Conversations with sylvius: Rashi, 666 in Genesis 1:31, etc.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So you believe that the Talmud really does teach that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals?

The Talmud doesn't present unambiguous teaching.

Say what? The Talmud is the most ambiguous text I have ever read.

And more: Adam having sex with animals is more like a metaphor.

It is not presented as a metaphor. And whether literal or metaphoric, it is still quite perverse to say that Adam had sex with all the animals.

He must have also have had sex with the snake, the most shrewd of all the beasts of the field, or at least have tried to find in him a helpmate.

That seems pretty absurd to me.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_...showrashi/true

That was the page I cited in my previous post. It's where I got this quote from Yevamoth 63a:

This time: This teaches us that Adam came to all the animals and the beasts [in search of a mate], but he was not satisfied until he found Eve. — [from Yev. 63a]

I was wondering if you knew of any other rabbinic comments that would confirm the interpretation that Adam had sex with the animals. I asked because some Jews argue that the comment has been misinterpreted and that it doesn't say anything about Adam having sex with the animals.

[sylvius]

I don't consider either authoritative. But Christians would have good reason to think that Ephesians is more authoritative than Rashi.

There seemes to be (still) such a Christian in you

It appears that you treat some verses in the NT as authoritative if they agree with your opinions, and others as not authoritative if they disagree with your opinions.

That's right, I am the one to recognize authority. I must hear it sing somewhere.

That seems to be inconsistent to me. Why do you quote the NT at all?

That's what I "worked" with the past 35 years.

What do you believe about it? I've been wondering about this for a very long time, but I can't seem to get a straight answer from you.

There is some high intelligence in it.

Are you Christian?

Maybe not. I am not member of any church.

Do you believe in Jesus? Was he the Messiah? What do you think it all means?

What do you understand under "Messiah"? And why must there be a Messiah?

OK - it sounds like you are saying that the teaching is not about a person who actually gets a divorce, but rather it is about everyone because everyone has an adulterous heart? I can see how you might infer that from Matthew 5:28 ("whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her") but I don't see how you can get it from Matthew 19.

Jesus is called "the bridegroom", the bridegroom the adulterous world is lacking? Or maybe the bridegroom in everyone of us?

As far as I can tell, you have said that these teachings are figurative because you applied the literal teaching about divorce as symbolic of everyone. Now is seem you are taking them literally. This confuses me.

It affects your own life.

[sylvius]

It is not presented as a metaphor. And whether literal or metaphoric, it is still quite perverse to say that Adam had sex with all the animals.

It is derived from what is written "zot hapaam" , Genesis 2:23,

And man said, "This one this time, it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called ishah (woman) because this one was taken from ish (man)."

"paam" = time, step, pace, tread, beat, stroke, base.

From this derived "paamon", bell, gong.

"hapaam" , at last, implies many experiences before.

That was the page I cited in my previous post. It's where I got this quote from Yevamoth 63a:

This time: This teaches us that Adam came to all the animals and the beasts [in search of a mate], but he was not satisfied until he found Eve. — [from Yev. 63a]

I was wondering if you knew of any other rabbinic comments that would confirm the interpretation that Adam had sex with the animals. I asked because some Jews argue that the comment has been misinterpreted and that it doesn't say anything about Adam having sex with the animals.

Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 63a, as indicated.
It is not in my possession, maybe you can find on the internet.

Midrash Rabbah doesn't have it.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I don't consider either authoritative. But Christians would have good reason to think that Ephesians is more authoritative than Rashi.

There seemes to be (still) such a Christian in you

Why would you say that? Am I a Muslim if I say that Muslims have good reason to accept the Koran over Rashi?

It appears that you treat some verses in the NT as authoritative if they agree with your opinions, and others as not authoritative if they disagree with your opinions.

That's right, I am the one to recognize authority. I must hear it sing somewhere.

