1. 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!

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

Discussion in 'Scriptural Debates' started by John D. Brey, Nov 11, 2019.

  1. Tumah

    Tumah Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2013
    Messages:
    11,240
    Ratings:
    +7,583
    Religion:
    Mega-Super-Ultra-Orthodox Judaism
    That is clearly not the case, since you go on to say something that I am not saying at all.

    We both know that you have a habit of "rewording" sources, so as usual, let's see the source in the Talmud that says that the serpent impregnated Eve.

    We both know that you have a habit of "rewording" sources, so as usual, let's see the source in any of the Midrashic works that say that Adam gained knowledge of that by watching the serpent conceive Cain with Eve.

    1 Kings 1:4 has the same conjugation.

    It does not mean that he knew something about her. That's not what it says. It says that he knew her.

    You must have missed 4:25.

    So you think that Joseph knew Mary intimately before they were married and just kept it secret. Interesting.
     
    #61 Tumah, Nov 14, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2019
  2. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    26,802
    Ratings:
    +10,886
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    A "non-gendered female"? Is that like, a non-vehicle Volkswagen or a non-apple Granny Smith?

    :facepalm: Have a good day.


    .
     
    #62 Skwim, Nov 14, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2019
  3. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,417
    Ratings:
    +1,543
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    I don't think so.
    Well, that's another thing we disagree on. :)
    God is not a God of disorder, but of peace. (1 Corinthians 14:33)
     
  4. JesusKnowsYou

    JesusKnowsYou Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2019
    Messages:
    216
    Ratings:
    +20
    Religion:
    Latter-day Saint
    I don't know about all that.

    I mean, is it any more odd than making people out of dust and ribs and talking snakes?
    God intended for Adam and Eve to to have sex and have children after they partook of the Fruit and left the Garden.

    The Genesis account claims that before Adam and Eve partook of the Fruit they had no Knowledge of Good and Evil and they could not die.

    There was no death in the Garden of Eden. No death before the Fall.

    It was the Fruit that caused Adam and Eve to obtain this Knowledge and also gained them the conditions of mortality.

    The Book of Mormon goes into even more detail claiming that before they partook of the Fruit Adam and Eve could not comprehend opposing forces such pain and pleasure, sickness and health, virtue and vice - Good and Evil. They were completely innocent.

    Not only were they mentally unable to comprehend these things, but they physically could not experience them either. They had no pain in the Garden. No sickness or weakness. Their bodies had not yet entered into mortality, so they could not experience these things.

    Now think for a moment about our reproductive functions here in mortality. They could not operate properly without death and decay. Children could not form properly in the womb without the ability to grow and decay.

    There is no possibility of mental growth without knowledge of opposing forces or physical development without death and decay.

    I honestly believe that Adam and Eve were unable to reproduce in the Garden. They lacked the ability both mentally and physically.
    No. I believe that both Adam and Eve were anatomically whole. They just had not yet entered into mortality and had not yet gained all that that entails.
    Sure that weird narrative you spun with them growing body parts is hard to swallow.

    The Bible claims that it was the Fruit that gave them Knowledge of Good and Evil and also caused them to die, so I don't feel that what the Book of Mormon teaches and what I have shared is too far-fetched at all.
    No, I have no evidence at all that Adam and Eve even existed.

    All I have is the Biblical narrative, what other books I believe to be scripture claim about Adam and Eve and the Fall and the other teachings from men who I believe to be prophets.

    Not to mention my own logical conclusions I came to based on these things.
     
  5. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    26,802
    Ratings:
    +10,886
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Nope, but my presumption was that you were basing your beliefs on the Bible rather than something like the Book of Mormon.

    I posed questions, not assertions.

    .
     
  6. JesusKnowsYou

    JesusKnowsYou Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2019
    Messages:
    216
    Ratings:
    +20
    Religion:
    Latter-day Saint
    The Torah or Tanakh do not record Adam and Eve having sex before leaving the Garden of Eden.

