If Adam had not sinned.

[Raymond Sheen]

i think the problem we see here, in regards to this story, is that some people adopt the notion of a life after death when it that implication is devoid in this narrative...

I agree. That provision wasn't introduced until the first prophecy of the Messiah at Genesis 3:15.

 

[waitasec]

I agree. That provision wasn't introduced until the first prophecy of the Messiah at Genesis 3:15.

but there is no mention of life after death..only a struggle between her seed and the serpents seed...
meaning mankind will be struggling with evil from then on.

 

[waitasec]

the tanakh reads
“And I shall place hatred between you and between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed. He will crush your head, and you will bite his heel."

which read a little different from
the NJKV

And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”

why a capital H and a capital S? is it to satisfy the christian messianic theology?

it's just like having the prosecution alter the crime scene in order to make their argument viable


it's a farce. i see no point.

 

[Raymond Sheen]

but there is no mention of life after death..only a struggle between her seed and the serpents seed...

Not directly, but it is the first prophecy of the Messiah which leads to everlasting life after the debt of sin is paid in full upon death. Life after death.

meaning mankind will be struggling with evil from then on.

Not exactly from then on, but up to a point.

 

[Raymond Sheen]

the tanakh reads
“And I shall place hatred between you and between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed. He will crush your head, and you will bite his heel."

which read a little different from
the NJKV

And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”

why a capital H and a capital S? is it to satisfy the christian messianic theology?

it's just like having the prosecution alter the crime scene in order to make their argument viable


it's a farce. i see no point.

What seems like a pronouncement upon the actual woman and serpent is metaphoric for the struggle between her seed, those of the Bride of Christ; those for Jehovah God and the serpent's seed, those for Satan the devil who used the innocent serpent as a mouthpiece.

The bruising of his heal is the death of Christ but the bruising of the head is the fatal blow, the destruction of Satan.

 

[waitasec]

What seems like a pronouncement upon the actual woman and serpent is metaphoric for the struggle between her seed, those of the Bride of Christ; those for Jehovah God and the serpent's seed, those for Satan the devil who used the innocent serpent as a mouthpiece.

The bruising of his heal is the death of Christ but the bruising of the head is the fatal blow, the destruction of Satan.

i found this and thought you might find it interesting...

The word “seed” is used with a double meaning in Genesis 3:15. The word refers to the descendants of the woman (“her seed”) and to the offspring of the serpent (“your seed”). The problem with translating Genesis 3:15 is that the translators tend to introduce their theological views into the text and then translate the verse accordingly. A few examples will suffice.

The translators of the King James Bible (KJV) had an ambivalent understanding of the word “seed”:

KJV: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

Here the translators used the word “it” to refer to the seed of the woman, but then they used the expression “his heel” to refer to the seed of the woman as a person.

The translators of the New American Standard Bible (NASB) infused a Christological understanding to the word “seed” in their translation of Genesis 3:15:

NASB: “And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

By using the word “He” with a capital H after a semicolon, the translators of the NASB were declaring that the verse was referring to the work of Christ. The translators of the Holman Christian Standard Bible have the same view, but their translation is ambivalent since they use “He” with a capital H after a period: “I will put hostility between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.”

The translators of the Douay-Rheims Bible (DRB), a Catholic translation of the Latin Vulgate, translated Genesis 3:15 from a Mariological perspective:

DRB: “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”

According to Mariological theology, it is Mary who crushes the head of the serpent. This translation follows Catholic exegesis which calls these words of Genesis “The Protoevangelium,” that is, the first gospel, or the first announcement of the coming Messiah.

According to Catholic theology, in the promise of Genesis 3:15 the woman is placed first to indicate that the enmity is between the serpent and the woman. Thus, according to Pope John Paul II, “the Lord God, in announcing the Redeemer, makes the woman the first ‘enemy’ of the prince of darkness.”

The Hebrew word זֶרַע (zera‘) should be understood as a collective word with a plural meaning. The verse is referring to the descendants of the woman as well as the descendants of the serpent. This is the way the Common English Bible (CEB) translates Genesis 3:15:

CEB: “I will put contempt between you and the woman, between your offspring and hers. They will strike your head, but you will strike at their heels.”

The same view was taken by the Tanak (TNK), the translation of the Hebrew Bible published by The Jewish Publication Society. It reads:

TNK: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your offspring and hers; They shall strike at your head, And you shall strike at their heel” (Genesis 3:15).

The words of Genesis 3:15 occur in the context of God’s judgment and speak of the hostility between human beings and the serpent. This hostility was decreed by God as the consequence of what the serpent did in deceiving the woman. In light of the proper exegesis of the text, Gerhard von Rad wrote (p. 90):

“The exegesis of the early church which found a messianic prophecy here, a reference to a final victory of the woman’s seed (Protoevangelium), does not agree with the sense of [the] passage, quite apart from the fact that the word ‘seed’ may not be construed personally but only quite generally with the meaning of ‘posterity.’”

In his commentary on Genesis, Gordon J. Wenham understands the word “seed” to refer to “the human race” (p. 79). Wenham wrote: “While a messianic interpretation may be justified in the light of subsequent revelation, . . . it would perhaps be wrong to suggest that this was the narrator’s own understanding. Probably he just looked for mankind eventually to defeat the serpent’s seed, the power of evil” (p. 81).

Even the ethical meaning, that the serpent represents Satan and the power of evil, does not reflect the plain meaning of the text which presents the serpent as a real animal, one of the wild animals that God had made (Genesis 3:1).

The New Testament identifies the serpent of Genesis with Satan and the Devil: “And the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world; he was cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him” (Revelation 12:9).

