(August 28, 2016 at 7:49 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(August 28, 2016 at 7:37 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

---

Notice that the definition includes a concordance of the way it's used in the Bible.

KJV Translation Count — Total: 16x

The KJV translates Strongs H5377 in the following manner: deceive (12x), greatly (1x), beguiled me (1x), seize (1x), utterly (1x).

In the Bible, it is usually translated as "decieve." The sole time in the Bible is translated into anything potentially resembling anything sexual is in that verse, and, given that it seems most of the translations using that word are based around the King James Bible, I'm inclined to consider it was the translators' committee's idea to use that word. Why? Well, let's look at this little object lesson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryAyTzGA-dk

This might seem a bit off topic at first, but, if you look closely, you'll see why. You see, in Into The Woods, especially in this film version, The Big Bad Wolf is played like a sexual predator. Some stage versions go so far as to give him a giant, dangling, penis (Disney, thankfully, had the sense to avoid this little costuming choice). However, it should be noted that there's no indication that he ever actually sexually assaults Red Riding Hood. He simply eats her.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jExGlGuYOM8

So, why did Sondheim choose to have the Big Bad Wolf portrayed in such a way that he comes across like a child rapist even though he doesn't actually do anything to her that hasn't been done in countless other versions?

When you can have an answer to that, you'll understand why the translators of the King James Bible translated "nasha" as "beguiled." Because it will be the same goddamn answer.

---

Oh, so you're going to dodge and refuse to answer the 2 questions I specifically asked you?

Question #1: Were you wrong on implying that governments were not corporations?

Question #2: Were you wrong on implying that 'seduce' was not included in the definition of the word 'nasha'?

1) Yes, that probably might not have been the better "Sovereign Citizen" points to bring up to compare their crazy beliefs to yours. It's certainly arguable. The point is, I've heard Sovereign Citizens look at words, take idiosyncratic definitions, and latch on to those definitons in contexts where they don't work, and they still make more sense than the arguments you have used in this thread.

2) It's one thing to say a word has a specific meaning. It's reasonable to say, in extrabiblical Hebrew texts, "Nasha" may be used to mean "seduce." It's another thing to say that it has that specific meaning in an instance where that context plainly isn't there, and, in fact, points to a different, more regularly used, meaning. Your constantly bringing up that "seduce" is one translation for that word is a red herring when the context for actual, sexual, seduction IS. NOT. THERE. In my new post that you just dismissed as dodging the question (and the Strong Concordance we both used in this thread), I pointed out that "Nasha" is used 16 times, and only one use is potentially sexual, and that one is only sexual because you argue it.

(August 28, 2016 at 7:55 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: 1) Yes, that probably might not have been the better "Sovereign Citizen" points to bring up to compare their crazy beliefs to yours. It's certainly arguable. The point is, I've heard Sovereign Citizens look at words, take idiosyncratic definitions, and latch on to those definitons in contexts where they don't work, and they still make more sense than the arguments you have used in this thread.
2) It's one thing to say a word has a specific meaning. I'm not arguing that, in extrabiblical Hebrew texts, "Nasha" may be used to mean "seduce." It's another thing to say that it has that specific meaning in an instance where that context plainly isn't there, and, in fact, points to a different, more regularly used, meaning. Your constantly bringing up that "seduce" is one translation for that word is a red herring when the context for actual, sexual, seduction IS. NOT. THERE.

Earlier in the thread you quoted the Babylonian Talmud as a source, and I quote:

(August 1, 2016 at 11:49 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Note, I'm sure if I were to write a story about such a scenario, it would threaten willing suspension of disbelief, but then there's the trial:

• A jury of at least 23 judges had to cross-examine both of the witnesses, and if any of the evidence one person gave contradicted the other, even on something as minor as someone's eye color, it was thrown out.
  
• A majority of at least 13/23 had to be in favor of conviction, but, if they have a unanimous verdict in favor of execution, well, let's just let this quote from the Talmud explain it: "If the Sanhedrin unanimously find [the accused] guilty, he is acquitted. Why? — Because we have learned by tradition that sentence must be postponed till the morrow in hope of finding new points in favour of the defence"
  

In the end, if a court executed two people over a span of 70 years, people were more likely to consider something wrong with the court than anything else.

More information can be found in the Talmud, specifically the Sanhedrin Tractate. This can be extremely difficult going, but it's probably worth it.

*emphasis mine*

Since you clearly acknowledge the Talmud as an acceptable source, how about this passage from the website contained in your above post.