    Any and all "talmudic literature" are the opinions of Rabbis, not scripture.

    Genesis 2:21 describes God taking a rib from Adam to form Eve. Adam was never a woman. There were no "sex-changes" in the Bible. There is no such thing as a "sex-change".

    Because neither Adam nor Eve were mortal up until they partook of the Fruit they did not need to eat.

    It was not until after they partook of the Fruit that their bodies changed and they needed to eat and reproduce.
     
  7. JesusKnowsYou

    JesusKnowsYou Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2019
    Messages:
    216
    Ratings:
    +20
    Religion:
    Latter-day Saint
    I try to base my beliefs on the truth.

    What I shared is supported by both the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
    You said,

    "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?"

    You asked these two ridiculous questions then you asked a question about the premise of those two ridiculous questions by attributing the premise to me.

    I never claimed that Adam or Eve lacked any genitalia at any point in their lives, but the way you asked your ridiculous questions and then questioned the legitimacy of the false claims your first two questions inferred made it seem as though I had.

    Overall - a very dishonest thing for you to do.
     
  8. RedDragon94

    RedDragon94 Lectio Divina

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    2,649
    Ratings:
    +684
    Religion:
    Christian but I like to meditate
    Hmmm, okay. That's interesting. Where does William R. Clark teach?
     
  9. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    26,802
    Ratings:
    +10,886
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    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.


    .
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  10. RedDragon94

    RedDragon94 Lectio Divina

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    2,649
    Ratings:
    +684
    Religion:
    Christian but I like to meditate
    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.)
     
  11. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    1,262
    Ratings:
    +84
    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
     
  12. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    1,262
    Ratings:
    +84
    . . . That's your opinion, not scripture.



    John
     
  13. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    1,262
    Ratings:
    +84
    . . . Then don't cause disorder by disagreeing with your brother. Peace be with you.



    John
     
  14. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    1,262
    Ratings:
    +84
    . . . 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
     
  15. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,417
    Ratings:
    +1,543
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Good advice. Never happens. All of my brothers speak in agreement. That's how Holy Spirit works. We never associate holy spirit with confusing and conflicting thoughts.
    That's where that other spirit is evident - where the divisions originated.
    So I do agree with you... we are on different paths. Matthew 7:13, 14
    Peace
     
  16. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    1,262
    Ratings:
    +84
    . . . Concerning Matthew 7:13 I'd say there are far more who take the path you've taken than the one I'm on. Peace be with your brother.



    John
     
  17. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,417
    Ratings:
    +1,543
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Contraire. Don't let the mirage fool you. Peace.
     
  18. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,776
    Ratings:
    +5,605
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    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.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  19. Terry Sampson

