The "Cultural Context" Excuse

[Rev. Rye]

It's also worth noting that I decided to look up the word he insists meant "seduction" in Strong's Concordance. Here's what I found:

nasha'

Pronunciation nä·shä' (Key)
Part of Speech verb

TWOT Reference: 1425
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).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

   to beguile, deceive

       (Niphal) to be beguiled

       (Hiphil) to beguile, deceive

       (Qal) utterly (infinitive)

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
נָשָׁא nâshâʼ, naw-shaw'; a primitive root; to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce:—beguile, deceive, × greatly, × utterly.

It's looking more and more like special pleading for him to insist it means "seduce."

*emphasis mine*
If it's "special pleading" for me to interpret 'nasha' as seduce, then explain why the heck "seduce" is listed under the definitions that YOU YOURSELF provided?

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
נָשָׁא nâshâʼ, naw-shaw'; a primitive root; to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce:—beguile, deceive, × greatly, × utterly

Are you willing to concede you were wrong on that point also?

If you can admit to the above, then I'd gladly address the rest of your points.

Notice that the definition includes a concordance of the way it's used in the Bible. If the authors wanted to say Eve was literally seduced, sexually, by the Serpent in the Garden of Eden, there were words they would have used; the old standby "Yada" (know) could be a good choice. But they used Nasha, and let's see how it's translated elsewhere 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 that could potentially resemble 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.