannot proceed without death. The original cells reproduced asexually and died when the environment killed them. The ones with better adaptation would reproduce for longer before something killed them.

Calling them "immortal" is just a figure of speech: what he means is they did not die of old age. But that is nearly true even of sparrows - I recall a statistics problem in the 6th form about them, which assumed sparrows are "approximately immortal", being killed in proportion to their numbers by other causes than old age.

So death was in the world from the start.

 

[nPeace]

. . . Not according to Rashi exegeting the Hebrew text.

Interpreted properly Genesis 4:1 doesn't say that Adam knew Eve, as is the case whenever sex is being discussed. The Hebrew wording is different. According to Rashi it implies Adam had pre-knowledge of why Eve was going to have a child.


John

Who is Rashi?
Some people choose interpretation they like or prefer, but based on the reading of the text, it says, according to old language ...
Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain...

Know was understood in a variety of ways, so context played an important role in getting the correct understanding.
We know what "to know" meant in old language, in this contest, and context is important, if we want to understand the writings.
So using modern speech, many translations use it as it is understood... in context.
Genesis 4:1 And Adam had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man," she said.

See Genesis 19:5, 8

 

[exchemist]

. . . You gotta get out of the mainstream. . . You know, the wide is the path kinda thing . . . Evolution, like gold too, is found more easily in the side puddles not the mainstream.



John

Well at least now you are running up the Jolly Roger.

I'll stay with the main Christian denominations on this, thanks.

 

[John D. Brey]

But evolution cannot proceed without death. The original cells reproduced asexually and died when the environment killed them. The ones with better adaptation would reproduce for longer before something killed them.

Calling them "immortal" is just a figure of speech: what he means is they did not die of old age. But that is nearly true even of sparrows - I recall a statistics problem in the 6th form about them, which assumed sparrows are "approximately immortal", being killed in proportion to their numbers by other causes than old age.

So death was in the world from the start.

. . . This thread is about death being programmed into the cell because of sex: a death sentence written into the very story of each of our beginnings such that only through Christ can it be erased.

Secondarily, but I don't see us getting there any time soon, it's about the difference between "immortal life" versus "everlasting life."



John

 

[exchemist]

. . . This thread is about death being programmed into the cell because of sex: a death sentence written into the very story of each of our beginnings such that only through Christ can it be erased.

Secondarily, but I don't see us getting there any time soon, it's about the difference between "immortal life" versus "everlasting life."



John

And a thoroughly poisonous and bogus idea it is, too.

 

[John D. Brey]

Who is Rashi?
Some people choose interpretation they like or prefer, but based on the reading of the text, it says, according to old language ...
Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain...

Know was understood in a variety of ways, so context played an important role in getting the correct understanding.
We know what "to know" meant in old language, in this contest, and context is important, if we want to understand the writings.
So using modern speech, many translations use it as it is understood... in context.
Genesis 4:1 And Adam had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man," she said.

See Genesis 19:5, 8

. . . Every interpretation must come from the original text which is Hebrew. So it's important to interpret from the Hebrew, what it (the Hebrew) is actually saying, rather than relying on interpretation based on a translation.

To get the Hebrew right it helps to have a Hebrew scholar. Which is where Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Abarbanel, or Nachmanides, become completely necessary.



John

 

[nPeace]

. . . Every interpretation must come from the original text which is Hebrew. So it's important to interpret from the Hebrew, what it's actually saying, rather than any translation from some other language.

To get the Hebrew right it helps to have a Hebrew scholar. Which is where Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Abarbanel, or Nachmanides, become completely necessary.



John

That's what I did.
Did you look at Genesis 19:5, 8
What do your scholars say on these? Also, do your scholars use context in understanding passages?

 

[John D. Brey]

And a thoroughly poisonous and bogus idea it is, too.

. . . You can relax confident in the fact that the mainstream has washed it out and brushed it to the side.



John

 

[nPeace]

. . . This thread is about death being programmed into the cell because of sex: a death sentence written into the very story of each of our beginnings such that only through Christ can it be erased.

Secondarily, but I don't see us getting there any time soon, it's about the difference between "immortal life" versus "everlasting life."



John

I'm interested. What is your understanding about the difference between "immortal life" versus "everlasting life"?

 

[John D. Brey]

That's what I did.
Did you look at Genesis 19:5, 8
What do your scholars say on these? Also, do your scholars use context in understanding passages?

Here's Genesis 4:1 with yada bold and underlined:

וְהָ֣אָדָ֔ם יָדַ֖ע אֶת־חַוָּ֣ה אִשְׁתּוֹ֑ וַתַּ֨הַר֙ וַתֵּ֣לֶד אֶת־קַ֔יִן וַתֹּ֕אמֶר קָנִ֥יתִי אִ֖ישׁ אֶת־יְהוָֽה׃

Here's a nearly identical passage, Genesis 4:17, with yada bold and underlined:

וַיֵּ֤דַע קַ֨יִן֙ אֶת־אִשְׁתּוֹ֔ וַתַּ֖הַר וַתֵּ֣לֶד אֶת־חֲנ֑וֹךְ וַֽיְהִי֙ בֹּ֣נֶה עִ֔יר וַיִּקְרָא֙ שֵׁ֣ם הָעִ֔יר כְּשֵׁ֖ם בְּנֹ֥ו חֲנֽוֹךְ׃

In the English translation Genesis 4:1 reads: "And Adam knew his wife." And Genesis 4:17 reads: "And Cain knew his wife."