    Terry Sampson ζει

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2019
    Messages:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +1,299
    Religion:
    Creedalist Xian
    • https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/to-hebrew-experts-did-eve-sleep-with-the-serpent.224915
      • In Post #1, Estro Felino introduces the portion of the Proto Gospel of James, in which Joseph discovers Mary's pregnancy and bewails the possibility that she has, like Eve, been seduced and impregnated by the serpent.
      • David1967 posted #2 and introduced me to the "the Serpent Seed" doctrine of William Branham, The Serpent seed accepted by a minority of Christians, according to which:
        • "One of the most deceptive doctrines that has slithered into the church is the serpent seed teaching. First popularized by William Branham and currently held by Arnold Murray of the shepherds chapel and his followers that have adjusted some of its meanings.
        • William Branham - "But it was a sex act. ... The serpent was an upright handsome creature. He was, in fact, `the missing link’ that science even in their unspiritual wisdom, can see is missing `between man and monkey.’ ... Satan used this creature to get himself into the Human race.” (Was it an Apple? (Lima, Oh: Bible Believers of Lima).
      • In Post #60, I post a portion of a link given me by Wandering Monk [Eve: Midrash and Aggadah | Jewish Women's Archive] which says:
        • "Eve and the Serpent
          In the midrashic expansion, the serpent, “who was the shrewdest of all the wild beasts” (Gen. 3:1), cast his eyes on what was not fit for him. The serpent saw Adam and Eve naked, engaging in intercourse in plain sight, and he lusted after Eve. He wanted to kill Adam and then marry Eve. When he was punished, God told him: I intended that you would reign over all cattle and beasts, but now “more cursed shall you be than all cattle and all the wild beasts” (Gen. 3:14); you desired to kill Adam and marry Eve, now “I will put enmity between you and the woman” (Gen. 3:15). What the serpent wanted was not given him, and what he had was taken from him (T Sotah [ed. Lieberman] 4:17–18; Gen. Rabbah 18:6). According to another tradition, the serpent did indeed engage in intercourse with Eve, who became pregnant and gave birth to Cain (see below, “Now the Man Knew His Wife Eve”)."
        • And I asked "So where is the "other tradition" written?"
      • In answer to my question, Wandering Monk posted #63: "the serpent had intercourse with Eve and injected filth into her… - Zohar Pekudei 21[10]"
      • In my Post #72, I wrote:
        • Toodlin' through the cyber-world, I came across some sample myths from Howard Schwartz's book, "Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism" (Oxford University Press, 2004).
          One of the myths, found @ FROM BOOK NINE, MYTHS OF EXILE , is #572:

          572. HOW CAIN WAS CONCEIVED
          Samael was the great prince in heaven. After God created the world, Samael took his band of followers and descended and saw the creatures that God had created. Among them he found none so skilled to do evil than the serpent, as it is said, Now the serpent was the shrewdest of all the wild beasts (Gen. 3:1). Its appearance was something like that of a camel, and Samael mounted and rode upon it. Riding on the serpent, the angel Samael came to Eve in the night and seduced her, and she conceived Cain. Later, while Eve was pregnant by the angel, Adam came to her, and she conceived Abel. Others say it was the serpent himself who seduced Eve, for after he saw Adam and Eve coupling, the serpent conceived a passion for her. He even imagined killing Adam and marrying Eve. So he came to Eve when she was alone and possessed her and infused her with lust. That is how the serpent fathered Cain, who was later to slay his own brother. And that is how Eve was infected with his impurity. As a result, all of Israel was impure from that time until the Torah was given on Mount Sinai. Only then did Israel’s impurity cease.

          There's more but I'll let you look it up and read it for yourself.
          What I found VERY interesting is that (a) Schwartz is a Professor of English at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, (b) a fairly well-known and -praised author Welcome to Howard Schwartz on the Web , and (c) he cited the sources for his Myth #572. Here they are:
          1. Targum Pseudo-Yonathan on Genesis 4:1;
          2. B. Shabbat 145b-146a;
          3. B. Sota 9b;
          4. B. Yevamot 103b;
          5. B. Avodah Zarah 22b;
          6. Genesis Rabbah 18:6;
          7. Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 13, 21, and 22;
          8. Zohar 1:28b, 1:36b-137a, 1:54a, 1:55a; 1:243b, 2:52a;
          9. Magen Avot 53.
          Now, I'm not a Hebrew Expert by a long shot, but I was able to actually locate Sources #2, #3, #4, #5, and #6. #2 through #5 are from the Babylonian Talmud, and #6 is from the Midrash. I'm not sure when they were "compiled". Seems unreasonable to think they may have been influenced by a Christian story like the one recorded in the Proto-Gospel of James was written. On the other hand, I can't help but wonder if the Proto-Gospel of James version of the Adam/Eve/Serpent interaction may have had its source among non-Christian Jews.


     
  20. Terry Sampson

    Terry Sampson ζει

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2019
    Messages:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +1,299
    Religion:
    Creedalist Xian
    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.[​IMG]


      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.
     
Loading...