Wayne Delia

No, seriously, it was very real, and a hoot. It may not have been on Usenet, though - on further review, it may have been a poster named "rabbitiz" on the old AOL member forums. He billed himself as "South Carolina Christian on the Net," had an early website with all the bells and whistles like Midi versions of hokey old hymns, and appeared to be a very old man. True Net k00ks are a valuable resource that should be cherished.

WMD

Wayne Delia

But the information withheld, for all we know, could be essential to our eternal salvation. In this particular instance, due to the author's laziness, details are left out which ends up making the story portray God as a liar, and the serpent as actually telling the truth. The "moral of the story" depends on a necessary presumption that "something else happened, not included in the story, where God isn't as much of a liar as He seems." Speculating on the nature of what isn't included could apply to anything, including God being a lot worse than what the Bible already shows Him to be.

You really don't want to go there. These "more details later in the Bible" occur in Revelation, which is not a part of the Hebrew Old Testament. If a Mormon were to use your line of reasoning, he'd be assuming as fact anything claimed in the Book of Mormon, because it serves to "explain points" in the Christian New Testament. Would you accept that as "fact"?

Adam didn't write anything in the Bible. All "written" records would have been destroyed in the Flood. You ignored that refutation already.

The way you read the story, you depend on details not found in the story, you depend on casually tossed-off associations at the tail end of a holy book of a substantially different religion (much the same as the Book of Mormon offers further explanations of the New Testament which are not accepted by mainstream Christianity), and you're misrepresenting what's already there.

And as a result, all women throughout history got condemned to the sharp pains of childbirth all because Eve was a "thickie". Do you think Eve was blonde?

Yeah. And the way the story turned out, that "surely" didn't happen.

It could also appear that the anonymous author of that particular story was either too stupid to keep his own story straight, or merely took that opportunity to embellish or add emphasis to the point.

Since you are depending on the New Testament for further explanations, it seems that Paul repeatedly hits on the frequent theme of Eve being the cause of the Fall, not Adam, and for that offense Paul figures that women should be subservient to men. Seems that Paul doesn't understand the Genesis story as well as you do.

Well, to be fair, Adam died about eight hundred years after eating the fruit, so chances are pretty good it passed completely through his digestive system long before he died, so that can be ruled out as a cause of death. And I've already shown that "once immortal, always immortal," because if immortality can be revoked, then it wasn't immortality to begin with. Personally, my guess as to the cause of Adam's death would be "old age," with the contributing factor of a sloppy story-writing by the anonymous author, or a genuine deceit on God's part.

If Adam was immortal before eating the fruit, there would be nothing God or anyone could do to kill off Adam. Since Adam died, he wasn't originally immortal. That is a dead end for you.

God could have said, when giving the command:

It would have resulted in just as much confusion as if Adam had thought with the details he had in the story as it is told. The first point of confusion would be "What the Fuck does 'Death' mean?" (There was no prior precedent of human death for Adam to use as an illustration to understand the concept.) The second point of confusion would be "Is it right or wrong to disobey God?" (Adam hadn't yet eaten the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and at the time, he couldn't distinguish good from evil.

The Mormons consider the Book of Mormon to be as much of a legitimate modification/expansion of the Christian Bible, as Christians consider the New Testament to be a legitimate modification/expansion of the Hebrew Old Testament. Those of the Jewish faith don't seem to agree with either the Mormons or the Christians. I would guess that you'd have no problem taking into account the explanatory information in the New Testament, but you'd probably hesitate to take into account all the information included in the Book of Mormon. The problem with being an atheist and a skeptic is that there's no clear-cut objective method of figuring out whether it's the OT-only crowd, OT-plus-NT crowd, or OT+NT+BOM crowd, if any, who are necessarily correct. At least two of the three have it all wrong, and it could very well be all three of the three being wrong.

Adam was condemned to slavery, to manual labor, in order to survive. You wouldn't know a "better analogy" if you were hit in the forehead by one. Here's an example...

That's a horrible analogy. First of all, Charles Atlas (before he died) was in the business of selling physical fitness solutions to 98-pound weaklings, and had a vested interest in the success of his customers. God banished A&E from the Garden of Eden because they've already succeeded in their analogous knowledge-acquisition program, and that they might actually succeed with their immortality-acquisition program. God is neither selling them either program nor is encouraging them to pursue the programs. Second, a better analogy would be for Charles Atlas to have condemned his customers for achieving results from his program, which he made available to his customers but, for some weird-ass business policy reason, decided to forbid them from participating.

Third, I think "Charles Atlas" is a much better name for a God than simply "God".

I see that as an advantage. At least I know I'm therefore on the right track.

WMD

James Madison

And I will put (O)enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
(P)He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel."

Post:

First of all you assume the word "seed" is in plural form as opposed to singular. It could be read that God is talking about a specific "offspring" as opposed to "all" future offspring in the verse. The fact is we may never truly know since the original aramaic in which it was composed is forever lost to us and hence, the original meaning of this verse may not be capable of being discerned.