From the Yebamoth Tractate: http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_103.html

Quote:There, one can well see the reason, since he might possibly mention to him the name of his idol; what evil, however, could be involved here? — That of infusing her with sensual lust. For R. Johanan stated: When the serpent copulated with Eve, he infused her with lust. The lust of the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai, came to an end, the lust of the idolaters who did not stand at Mount Sinai did not come to an end.

There is no ambiguity to the word "copulate", it means sexual intercourse.

*edit*
Forgot to provide link.

I've looked at the passage; the phrase "when the serpent copulated with Eve" is accompanied with a footnote, saying "In the Garden of Eden, according to a tradition." One crucial thing about the Talmud you seem to be ignoring is that a good part of it includes arguments between different scholars, who frequently have different perspectives on the same subject.

Evidently, even the compilers of the Talmud doesn't really co-sign with that theory.

(August 28, 2016 at 8:45 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: I've looked at the passage; the phrase "when the serpent copulated with Eve" is accompanied with a footnote, saying "In the Garden of Eden, according to a tradition." One crucial thing about the Talmud you seem to be ignoring is that a good part of it includes arguments between different scholars, who frequently have different perspectives on the same subject.

Evidently, even the compilers of the Talmud doesn't really co-sign with that theory.

No, that isn't evident.

what you provided is complete speculation based on nothing...

How did you deduce all that based off of a foot note that stated "In the Garden of Eden, according to a tradition."?

Secondly, if the compilers of the Talmud don't "really co-sign with that theory", then why does the Talmud quote that the serpent copulated with Eve?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/copulate

Quote:: to have sexual intercourse

Like I said, there is no ambiguity with the word "copulate".

I like the fact that you're trying to discredit your own source. I guess ya'll will do anything to keep from admitting you just may be wrong.

Dude, that little bit about the writers of the Talmud having different interpretations of the same passage over centuries isn't simply deduced from that one footnote. It's a defining feature of the Talmud that should be evident to anyone who looks into it for any reason other than to just say "Y'see? Y'See? Eve did fuck the serpent after all!" would have noticed.

As to why they quoted Rabbi Johannon saying that, it's largely because it was part of a larger quote concerning the subject of lust, which is relevant to marriage, which is the subject of that tractate. They seemed to have more scruples about just taking things out of context than you tend to do; hence why they put that footnote, "In the Garden of Eden, according to a tradition."

Uh, No.

"In the Garden of Eden, according to a tradition." , as it relates to the serpent copulating with Eve, implies nothing other than that was a traditionally telling of that story... nothing more.

how did you put it again?

(August 6, 2016 at 10:34 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Huggy Bear, your arguments to back up the whole "serpent sexually reproducing with humans" thing are still absurdly thin. It's based on readings of verses that take so many absurd liberties, reinterpreted to support the conclusion you were using them to support (does the term circular reasoning mean anything to you?), and the closest thing to a solid allusion is still perfectly compatible (and certainly makes more sense) with the offending passage read as a metaphor than literal, and even that verse still states that Cain and Abel were full brothers.

If you want to make a David Icke-meets-Marquis de Sade OTP Bible fanfic, that's fine, but if you're claiming it's canonical with the Bible, you're going to have to give a better argument. And having your argument hinge on the KJV being the sole arbiter of textual accuracy, despite being based on a text that is, by this point, considered by the vast majority of scholars to be inaccurate.

And zeroing in on one small sentence fragment and using it as an excuse to ignore the rest don't make your position look any better.

*emphasis mine*

If it was "according to a tradition" that the serpent and Eve copulated then obviously that teaching has been around long before me. I have made my case according to biblical scripture why the "beguiling" of Eve was sexual, yet you refuse to listen.

I've shown you where according to your own source where it explicitly says that the serpent had sex with Eve, yet you still refuse to listen, meanwhile you offer no evidence to support any of your arguments, and the evidence you DO provide is just plain wrong.

I think I'm pretty much done here.

And, honestly, so am I. About a month ago, when I entered this discussion, it seemed like an interesting thing to talk about: a guy claiming that the Bible says the Serpent had sex with Eve in the Garden of Eden. But, it just gets more and more depressing. You're defending a position on a work of fiction not borne out by the facts or even the context, grasping at any possible support, even if it makes no sense. And I'm defending the idea that that same work of fiction involves a talking snake convincing a woman to eat a fruit, thus having their God hold a strange grudge against her descendants. But, we're getting nowhere. You make a case, I point out why your case doesn't work.