Well, then you are the only "authority" - the books are just grist for your mill with no real authority at all. And that's fine, except the way you write makes it seem like you are appealing to the authority of those books as if they gave credence to your opinions. So it's rather confusing.

That seems to be inconsistent to me. Why do you quote the NT at all?

That's what I "worked" with the past 35 years.

What is the purpose of your work on the NT? What are you hoping to accomplish? Have you come to any conclusions after 35 years of research? You answers are seems ambiguous for someone who has been working on the NT for so long.

What do you believe about it? I've been wondering about this for a very long time, but I can't seem to get a straight answer from you.

There is some high intelligence in it.

That's true.

Are you Christian?

Maybe not. I am not member of any church.

Why are your answers so evasive?

Do you believe in Jesus? Was he the Messiah? What do you think it all means?

What do you understand under "Messiah"? And why must there be a Messiah?

The concept of Messiah was developed in post-biblical Hebrew tradition. The Tanakh says almost nothing about any "Messiah" (capital M). It doesn't matter what I believe about Messiah. You know what the NT teaches about him. That's what I was asking about. Why are you so evasive?

OK - it sounds like you are saying that the teaching is not about a person who actually gets a divorce, but rather it is about everyone because everyone has an adulterous heart? I can see how you might infer that from Matthew 5:28 ("whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her") but I don't see how you can get it from Matthew 19.

Jesus is called "the bridegroom", the bridegroom the adulterous world is lacking? Or maybe the bridegroom in everyone of us?

Now you are talking about John 3. But I had asked about John 19 because that is what you were talking about earlier. Why are you hopping around from verse to verse? Anyone can weave their own story by plucking threads from the Bible.

As far as I can tell, you have said that these teachings are figurative because you applied the literal teaching about divorce as symbolic of everyone. Now is seem you are taking them literally. This confuses me.

It affects your own life.

That's not an answer.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It is derived from what is written "zot hapaam" , Genesis 2:23,

And man said, "This one this time, it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called ishah (woman) because this one was taken from ish (man)."

"paam" = time, step, pace, tread, beat, stroke, base.

From this derived "paamon", bell, gong.

"hapaam" , at last, implies many experiences before.

I understand the Hebrew. It does not imply "many [sexual] experiences before" - that's just your assertion. The text could just as well be speaking of the "many experiences" when he only LOOKED at the animals to see if they would be suitable mates. It says nothing about Adam having sex with the animals, either metaphorically or literally.

Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 63a, as indicated.
It is not in my possession, maybe you can find on the internet.

Midrash Rabbah doesn't have it.

Yes, it's on the internet.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_63.html

But it does not say anything about zot hapaam except in the footnote which says "Gen. II, 23, emphasis on This is now." So maybe the tradition is recorded elsewhere?

[sylvius]

Why would you say that?

Because of:

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Rashi's comment makes some sense. I saw the same thing as one possible "aspect" of that verse, but it is not what the NT says about that passage. On the contrary, the NT says the man and woman are "one flesh" in the sense of they themselves being "one flesh" -
Ephesians 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
The NT is clear - the "one flesh" refers to the unity of the man and woman as such, not merely in the sense of the child as a product of the two.

I think this shows why Jewish commentators should not be taken as "authoritative" when it comes to interpreting the Bible. They were just men who had their own fallible opinions like everyone else.

Well, then you are the only "authority"

sure

the books are just grist for your mill with no real authority at all.

I wouldn't underline that.

And that's fine, except the way you write makes it seem like you are appealing to the authority of those books as if they gave credence to your opinions. So it's rather confusing.

I once found the number 666 of Revelation 13:18 to be hidden in Genesis 1:31,
and later I found the number 153 of John 21:11 to be hidden in Genesis 1:12.
I just keep hold to that.

What is the purpose of your work on the NT? What are you hoping to accomplish?

To beat my teachers.

Have you come to any conclusions after 35 years of research?

It is every day new.

You answers are seems ambiguous for someone who has been working on the NT for so long.

