"Upon this rock" (Matt.16:18) a mis-translation?

[John Human]

My very Catholic father (may God rest his recently-departed soul) liked to quote Matthew 16:18, where Jesus gave Peter his nickname, and "upon this Rock [Petros/Cephas] I will build my church."

The text of this verse makes it clear that Jesus spoke in Aramaic [not in the "original" Greek of Matthew (the earlier Hebrew version of Matthew having been lost)].

So... I'm sure that Aramaic had a word for "build," but what about "church"? It occurs to me that some words don't exist without culturally relevant meanings. Can you imagine an illiterate Galilean fisherman trying to decide whether to pray in the local Romanglican synagogue, or perhaps he would prefer the doctrinal purity of the preacher at the "Pillars of Samson" synagogue down the road?

My point here is that "churches" didn't exist for Galilean Hebrews at the time of Christ, so I doubt that a word for "church" exists in Aramaic. If that is indeed the case, then, well, what (if anything) DID Jesus say to Peter when nick-naming him Rock? And, um, if this verse was mistranslated (or worse, if it was a precursor to the deplorable Donation of Constantine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine), then what does that do to arguments for the infallibility of the Bible?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 22 by JehovahsWitness]

The text is clear that the "it" Adam and Eve did, was not sexual intercourse but to disobey God by eating from a tree that was forbidden to them. "It" certainly couldn't have been sex since God have previously commanded them to reproduce and fill the earth with their offspring. Implicit in the command was that God wanted them to have sex to achieve this aim.

God commanded them to have sex with each other, but the point which was already made, which you still haven't addressed is the fact that they both covered their groins. They didn't cover their mouths. They didn't provide fig leaves as masks for their faces. Eve was not punished with pain while eating or during digestion.

Quote:

Since Adam and Eve were commanded to reproduce, we can reasonably assume God had designed them with the reproductive organs to make this possible. If God himself designed human genitals and mechanisms such as the capacity to achieve orgasm, that render sex a pleasurable experience, it seems logical he wasn't discouraging Adam and Eve from engaging in it.

A non sequitur. You're articulating what homosexuals have been saying for decades. There is extensive scholarship pointing out that orgasm isn't required to reproduce, and this may very well be what the virgin birth of Mary is pointing out as well. There are all sorts of things that are pleasurable, but forbidden by God. This may be why some scholars have noted that the tree of knoweldge of good and evil may be a hendiadys, i.e. the knowledge of evil enjoyment. The primary purpose of intercourse is reproduction, but when one uses it for their own enjoyment instead, it becomes a selfish act.

At no point was sex presented in the text as a reprehensible or punishable offense.

It most certainly is punished with pain in conception, delivery, etc.

That said Adam and Eve did subsequent to their act of disobedience, cover their genitals which seems to indicate their disobedience resulted in a changed perception of how they viewed their bodies in particular their reproductive organs.

And for some unknown reason, you see no connection between these two events? Why?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 23 by RightReason]

That doesn’t quite add up now does it? Why did God create them male and female and design our bodies the way He did? Read Song of Solomon. Sex, designed by God, is a gift and intended to be beautiful and pleasurable. The union between a man and a woman is celebrated throughout Scripture. I am afraid your theological views hold an erroneous and distorted view of sex that you believe is supported via mere speculation.

Those who favor prostitution would make the same arguments. Notice that he uses the word "fornication" instead of marital union. Again, people seem to insist on ignoring the argument that has been presented to them.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 27 by Tcg]

With that said, for those who presume that the Garden of Eden story literally happened, it seems that consideration of euphemism as an interpretive technique might not be out of the question. So... "Satan tempted Eve to eat the fruit" equals "Eve masturbated."

That's only one of many possible interpretations. The tree may also be a figure for the "serpent's" anatomy as well. The serpent (Hebrew "naXash") is revealed in Revelation to be none other than "that old serpent, the devil, and satan" so Eve is holding a conversation with Satan who, not unlike his fallen brethren who "saw that the daughters of men were beautiful...etc." took advantage of the situation and had his way with her.

This makes more sense due to the fact that it is "his seed" that is going to be trodden by "her seed". Given that women don't have seed of their own, it stands to reason that it is the spawn of Satan that is in view here.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 26 by JehovahsWitness]

QUESTION Was Eves punishment indicative that the "original sin" was indeed sexual intercourse?

♦ANSWER No, the text gives no indication God prohibited sexual intercourse for Adam and Eve. Indeed there are a number of contextual difficulties which are thrown up if one concludes that the "original sin" was sex:

- the text has God explicitly commanding the couple to reproduce and fill the earth, presumably by having sexual intercourse. If the original prohibition was sex, we are left with the anomaly of two contradictory commands .

He explicitly used the word "FORNICATION". Do you understand the difference between God granted and condoned sexual congress, and fornication???

- God told Eve that he would (as a result of her sin) greatly increase her birth pains. Logically then if she did NOT sin, she would still have some pain giving birth.

Again, another blatant non sequitur.

If the sin was sex, and she had not had sex, how would she have had the "milder" pain originally fordained?

A straw man argument. He said "FORNICATION". Eve didn't have sex with Adam, she had sex with SATAN. Where else is SATAN going to plant his seed? Why else would God even refer to the seed of the serpent?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 27 by Tcg]

John Human wrote:


Conclusion: "Eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" is a euphemism for fornication.

According to the story, God told Adam and Eve to, "Be fruitful and multiply."


Are you suggesting they were to accomplish this without having sexual intercourse?

