T Nation

@Push - Messiah Query

Sorry for the delay but I’m a little confused. The first mention of the Messiah is Gen 3:15?

I’ll quote from the original King James in Middle English:

‘But of the fruit of the tree, which God hath said, ye shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it least you die.’

This was Eve talking to Adam after being tempted by the serpent.

Feminazis like to use this as evidence of the Lord’s ‘sexism’, of course. As we know G-d blames Eve for tempting Adam and exiles them both, placing cherubim and fiery spinning swords to assure they cannot return. He also punishes the serpent and makes it an enemy of man. He also afflicts Eve with childbirth pain and gives man the power to ‘rule’ over her whilst at the same time afflicting her with desire for him.

Eve naturally blames the serpent for duping her. Adam is also punished by having to toil unproductive soil and weeding.

So the question remains, where is the mention of the Messiah in all this?

I’m not Push, but it looks like you’re quoting Gen 3:3, not Gen 3:15. Do you have a link to the version you’re reading from? When I check up the KJV from Bible Gateway here:

Verse 15 states:

‘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.’

In that verse the Messiah is the woman’s seed.

As stated I’m using a facsimile copy of the original King James - so. I now umnderstand push’s point. - thanks .

[quote]238 wrote:
I’m not Push, but it looks like you’re quoting Gen 3:3, not Gen 3:15. Do you have a link to the version you’re reading from? When I check up the KJV from Bible Gateway here:

Verse 15 states:

‘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.’

In that verse the Messiah is the woman’s seed.[/quote]

Please read verse 14, and tell us where you get this idea.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]238 wrote:
I’m not Push, but it looks like you’re quoting Gen 3:3, not Gen 3:15. Do you have a link to the version you’re reading from? When I check up the KJV from Bible Gateway here:

Verse 15 states:

‘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.’

In that verse the Messiah is the woman’s seed.[/quote]

Please read verse 14, and tell us where you get this idea.[/quote]

I was going to say something close to the same thing.

Seed-of-the-womanism is the kind of stretch that can tear ligaments, in my view.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Just out of interest , currentbDNA studies indicate that Shem was the patriarch of the Phoenecians which would have profound impact on the biblical genealogies … We’re it true. It might also explain the Israelites long standing relations with the Tyreans and Sidonians.

Just out of interest , currentbDNA studies indicate that Shem was the patriarch of the Phoenecians which would have profound impact on the biblical genealogies … We’re it true. It might also explain the Israelites long standing relations with the Tyreans and Sidonians.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]238 wrote:
I’m not Push, but it looks like you’re quoting Gen 3:3, not Gen 3:15. Do you have a link to the version you’re reading from? When I check up the KJV from Bible Gateway here:

Verse 15 states:

‘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.’

In that verse the Messiah is the woman’s seed.[/quote]

Please read verse 14, and tell us where you get this idea.[/quote]

I was going to say something close to the same thing.

Seed-of-the-womanism is the kind of stretch that can tear ligaments, in my view.[/quote]

Cherry-picking can indeed produce ligament tearing stretches. The Bible must be studied and understood holistically.[/quote]

I tend to think that the post previous to this one is a flimsy dot-connection, like drawing figures in the night sky. Look, those three stars up there are a circus clown juggling ferrets. Certainly you know that many others share this opinion.

Snakes and men have been considered enemies by many cultures, up to and in many ways including our own. We kill snakes when we find them at our feet; they bit us when they find our feet before their mouths.

This, for instance. The text signals exactly no such shift. “You’re going to crawl, and you’re going to get stomped by man.” What proves that the second clause has shifted in addressee? What evidence do you have to support the contention that this is “the way things are.”

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

What I expressed is fundamental Christian doctrine. …[/quote]

Yes, it was. And it is respected as such.
But does it reflect the text?

No. The text refers to a “snake,” (or in Jacobean English, a “serpent.”) The word is used elsewhere to mean only a snake, e.g., the bronze snake (a double pun in Hebrew) of Moses. The text does not refer in any fashion to The Adversary, HaShatan. Satan does not appear by name or by inference in the OT except in the post-Exilic emendations, such as Chronicles, Zechariah, and in Job, whose dating and origin are in doubt.

But there is a wonderful piece of language in 3:15, lost in translation. The KJV cited here uses the reciprocality of “bruise” to describe the enmity between woman’s seed and snake. But the text uses a particular pun.
A better translation would be, “He will crush your head, and you will bite his heel…” The word for “crush him,” yshofcha, is in parallel to “you will bite,” tshofago. But this is no ordinary “bite.” The root of that word is “to breath,” constructed here as “to hiss,” alluding to the hiss that precedes the snakebite.

The color and specificity is the merit of the raw text. The story does not demand “doctrine” to make it understandable.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

What I expressed is fundamental Christian doctrine. …[/quote]

Yes, it was. And it is respected as such.
But does it reflect the text?

[/quote]

It reflects the text when the text is understood within the context of the entire Bible. Again: the Bible must be studied and understood holistically – this includes the Old and New Testaments as per Christianity.

There are many obscure OT passages, prophecies and practices that are unfathomable without the New Testament revelations.

[/quote]

I argue that you have to understand the text as it stands, then go further within the text. What you are doing is legitimate in your tradition, but it imposes meaning to support the NT, and not necessarily to understand the text.

In the 500+ years between the OT and the redaction of the NT, could no one understand the OT as it stood? Of course not; no one had to wait for the NT to read and understand the OT, and neither do we. You choose to use the NT to understand the OT in a particular and restricted fashion, and that is your right. But you cannot impose that method of interpretation on everyone who wants to read the open text of the OT.

This, Chapter 3, is not obscure, not mysterious, and only a few words are rare (and are parallel to the Aramaic, for example.)

It says snake, it means snake. If the authors wanted to mean Satan, they would have written Satan.
If you want to represent this episode as the the introduction of Evil, or the start of the schism between Man and Nature, fine. Or an elaborate tripartite dance of Man, Woman and Satan, fine. That is an explanation, but it is an explanation which not everyone need accept; an explanation with a purpose and not one which is necessary to understanding the text as written.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

In the 500+ years between the OT and the redaction of the NT, could no one understand the OT as it stood? Of course not; no one had to wait for the NT to read and understand the OT, and neither do we.

[/quote]

Incorrect. (My second post which refers to your question hasn’t shown up yet)

Of course Christianity requires the New Testament to [i]fully[/u] understand the OT. It is understandable that Jews would think they need no such thing. But SexMachine’s query was made to a Christian, not a Jew.

The OT is rife with imagery, symbolism, and practices that are so, so incomplete without the Advent of the Messiah to provide the missing pieces of the puzzle.
[/quote]
[/i]
How about this one:
Just the opposite. The NT was intentionally written and redacted to comport with the OT, as understood by speakers of Greek in the 1st and 2nd Century. And the imposition of NT dogma on the OT persists in your posts.
NNTAWWT.

But it is true that SexMachine was addressing you personally, so I should but out.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.