You take passages, from my responses to the Bible you apparently are supposed to revere, out of context, and claim victory based on this bullshit context. Genesis 4:1 explicitly states that there was indeed a connection between Adam having sex with Eve and Cain's birth, but you continue to insist that there's no evidence that Cain was Adam's son, and, that, in fact, the evidence points against it. You claim that Strong's Concordance proves that the Fall had a sexual component, and I point out that, of the sixteen uses in the Bible, it's only translated as a potentially sexual word ONCE, and then, only by the King James Bible and its imitators. And you latch onto one of the possible definitions that does hint at your claims, and you decide it must be that one. You take what has always been a fringe theory and you insist it's perfectly self-evident, even though it plainly isn't. It is getting old and I am not interested in going through this shit anymore. If this means I have to put you on the ignore list to keep the temptation away, so be it.

And, also, offering up the Strong's Concordance entry you latched onto as proof, despite the fact that it states that, in the Bible, it's almost never used with a sexual connotation, except by translators who evidently had their minds in the gutter, does not count as "offering no evidence."

I wish I could find a copy of that scene from the first season Finale of Better Call Saul where he's calling numbers at a Bingo game and has a meltdown where he decides to finally leave Albuquerque, but I can only find excerpts, and not the moment where he decides to leave. And, of course, I can't let you see that scene in Behind the Blue Door where Georgina Spelvin fucked that snake, because Youtube would never allow it, no matter how much you would have liked it. So, I decided to let Gordon Ramsay handle this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feDNS4h8t6o

Ficken dies in allen Öffnungen I am out.

(August 28, 2016 at 11:03 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: And, honestly, so am I. About a month ago, when I entered this discussion, it seemed like an interesting thing to talk about: a guy claiming that the Bible says the Serpent had sex with Eve in the Garden of Eden. But, it just gets more and more depressing. You're defending a position on a work of fiction not borne out by the facts or even the context, grasping at any possible support, even if it makes no sense. And I'm defending the idea that that same work of fiction involves a talking snake convincing a woman to eat a fruit, thus having their God hold a strange grudge against her descendants. But, we're getting nowhere. You make a case, I point out why your case doesn't work.

You take passages, from my responses to the Bible you apparently are supposed to revere, out of context, and claim victory based on this bullshit context. Genesis 4:1 explicitly states that there was indeed a connection between Adam having sex with Eve and Cain's birth, but you continue to insist that there's no evidence that Cain was Adam's son, and, that, in fact, the evidence points against it. You claim that Strong's Concordance proves that the Fall had a sexual component, and I point out that, of the sixteen uses in the Bible, it's only translated as a potentially sexual word ONCE, and then, only by the King James Bible and its imitators. And you latch onto one of the possible definitions that does hint at your claims, and you decide it must be that one. You take what has always been a fringe theory and you insist it's perfectly self-evident, even though it plainly isn't. It is getting old and I am not interested in going through this shit anymore. If this means I have to put you on the ignore list to keep the temptation away, so be it.

And, also, offering up the Strong's Concordance entry you latched onto as proof, despite the fact that it states that, in the Bible, it's almost never used with a sexual connotation, except by translators who evidently had their minds in the gutter, does not count as "offering no evidence."

I wish I could find a copy of that scene from the first season Finale of Better Call Saul where he's calling numbers at a Bingo game and has a meltdown where he decides to finally leave Albuquerque, but I can only find excerpts, and not the moment where he decides to leave. And, of course, I can't let you see that scene in Behind the Blue Door where Georgina Spelvin fucked that snake, because Youtube would never allow it, no matter how much you would have liked it. So, I decided to let Gordon Ramsay handle this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feDNS4h8t6o

Ficken dies in allen Öffnungen I am out.

That was a fantastic scene from BCS. Love that show! Bob Odenkirk is the man.

Also, one point I forgot to add to my last post (and am only doing as a separate post because of the short window of time we have to edit posts has passed): I am not in the habit of blocking users I don't like. I have only done this once before, and on another forum and I am fairly certain it was before I even joined AF (Sadly, it's gone). I have decided to block Huggy Bear because, simply put, his bizarre claims and his transparent attempts to claim victory no longer interesting or even amusing to me and I'd prefer to wash my hands of him completely.

What a coward...

Not to mention I never said anything to him, he's the one that chose to address me.