The conversive vav in 4:17 (and this is according to Rashi) means Cain "knew" his wife, while yada without the conversive vav in Genesis 4:1 means Adam "had known," his wife (and this is according to Rashi).

"Had known" isn't a euphemism for carnal-knowledge. It's not used one time as a euphemism for direct carnal-knowledge. On the other hand, "knew" is used dozens of times throughout the Tanakh as a euphemism for carnal-knowledge. When Adam fathers his first son, Seth, it says Adam "knew" his wife. And the text even tell us Seth is Adam's first son (what about Cain?).

Why does the English translation translate the passages in Genesis 4:1 as if it reads "knew" in the Hebrew when according to sound Hebrew exegesis Genesis 4:1 should read Adam "had known" his wife?

Because the translators are aware that "had known" isn't a euphemism for carnal-knowledge while the passage seems to imply carnal-knowledge.

If the translators are as careful as Rashi they know they have a problem since the context makes 4:1 and 4:17 look identical while the text itself is creating a major divergence. Why say Adam "had known" (which is not a euphemism for carnal-knowledge) and then claim she births Cain? Because Adam's carnal-knowledge about the genesis of Cain is outside what the mainstream can swallow.

Why does the text not just say Adam "knew" (a euphemism for carnal knowledge) Eve as it says Cain "knew" his wife?

The Bible isn't sloppy, careless, or redundant. The difference between 4:1 and 4:17 is neither careless, unimportant, or irrelevant. God said "had known" for a very important reason. Rashi gets it part right but has to hedge his bet in order not to cause division between traditional orthodoxy and the true reading of the text. Adam isn't Cain's biological father any more than Joseph is Jesus' biological father. And oddly enough the Talmud qualifies the statement that Adam isn't Cain's father.



John

 

[nPeace]

Here's Genesis 4:1 with yada bold and underlined:

וְהָ֣אָדָ֔ם יָדַ֖ע אֶת־חַוָּ֣ה אִשְׁתּוֹ֑ וַתַּ֨הַר֙ וַתֵּ֣לֶד אֶת־קַ֔יִן וַתֹּ֕אמֶר קָנִ֥יתִי אִ֖ישׁ אֶת־יְהוָֽה׃

Here's a nearly identical passage, Genesis 4:17, with yada bold and underlined:

וַיֵּ֤דַע קַ֨יִן֙ אֶת־אִשְׁתּוֹ֔ וַתַּ֖הַר וַתֵּ֣לֶד אֶת־חֲנ֑וֹךְ וַֽיְהִי֙ בֹּ֣נֶה עִ֔יר וַיִּקְרָא֙ שֵׁ֣ם הָעִ֔יר כְּשֵׁ֖ם בְּנֹ֥ו חֲנֽוֹךְ׃

In the English translation Genesis 4:1 reads: "And Adam knew his wife." And Genesis 4:17 reads: "And Cain knew his wife."

The conversive vav in 4:17 (and this is according to Rashi) means Cain "knew" his wife, while yada without the conversive vav in Genesis 4:1 means Adam "had known," his wife (and this is according to Rashi).

"Had known" isn't a euphemism for carnal-knowledge. It's not used one time as a euphemism for direct carnal-knowledge. On the other hand, "knew" is used dozens of times throughout the Tanakh as a euphemism for carnal-knowledge. When Adam fathers his first son, Seth, it says Adam "knew" his wife. And the text even tell us Seth is Adam's first son (what about Cain?).

Why does the English translation translate the passages in Genesis 4:1 as if it reads "knew" in the Hebrew when according to sound Hebrew exegesis Genesis 4:1 should read Adam "had known" his wife?

Because the translators are aware that "had known" isn't a euphemism for carnal-knowledge while the passage seems to imply carnal-knowledge.

If the translators are as careful as Rashi they know they have a problem since the context makes 4:1 and 4:17 look identical while the text itself is creating a major divergence. Why say Adam "had known" (which is not a euphemism for carnal-knowledge) and then claim she births Cain? Because Adam's carnal-knowledge about the genesis of Cain is outside what the mainstream can swallow.

Why does the text not just say Adam "knew" (a euphemism for carnal knowledge) Eve as it says Cain "knew" his wife?

The Bible isn't sloppy, careless, or redundant. The difference between 4:1 and 4:17 is neither careless, unimportant, or irrelevant. God said "had known" for a very important reason. Rashi gets it part right but has to hedge his bet in order not to cause division between traditional orthodoxy and the true reading of the text. Adam isn't Cain's father. And oddly enough the Talmud points this out.



John

Did you look at Genesis 19:5, 8
What do your scholars say on these? Also, do your scholars use context in understanding passages?

 

[John D. Brey]

I'm interested. What is your understanding about the difference between "immortal life" versus "everlasting life"?

. . . 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