That may be among the first true things I've heard you say.
-
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!
Did Adam and Eve and animals have genitals before the fall?
- Thread starter Kfox
- Start date
^ this ...
... although the term underthinking might be more appropriate.
The OP author has no interest in the implications of a beautifully manicured Eden with fruit baring trees which, given his logic, never sin and potentially never die. After all, fruit (forbidden and not) and seeds are boring, so let's titillate with some gotcha-question involving testicles.
Who exactly are you talking to? Did you fail utterly to see my post was nothing but tongue in cheek humor?
Did you honestly believe I actually believe that nonsense I made up on the fly to make a point about the "true believers"? Why not go back in the links to see what I posted, and pay attention to how others gave the "laugh" frubble to the posts. Honestly, if you misread all of these posts, I am mystified as to how.
BTW, do you know what "projection" really means? The way you used it here wouldn't make any sense, if I I did believe that nonsense I was saying. Projection means to accuse the other person of doing something you are actually doing, but not recognizing in yourself as your own issue.
You only have yourself to blame then.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Correct. It's missing in the English.
Why? What is it about Alter which renders the conclusion his commentary is 100% complete?
... And the two of them were naked, the human and his woman, and they were not ashamed. Now the serpent was most cunning of all the beasts of the field ..
but in Hebrew it says:
... And the two of them were ערומים, the human and his woman, and they were not ashamed. Now the serpent was most ערום of all the beasts of the field ..
What were they? What was it? They were "ערום" "naked"? It was the most "ערום".
The most.
It's word play that's missing in the English. And is even more obvious prior to adding the chapter divisions. Like I said.
Last edited:
I accept no blame at all for the nonsense you so often post.You only have yourself to blame then.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You are inconsistent in your posts so it can be hard to judge if you are kidding or not without an indicator. There are those here that are crazy enough to believe what you posted. Be consistent and you will not have this sort of reaction.
Thanks for that. I cited Alter because of his declaration that the Hebrew was more concrete, and more into images based on the human body and its functions, than translators usually are, implying his own translation addresses this.Correct. It's missing in the English.
Why? What is it about Alter which renders the conclusion his commentary is 100% complete?
... And the two of them were naked, the human and his woman, and they were not ashamed. Now the serpent was most cunning of all the beasts of the field ..
but in Hebrew it says:
... And the two of them were ערומים, the human and his woman, and they were not ashamed. Now the serpent was most ערום of all the beasts of the field ..
What were they? What was it? They were "ערום" "naked"? It was the most "ערום".
The most.
It's word play that's missing in the English. And is even more obvious prior to adding the chapter divisions. Like I said.
It would change the tone (not the data) of my reading of the Garden story. Yet I'd say (via my preferred RSV) that Chapter 4.1 still reads like a first.
I appreciate your input.
Apparently my comment was considered spam and deleted.
I am quite consistent in my posts, but you assume that because I state I believe in God that I am a prerational person who struggles with science, which is completely false. The error you make is that you assume anything that goes beyond the philosophical materialist rationalist mindset, much be magical thinking. This is known as the Pre/Trans Fallacy :
Confusing higher and lower levels of development.
The pre/trans fallacy is an error of thinking. It conflates primitive phenomenon with more advanced phenomenon. This conflation is due to their mutual distinction from ordinary conditions. Unless an individual has "transcended" a level, he or she cannot determine accurately whether a deviation represents an advancement or a regression.
Consequently this pre/trans error is common and understandable.
More-than-ordinary & less-than-ordinary are easily confused. The less-than-ordinary, so to speak, is naturally motivated to claim superiority. It will assert its identity with the more-than-ordinary. Simultaneously, the ordinary will be equally suspicious of both "higher" and "lower" structures due to their deviance from itself.
Both pre-conventional & post-conventional are non-conventional.
Confusion arises whenever we forget the pattern of vertical emergence that exhibits increased differentiation, inclusion and transcendence. To transcend something means to have already integrated and assimilated it. Then it is remixed it into a larger context, shifting the utilization of more basic components and allows the emergence of novel features characterized by amplified depth, integrated complexity & inclusiveness. These features are not present in relatively preconventional phenomena. So these features provide us with a way to begin solving this fallacy.
two problematic results
The pre/trans error results in one of two outcomes. We can mistake "pre" for "trans" OR "trans" for "pre". As a result we see two typical problematic patterns:
(a) Reductionism (or the belief that all "higher levels" are a regression to a pre-conventional, infantile or irrational consciousness.)
(b) Elevationism (or the belief that primitive and undeveloped forms of consciousness are spiritual, exalted.)
What I placed in bold text above is exactly what is happening. Again, there is no inconsistency on my part. You just mistake that deviation from what is ordinary for your view of the rational for the prerational, which it is not. It actually embraces the rational, but goes the next step beyond it. The prerational hasn't arrived yet.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Yep, but the image from my imagination I got of that sultry and sensual vixen Lilith ....
Ohhhh baby!
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Well, this doesn't answer the question why you had assumed that his commentary was 100% complete.
Here is what I am seeing in the RSV:
[24] Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.
[25] And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.
Guess what that means? Adam and Eve comsummated there relationship before chapter 4.
A woman becomes a wife when there is consummation. Before that she is betrothed. This is Jewish law, and naturally the common English reader will be ignorant of this. And it's also very important for the story that Eve is indeed offically married. There's another fun word-play during Eve's confession. But this is lost on the English reader as well.
Did you know that "word-play" in the eden story is something form-critics notice as a departure in style from Chapter 1? There's an important lesson being taught here because there's also important word-play in the serpents' speech, and in Adam's confession. And even in the prohibtion given by God. That sort of consistency is signficant and intentional. That's how I know there is a lesson being taught using it.
There so much detail missing to the casual English reader. And I'm always surprised when it is pointed out, when the English reader does not scale back their confidence in their English rendered understanding of the story.
I don't believe you.
Thanks for your perspective.
So you believe there was death?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Of course there was always physical death. Man as a species has existed for about 200,000 years, and if there had never been death the earth would have been overpopulated a long time ago.
Yokefellow
Active Member
You are assuming they ate the same types of food we do now.
Before the Fall, 'food' was information.
Yokefellow
Active Member
The above is incorrect.
The Tree of Life is not some sort of 'anti-aging' tree that has to be consumed on a regular basis, otherwise it would contradict Revelation.
Moreover, the Tree of Life was never partaken of. The couple never had a chance.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And how does that work?
Yokefellow
Active Member
There are many verses in the Bible that relate eating food with learning Word of God.
Example:
1 Peter 2:2
"As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby"
Even the name of the tree that Adam and his wife partook of implies that one will consume information...
Genesis 2:9
"And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."
It is a tree of 'knowledge' that is 'good for food'.
Adam and his wife were 'newborns' needing the 'Milk of the Word'.