The fundament is mystery.

The concept of Messiah was developed in post-biblical Hebrew tradition. The Tanakh says almost nothing about any "Messiah" (capital M). It doesn't matter what I believe about Messiah. You know what the NT teaches about him. That's what I was asking about. Why are you so evasive?

As resurrected one the Messiah is present on the first day of creation, actually being God.

Now you are talking about John 3.

Was I?

[sylvius]

I understand the Hebrew. It does not imply "many [sexual] experiences before" - that's just your assertion. The text could just as well be speaking of the "many experiences" when he only LOOKED at the animals to see if they would be suitable mates. It says nothing about Adam having sex with the animals, either metaphorically or literally.

"the bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" says something about having sex.

Yes, it's on the internet.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_63.html

But it does not say anything about zot hapaam except in the footnote which says "Gen. II, 23, emphasis on This is now." So maybe the tradition is recorded elsewhere?

You got to be a little more shrewd:

It is in :
This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Because of:

Rashi's comment makes some sense. I saw the same thing as one possible "aspect" of that verse, but it is not what the NT says about that passage. On the contrary, the NT says the man and woman are "one flesh" in the sense of they themselves being "one flesh" -

Ephesians 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

The NT is clear - the "one flesh" refers to the unity of the man and woman as such, not merely in the sense of the child as a product of the two.

I think this shows why Jewish commentators should not be taken as "authoritative" when it comes to interpreting the Bible. They were just men who had their own fallible opinions like everyone else.

How does that comment make me a "Christian"? I was merely explaining what the NT states. I already told you that I don't think Rashi or the NT is authoritative.

I once found the number 666 of Revelation 13:18 to be hidden in Genesis 1:31,
and later I found the number 153 of John 21:11 to be hidden in Genesis 1:12.
I just keep hold to that.

I've noticed!

To beat my teachers.

To beat your teachers at what?

It is every day new.

So every day you forget everything you previously concluded? After 35 years you've come to no firm conclusion about anything?

You answers are seems ambiguous for someone who has been working on the NT for so long.

The fundament is mystery.

Your answer is mystery.

As resurrected one the Messiah is present on the first day of creation, actually being God.

That contradicts everything I've read about traditional Judaism. Specifically, it contradicts the 13 principles of faith put forth by Rambam:

http://www.ou.org/torah/rambam.htm

Now you are talking about John 3.

Was I?

That's what I thought because that's the main passage about Jesus as Bridegroom. But you could have been thinking of Matthew 25 or a few of the other verses that mention it.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

"the bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" says something about having sex.

No it doesn't. That phrase was referring to Eve being made from Adam's rib. It says nothing about sex.

You got to be a little more shrewd:

It is in :
This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve.

[/quote]
Ha! Now you changed our story.

The text does not say "had intercourse with" - it says "went unto" or "into" and that's where you might get the implication of sexual intercourse, but it is not a necessary implication.

Hope that's not to "shrewd" for you!

[sylvius]

How does that comment make me a "Christian"? I was merely explaining what the NT states. I already told you that I don't think Rashi or the NT is authoritative.

ok, i just smelled christian antismetism I got accustomed with on other discussion-forums.
Rashi is great scholar, you can learn a lot of him. He is more Christian (in the true sense) than Christianity.

To beat your teachers at what?

I once studied at a Roman Catholic university.

So every day you forget everything you previously concluded? After 35 years you've come to no firm conclusion about anything?

Right

Your answer is mystery

it is a wordplay "sod" mystery, "yesod" foundation.

That contradicts everything I've read about traditional Judaism. Specifically, it contradicts the 13 principles of faith put forth by Rambam

That's the way I do interpret/ understand the NT Messiah, who is present already in Tanach, present, but hidden.

That's what I thought because that's the main passage about Jesus as Bridegroom. But you could have been thinking of Matthew 25 or a few of the other verses that mention it.

I indeed was thinking of Matthew 25.