However, I find you position rather peculiar as if God could not go from talking about a multitude of subjects to a single subject or only two subjects. You seem to miss the fact a SEMICOLON is separating the two INDEPENDENT CLAUSES.

And I will put (O)enmity
Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed;
(P)He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel."

I notice a semicolon immediately follows the word "seed". Hence we have two clauses which can stand independnet of each other. Additionally, assuming the word "seed" is already in plural form, the word "he" is not plural and is talking about a single individual. Additionally, God is solely talking to the serpent when he uses the word "YOU" shall bruise his heel. After the semicolon we have two individuals being referenced and not a collection of people and snakes. We have a "he" who will bruise the head of the serpent, and the Serpent who will bruise his heel.

He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel."

"HE" which is singular shall bruise "YOU". Who is "YOU"? Is it a collection of snakes? No the "YOU" is the single serpent God is immediately addressing or the individual person God is immediately addressing. "YOU" shall bruise "him/singlular" on the heel. Who is "YOU"? YOU is the serpent and not "serpents", and the serpent shall bruise "him" on the heel. Sounds like God is not talking about anymore than two entities here as opposed to a mass collection of entities. But then God suddenly speaks specifically of "one" of Eve’s seed, a "he," a male descendant. God announces this One, "He," will someday bruise the head of the serpent

Additionally, regarding the use of the word "enmity" which means hatred, enemy, or hostility, the following seems relevant. The word "enmity" in the Hebrew Scriptures always refers to hatred between persons.13 It is never used between an animal and a person.....God says this enmity will spread to the serpent’s seed and the woman’s seed. Again, the word "enmity" is a very specialized word. It is never used between an animal and another animal or between an animal and people. It only describes a condition of hatred between persons.14
In other words there isn't any biblical precedent elsewhere in the bible where the word "enmity" has been used to demonstrate hatred, hostility, or enemy between a man and an animal. The biblical precedent of the word "enmity" as used elsewhere in the bible is always talking about hostility and hatred between "persons".

Thus, I wonder who God, what two individuals, is addressing here because I am simply not convinced it is mass humanity and a collection of snakes, nor the "snake" as an animal but rather the entity using the snake. It seems to be rather reasonable to conclude God is talking about an individual and an entity using the snake and enmity between this individual and the entity using the snake.

Now if you can find a verse elsewhere in the bible where the word "enmity" is used to illustrate hostility and hatred between man and animal, then I will reconsider my conclusion as such evidence would severely weaken my argument.

post tenebras lux

Aramaic? And your evidence for this is?

Would you care to tell me, or to speculate as to, the identity of these specific offspring, or why the bible bothered to mention them if their identity and future role is unknown? I don't remember the bible recording some set piece battle between Eve's offspring and the serpent's offspring.

But, if you wish to claim that in Gen 3:15, it's talking about a specific offspring, so could you kindly explain how Gen 4:16 is used to explain why ALL women suffer the curse of Eve?
Here's the verse, in case you've forgotten it:Then there's Gen 3:17, where Adam is told that he will have to toil in the fields - was this directed only at Adam as well? :huh:


Care to find out when such things as semi-colons were invented? :banghead:

Ha Ha. The hebrew word in question occurs only FIVE times in the bible. Three times (here and twice in the blood laws of Num 35) it is usually translated as 'emnity', whereas the other two times (both in Ezekial) it is usually translated as 'hatred'.
So, you're basically trying to claim a 100% hit rate when you've actually only achieved a 80% hit rate.

ETA: And now that you've got me to open Strong's Concordance: can you please tell me how many, of the more than two hundred times that the hebrew word 'zera' appears in the OT and is translated as 'seed' in the english, is 'zera'/seed used to indicate a sole offspring rather than descendants in general? :huh:

I can randomly quote where it obviously doesn't refer to a single offspring but can you tell me how many times it does - if ever? Then we can play the same 'game of statistics' as you tried to do with 'emnity'.

Jack the Bodiless

Quite apart from the over-reliance on not-yet-added punctuation, this verse clearly indicates the difference in height between humanity and humanity's new adversary. Our enemies will bite us on the feet, and we will stamp on their heads.

Now, unless Satan is really, really short, or lies around in gutters... well, I think it's rather obvious that snakes are being discussed here.

post tenebras lux

Well, if it is refering to Satan, then Satan must always be wriggling around on his belly eating dust. I wonder if he still has arms and legs?

James Madison

First of all I never said anything about a "battle". So you can drop this strawman argument.

Second of all it is peculiar to ask the identity of the specific offspring. I am glad you asked the question because I myself asked the question. Do you have a habit of being rhetorial or just repeating the questions other people ask as a form of argumentation?

