Did Eve have sex with Lucifer in the Garden of Eden?

a reply to: yadda333

Your post made a lot of sense until you started talking about killing people.

You can read it in English and Hebrew side by side with translations all over the Internet, even with different options of what words also might of meant. There are multiple different sites on the net.

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: spy66

The Bible says a few verses later that it is..... read a couple more pages

It will be right after Cain kills his brother....

I know what it says.

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

But its a contridiction to genesis Chapter 2 verse 8.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Nod is probably east of somewhere but it is not east of the Garden of Eden.

a reply to: spy66

I don't know what translation you are using so let us use herbrew.

biblehub.com...

Nod is East of Eden, the garden is in the east of Eden.

The garden was in Eden in the east, nod is out of Eden, to the east. It is not a contradiction, it is a difference.

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: yadda333

Your post made a lot of sense until you started talking about killing people.

You can read it in English and Hebrew side by side with translations all over the Internet, even with different options of what words also might of meant. There are multiple different sites on the net.

I disagree--those are legitimate questions that must be asked about any religious text. There are religious extremists in this world that are willing to kill in the name of their religion, and I think that's a serious mistake given the reasoning I've laid out about the nature of language and text.

You can read your English Bible alongside Hebrew and the many notes from translators, but do you really have a firm grasp of the Hebraic understanding of the Torah (or reality)? Do you know what a Rabbinic understanding of the Torah is versus a Karaite understanding (among others)? I mean, there is an Oral and Written Torah in Rabbinic Judaism, which complicates things even further.

Not to mention that none of these ways of interpreting and studying the Torah is at all like our 21st century, Western way of thinking. We're talking about a Greco-Christian, Western way of thinking in that both Christianity as well as our culture as a whole (I'm generalizing and assuming I'm speaking to Westerners here) is heavily influenced by Greek Philosophy (read: Augustine, which is basically Plato).

Why does this distinction between Hebraic understanding and Western thought matter? I will give one example using Rabbinic thought (which, I believe, is the most mainstream/popular form of Judaism).

This is me plagiarizing myself from a 4 year old thread:

The issue here stems from mostly Greco-Christian, Western thinking. Rabbinic thought is contingent and relative--it is not at all like the Greek influenced Western thought.

An example: The Kal ve-chomer operates on the basis of the particular to the general. That is, the most extreme and isolated scenario establishes the rule for the general. For example, the rules for making ethical decisions in a zombie apocalypse are true for making ethical decisions in all scenarios.

Under the influence of Greek philosophy, Westerners are not at all comfortable in understanding in this way. We understand Aristotelian syllogisms: All men are ethical. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is ethical. See, this is from the general to the particular.

The best way I can think to compare Rabbinic thought to Greco-Christian thinking is to use the comparison of philosophy to rhetoric as an analog. Philosophy is about Truth and Rhetoric is contingent. Philosophy shoots out towards an ideal form--it is hierarchical to a degree (Truth for philosophy, God for religion....there is something abstract and outside of us that these fields of thought believe exists). Rhetoric deals with the present, not looking outward to an abstraction but inward (Rabbinic thought believes that Torah is the universe--you find the answers within, which is Torah and everything, and not "outside" in some kind of abstract "heaven/god/whatever").

The whole point here is that we should be wary of treating texts as dogma, and this whole conversation about Genesis in the Bible is kind of funny when we consider the complexity of translation and interpretation.

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: spy66

I don't know what translation you are using so let us use herbrew.

biblehub.com...

Nod is East of Eden, the garden is in the east of Eden.

The garden was in Eden in the east, nod is out of Eden, to the east. It is not a contradiction, it is a difference.

The Garden was made towards the east of Eden

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Eden already existed before Lord God made his garden eastwards in Eden. It must have since he made his garden eastwards. Only the Garden to the east was shut off by flaming swords. Where are these flaming swords?

If Nod was just to the east of the Garden. The flaming swords should be seen and described in oother texts and we should probably be able to see the flaming swords today. There exists no trace of Eden on Earth.

If the garden was just shut of from one direction we should be able to enter the garden from the west. Or from any other direction then the east.

Only one part of the garden was shut of by Lord God.

"There exists no trace of Eden on Earth."

It's in the Persian Gulf right now, underwater.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect


"There exists no trace of Eden on Earth."

It's in the Persian Gulf right now, underwater.

Is that so

a reply to: spy66

You think you are reading a history book, but you are not.

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: spy66

You think you are reading a history book, but you are not.

That is correct. I am just Reading the KJV Version of the bible.

No mater how we look at it. The timeframe is a streight line. Until this day Eden has not been found on Earth. And that is because Eden never was on Earth in the first Place.

a reply to: spy66

I never said it was on earth

a reply to: fatkid

I said it was west of the land of the wandered

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: spy66

I never said it was on earth

Then we agree that Nod is not to the east of Eden?

a reply to: spy66

No, according to reference we are using, it clearly states that nod is east of Eden. We can't just disregard this, we have to find the meaning in it.

But let us move on, also lucifer is not Satan, please read the following so you understand how the word even got into the Bible in the first place.

bible.org...


In other words, ‘morning star’ or lucifer in the Latin Vulgate literally referred to Venus, but metaphorically would refer to earthly kings, emperors, and pagan deities. Peter thus may have chosen this word to show that the real morning star was Jesus, not Caesar. Isaiah 14:12 thus spoke of the Babylonian king as the morning star and thus predicted his fall.


- also I would like to point out that I am not disagreeing with what your original post is about, I am not trying to derail your thread, and am not saying you are wrong, just trying to shed some extra light.

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: spy66

No, according to reference we are using, it clearly states that nod is east of Eden. We can't just disregard this, we have to find the meaning in it.

If Eden is not on Earth. Then Nod can not be east of Eden.

a reply to: spy66

Why not?

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: spy66

Why not?

Because Nod is not east of Eden Cherubims.

a reply to: spy66

The source document that you are using for your entire arguement says that it is east of Eden.. please explain how it is not

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: spy66

The source document that you are using for your entire arguement says that it is east of Eden.. please explain how it is not

Where is Eden Cherubims? It is protected by a flaming sword. THe flaming sword was put in Place to protect the tree of life.
Eden Cherubims is the location Lord God put in Place the flaming swords. It is specifically mentioned in verse 24 in Chapter 3.

he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way

Where is the tree of life and the flaming sword? It sure is not west of Nod.

I Guess the tree of life is still protected by the flaming swords because there is no mention of that Lord God has opened up Eden Cherubims to any of us.

Where is the rest of Eden? Only the garden to the east of Eden is protected, where the tree of life is protected by the flaming sword.

There is no mention in scripture that the flood destroyed Eden or Eden Cherubims.

a reply to: spy66

You still haven't explained why nod isn't where the source document you are using is saying it is. All you are explaining is the location of the garden and its surroundings.

At this point you are choosing to say option B is incorrect because option A says something else.

But what if option B is the correct one and A says the wrong thing.

If one of the options in the source document is untrue, why should anyone believe any of the options are true?

What if both are correct and you just don't understand the true meaning.