This understanding of Genesis 3:15 is not found in the Old Testament. An intimation of this idea is found in the apocryphal book, The Wisdom of Solomon: “Through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it” (Wisdom 2:24).

A Messianic interpretation of Genesis 3:15 is also found in the Targum Pseudo Jonathan. It reads:

“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between the seed of thy son, and the seed of her sons; and it shall be when the sons of the woman keep the commandments of the law, they will be prepared to smite thee upon thy head; but when they forsake the commandments of the law, thou wilt be ready to wound them in their heel. Nevertheless for them there shall be a medicine, but for thee there will be no medicine; and they shall make a remedy for the heel in the days of the King Meshiha.”

But, how about Hamilton’s claim, a claim used by many preachers, that the Septuagint speaks of the woman’s sperm which is, according to some interpreters, a reference to the Virgin Birth of Christ. Since a woman receives sperm from a man to conceive a child, then the woman’s sperm mentioned in Genesis 3:15 must be a reference to the Holy Spirit “overshadowing” Mary (Luke 1:35).

What Hamilton does not say in his book is that the Hebrew Bible does not use the word “sperm” but “seed.” “Sperm” is a Greek translation of the Hebrew word for “seed.” In addition, the Septuagint also has the same word, “sperma,” for the serpent. The Septuagint speaks of the “spermatos” of the woman and the “spermatos” of the serpent.

Although the Messianic interpretation of Genesis 3:15 is very attractive and it has served as the foundational text for many good sermons, I think this interpretation should be abandoned because it does not reflect a proper interpretation of the text. I agree with the translation of the Common English Bible and with the translation of the Tanak. The Hebrew word for “seed” in Genesis 3:15 should be understood in the sense of “descendants” or “offspring.”

Translating Genesis 3:15 – Part 2 | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

 

[Heathen Hammer]

the tanakh reads
“And I shall place hatred between you and between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed. He will crush your head, and you will bite his heel."

which read a little different from
the NJKV

And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”

why a capital H and a capital S? is it to satisfy the christian messianic theology?

it's just like having the prosecution alter the crime scene in order to make their argument viable


it's a farce. i see no point.

Well, technically speaking there were no odd capitalization in the original because the Hebrew doesn't have it [capitalization as such]. It's all modern English additions to alter the textual meaning.

 

[Thief]

where?

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
where? i see no mention that the tree of life was forbidden...

how where they to know there was life after death if they were eating from the tree of everlasting life?

Still can't see the line on the ground......

The tree of life was taken away....before Adam and Eve could partake.
Denial?....forbidden?...

I suspect your persistence is still rooted in your own denial.

 

[Thief]

Not directly, but it is the first prophecy of the Messiah which leads to everlasting life after the debt of sin is paid in full upon death. Life after death.

The before hand post you answer here is correct.
Your rebuttal here goes too far.

Not exactly from then on, but up to a point.

Yes, exactly.
The struggle between good and evil is present....and persistent.
It doesn't necessarily end in death.

Angels carry swords in this world?....maybe, but you don't see them
...do you?

See such things in the next life?....probably.

 

[waitasec]

Still can't see the line on the ground......

The tree of life was taken away....before Adam and Eve could partake.
Denial?....forbidden?...

I suspect your persistence is still rooted in your own denial.

ahhh nope...
nice try though.

i find it interesting that you just rely on your imagination to back up your claim...

can you show me where? :no:

 

[waitasec]

Well, technically speaking there were no odd capitalization in the original because the Hebrew doesn't have it [capitalization as such]. It's all modern English additions to alter the textual meaning.

ooh i didn't realize that...

what i also find interesting is that this very same passage says, if you take the messianic interpretation, jesus is capable of hate. now if jesus is god and god is love...how can that work?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It's hard to trust recent, modern 'translations' over examining the originals, if we want to see what the deity really set down.

But, then again, people do it en mass all the time.

 

[waitasec]

It's hard to trust recent, modern 'translations' over examining the originals, if we want to see what the deity really set down.

But, then again, people do it en mass all the time.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

-thomas paine

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Hahah! Nice.

 

[Thief]

ahhh nope...
nice try though.

i find it interesting that you just rely on your imagination to back up your claim...

can you show me where? :no:

Imagination is the problem solving part of the mind.
You would deny this as well?

Back to your op.

Start over.

 

[waitasec]

Imagination is the problem solving part of the mind.
You would deny this as well?

if you are implying that religious faith is nothing more than a figment of ones imagination, i would agree....

 

[Nabeel Akhalwaya Motala]

Jesus (AS) is not God. He never said that he was God. Neither did he say that he is the son of God. He is a Prophet of God...a messenger. He was sent with a message which he delivered just as he was supposed to have delivered it. Peace be upon Jesus (AS), the son of Mary (PBUH).

 

[Thief]

if you are implying that religious faith is nothing more than a figment of ones imagination, i would agree....

There's that personal denial again.

Problems with religion?
Can't get on with it?
Can't along with it?

And yet you write op'es about 'God's intention'........

So nay......
Imagination is what we use to resolve contradictions.
Without it, there are no problems you can solve.
If you can't imagine the solution...how will you get there?

Now then....was there an intelligent question you might want to ask?

I'm I being too hard on you?

 

[Thief]

Jesus (AS) is not God. He never said that he was God. Neither did he say that he is the son of God. He is a Prophet of God...a messenger. He was sent with a message which he delivered just as he was supposed to have delivered it. Peace be upon Jesus (AS), the son of Mary (PBUH).

It's a bit off topic to say so....but I agree.
He did say of Himself...'brother and fellow servant'....

And would you go on to say the same....about your mentor?

 

[waitasec]

There's that personal denial again.

i'm curious as to how YOUR sense of imagination has anything to do with me? are you aware that you are proselytizing? it is against forum rules.