Additionally, whether or not their identity and future rule is unknown I think sounds remarkably similar to the question I posed to another poster as to who they think is being addressed. I would suppose an answer to the quesiton of who the individual is and who God is addressing on the other side would begin to answer some of the other questions with more specificity. Their "roles" are already told us in a very ambiguous, general, and perhaps figuritive if not metaphorical sense. The "he" shall crush the serpent's head and the serpent shall bruise his "heel". Hence, we have some idea of their "role". What we lack is the "specificity" of what all of that language means they will do.

To get to this point requires an understanding of how certain words are used elsewhere in the OT and NT. The word "enmity" is not used elsewhere in the bible to describe a relationship between man and animal. Rather, it is always used to describe a relationship of hostility between individuals/people/persons. Hence, it is reasonable to assume God is addressing a relationship not between a man and animal but between a man and another individual. Specifically between a man and Satan, God's adversary.

Another way to arrive at this conclusion is to go through the analysis I mentioned in previous posts and will not repeat again here for the sake of saving time. If you want to see the rest of the analysis, then you can most certainly read my previous posts. I explain why God is addressing his adversary and why an adversary was using the serpent and the serpent was not speaking on it's own volition.

NASB has enmity in the following verses.

Numbers 35:21: or if he struck him down with his hand in enmity Well the word "enmity" certainly is not talking about a relationship between a man and an animal. It is used to describe a relationship between persons.

Very next verse. But if he pushed him suddenly without enmity Again characterizing a relationship between persons and not between man and an animal.

Deuteronomy 4:42. that a manslayer might flee there, who unintentionally slew his neighbor without having enmity toward him in time past

Again the word "enmity" is used to characterize a relationship between persons.

The word "enmity" is used about 6x in the OT and it is never used to characterize a relationship between a man and an animal but rather it is used to characterize a relationship between persons. Even in the NT it is used to characterize a relationship between "persons" and not a relationship between man and animals.

post tenebras lux

I was just pointing out how implausible (IMHO) your apologetic is.

So you count the number of times emnity turns up in english??? :banghead:

That one you reference in Deut is a totally different hebrew word from a totally different root. You did know that, didn't you?

Whereas the NT wasn't written in hebrew at all. :banghead:

Um, what happened to your claim that Genesis was originally written in Aramaic? And that if we didn't have the original language then we'd have problems? So why are you now trying to compare where and when an english word turns up in your translation? :huh:

PS Did you notice my ETA in my last post? You may have started replying to me before I'd managed to post it.

James Madison

Just because we lack the original text does not mean we do not have an accurate copy or an accurate translation. More importantly I said we "may" have problems as opposed to we will "definitely" have problems. Hebrew followed after aramaic and were a language spoken primiarly by Jews. It was the Jewish people, actually their predecessors, which composed the OT in aramaic. Hence, I can feel fairly confident that for the most part Hebrew has accurately and correctly translated what was said in the OT as it was written in Aramaic. It was the Jews, after all, which transcribed the OT aramaic into Hebrew. At this time I have not read any red alters regarding the Hebrew word "enmity" as being inaccurate or incorrect to the corresponding word used in "aramaic" like other words, such as "beyom".

Yeah you should continue to bang your head against the wall because if you think for a moment I simply consider the "number" of times it appears as "evidence" then you have completely missed the point and deserve to have your head banging against a wall.

So to entertain your proposition. Yes, I look to see how many "times" the word appears in the OT and from this I make a conclusion. This has to be the most ridiculous and absurd way to argue and I am not making this argument. Try going back and reading "why" I focus upon where else the word "enmity" appears and "why" it is relevant. It has absolutely nothing to with the "number" of times it appears.

4:42 LNS ShMH UrVTShCh 'aShUr YUrTShCh 'aTh-Ur'yHV BBLY-D'yTh VHV'a L'a-ShN'a LV MThML ShLShM VNS 'aL-'aChTh MN-H'yUrYM H'aL VChY.

לתס שמה רוצח ×?שר
ירצח ×?ת־רעהו
בבלי־דעת והו×?
ל×?־שת×? לו מתמל
שלש×? ותס ×?ל־×?חת
מן־הערי×? ×”×?ל וחי׃


Translated as follows:Bible in Basic English
4:42 To which anyone causing the death of his neighbour in error and not through hate

and hated him not in time past

The word "hate" hatred are present in the Deutronomy verse.

But the more important point to realize, a point I have been emphasizing, is the word is not used the characterize a relationship between person and animal but always used to characterize a relationship between persons and persons. So the "nitpicking" you are doing is not really relevant to weakening my argument at all.

Whether it is hate, hated, hatred, and so forth, my point is being lost in exchange for a nice red herring you have decided to discuss instead. To be sure the red herring is educational and enlightening but my original point was and remains hated, hatred, hate, is not used to characterize a relationship between a person and an animal but between persons and persons.

James Madison

Well I am not playing a game of statistics. So your attempt to make a "stawman" argument with my use of the word "enmity" can cease immediately.