Since when is sexual intercourse always and everywhere equivalent to "fornication"?

[Tcg]

deleted

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 30 by tam]

In addition to what JW, RR, and TCG (and anyone else I missed) have said about why sexual intercourse cannot have been the original sin, Adam and Eve were also one flesh (husband and wife). Sexual intercourse between them could not have been fornication.


And the man said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of man she was taken.� For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

He wasn't suggesting that sexual congress between Adam and Eve was fornication. Sexual activity outside of God's foreordaind boundaries is fornication. Perhaps that's why he used the term "fornication". Now the question is why does one then assume that when someone else uses the term fornication, they must necessarily be referring to what God has already commanded instead of the more logical conclusion that he is referring to a union that was not condoned by God; perhaps even one that God has forbidden?

When Eve points out that she is not to even "touch" the tree, and this word in the Hebrew has the connotation of sexual touching, why wouldn't one then conclude that there is something sexually evil in touching the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

When one has to redefine words to make their argument work, it isn't much of an argument, and redefining or pretending that "fornication" must be referring to sex between Adam and Eve is just such an argument.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 27 by Tcg]

With that said, for those who presume that the Garden of Eden story literally happened, it seems that consideration of euphemism as an interpretive technique might not be out of the question. So... "Satan tempted Eve to eat the fruit" equals "Eve masturbated."

That's only one of many possible interpretations. The tree may also be a figure for the "serpent's" anatomy as well. The serpent (Hebrew "naXash") is revealed in Revelation to be none other than "that old serpent, the devil, and satan" so Eve is holding a conversation with Satan who, not unlike his fallen brethren who "saw that the daughters of men were beautiful...etc." took advantage of the situation and had his way with her.

This makes more sense due to the fact that it is "his seed" that is going to be trodden by "her seed". Given that women don't have seed of their own, it stands to reason that it is the spawn of Satan that is in view here.

This quote is from John Human, not me. It is from post 24, not post 27.



Tcg

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 27 by Tcg]

With that said, for those who presume that the Garden of Eden story literally happened, it seems that consideration of euphemism as an interpretive technique might not be out of the question. So... "Satan tempted Eve to eat the fruit" equals "Eve masturbated."

That's only one of many possible interpretations. The tree may also be a figure for the "serpent's" anatomy as well. The serpent (Hebrew "naXash") is revealed in Revelation to be none other than "that old serpent, the devil, and satan" so Eve is holding a conversation with Satan who, not unlike his fallen brethren who "saw that the daughters of men were beautiful...etc." took advantage of the situation and had his way with her.

This makes more sense due to the fact that it is "his seed" that is going to be trodden by "her seed". Given that women don't have seed of their own, it stands to reason that it is the spawn of Satan that is in view here.

This quote is from John Human, not me. It is from post 24, not post 27.



Tcg

Sorry, my bad. I was copying and pasting to save time, and goofed.

[ttruscott]

Conclusion: "Eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" is a euphemism for fornication.

Genesis 2:25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made.

Crafty or cunning is the same word as naked. Period. Especially in light of the fact that there is a perfectly good word for being unclothed as used in: Gen 9:20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father NAKED and told his two brothers outside. Strong's H6172 - `ervah

NAKED in Gen 2:25 is arom
CRAFTY expressing the serpent's evil in Gen 3:1 is arum
arom and arum are the same word except for the vowels which were a late addition of the Massorites, çAD 600, that is, as written, both words were A-R-M. Someone with no bias reading just the word arm would read it as having two meanings which are homonyms. The Masoretes added in the vowels to have them to be pronounced differently and to differentiate the meaning but in the original they are written as the same word.

Adam and Eve were arm, naked, a common biblical metaphor for being sinful and the serpent was arm, evil... whether you choose to read Adam and Eve as naked, unclothed, or sinful is a theologically based decision NOT found in the language.

Since the Hebrew scholars could not conceive of Adam being sinful at what they supposed to be his creation and believing in their 'created on earth' bias as truth, they chose this the word arm to be naked, not evil, to alleviate their need to reconcile his sin with the garden et al being good.

"...and they felt no shame." refers to their sin caused rebellion (before they ate) to GOD's testimony to them that they were evil sinners until they ate and their eyes were opened to the fact that not only were they sinful but they were idolizing the serpent as a good teacher.

Gen 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked;
Theology sees no evil in the naked human body so how come does the first thing they realize after their eyes were opened was their nakedness, being unclothed? It is like saying they were perfect but ate and their eyes were opened to their perfection! Only if there was something wrong with their nakedness does this phrasing make sense.

Did they become sexually attracted to each other? If so, so what? Weren't they married at Eve's creation to be Adams' helpmeet / spouse / wife / partner? Weren't they created and told to procreate?

So what could have been realized as wrong / evil / sinful about their nakedness unless it meant to portray their being in a state of sin, like the serpent? The speculation that they realized something new about an old state, a new understanding that being unclothed was sinful and they should have been ashamed, should have ended when it was first noticed that their nakedness was not new, but established by GOD before they ate.

Some may think it was a physical nakedness being talked about here because of the next phrase: so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. but that is the answer to spiritual nakedness too, to be covered in the blood of the Lamb and the coats of righteousness, a recurring theme. Their sinful way of seeking righteousness without sacrifice was by means of the fig leaf coat, not a loin cloth. Then GOD also covered them the correct way with the blood, looking toward Christ, not their sinful way of seeking righteousness without sacrifice.

Peace, Ted