Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life; I have given every green plant for food; and it was so’
(Genesis 1:29-30).
I am talking to someone who thinks that the part about "herb yielding seed" or "every plant yielding seed",
They INSIST that this is referring to sex.
It makes no sense to me, but they are so convinced.
Has anyone ever heard this before.
thanks!!!
( I think it is referring to plants, for use as medicine and food, including cannibis).
If they heard it in The Way, I'm not surprised.
EVERYTHING was supposed to have some "secret" meaning.
Nandon, the person you heard that from sounds like they have a screw loose. I have heard of meat eating cannibals before, but to now throw sex into the boiling pot takes this to an orgasmic level of derangement.
What's clear in the verses is that it's "for food" (says so twice).
The verses beforehand talk about going forth and multiplying.
Then there is a clear change of context prefaced by "And God said, Behold...." in the verses you quote.
God's smart enough to figure out that his newly-formed creatures on the earth need something to eat, so he tells them what.
That's if you believe that Gen 1 is an accurate historical record and not a synthesis of ideas, poems, oral histories and myths encapsulating a bigger truth.
Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life; I have given every green plant for food; and it was so’
(Genesis 1:29-30).
I am talking to someone who thinks that the part about "herb yielding seed" or "every plant yielding seed",
They INSIST that this is referring to sex.
It makes no sense to me, but they are so convinced.
Has anyone ever heard this before.
thanks!!!
( I think it is referring to plants, for use as medicine and food, including cannibis).
If one read the plain meaning of the verses, it's obvious the plants are
given for food for human and animal. (Making the original plan vegetarian.)
If one discards that and has to follow the pfal rules, then one falls back on
Bullinger's rules which were transcribed over.
Then, all Scripture must PRIMARILY explain itself
right in the verse where it is written (according to vpw, over 85% of verses
are straightforward and mean what they say- like John 3:16.)
If one thinks this might be an exception, it's worth pointing out to them that
the usage of the terms "as used before" is impossible, since these are the
FIRST USAGES. In fact, according to Bullinger/vpw, these first usages RIGHT HERE
set the meaning for LATER usages. Therefore, reading into them a meaning other
than the clear one would then OBLIGATE one to distort the meanings of the same
terms all over the rest of Scripture. ALL references to plants and fruit
would then be REQUIRED to be twisted into the same bizarre explanation.
Recommended Posts
waysider
If they heard it in The Way, I'm not surprised.
EVERYTHING was supposed to have some "secret" meaning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks nandon
sure can many meaning
without sex we would even be here
to say that it for sex no but to say it brings life is another thing
life is life and death is death and birth is birth
so how you saying that is sex
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Nandon, the person you heard that from sounds like they have a screw loose. I have heard of meat eating cannibals before, but to now throw sex into the boiling pot takes this to an orgasmic level of derangement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I believe a lot of guys like to have eaten beforehand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Is that another of LCM's wilder interpretations?
What's clear in the verses is that it's "for food" (says so twice).
The verses beforehand talk about going forth and multiplying.
Then there is a clear change of context prefaced by "And God said, Behold...." in the verses you quote.
God's smart enough to figure out that his newly-formed creatures on the earth need something to eat, so he tells them what.
That's if you believe that Gen 1 is an accurate historical record and not a synthesis of ideas, poems, oral histories and myths encapsulating a bigger truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
If one read the plain meaning of the verses, it's obvious the plants are
given for food for human and animal. (Making the original plan vegetarian.)
If one discards that and has to follow the pfal rules, then one falls back on
Bullinger's rules which were transcribed over.
Then, all Scripture must PRIMARILY explain itself
right in the verse where it is written (according to vpw, over 85% of verses
are straightforward and mean what they say- like John 3:16.)
If one thinks this might be an exception, it's worth pointing out to them that
the usage of the terms "as used before" is impossible, since these are the
FIRST USAGES. In fact, according to Bullinger/vpw, these first usages RIGHT HERE
set the meaning for LATER usages. Therefore, reading into them a meaning other
than the clear one would then OBLIGATE one to distort the meanings of the same
terms all over the rest of Scripture. ALL references to plants and fruit
would then be REQUIRED to be twisted into the same bizarre explanation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Was this from an ex-wayfer? (or current?)
Sounds like a section of christian family and sex.. the vicster made a big deal of the trees of the garden.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
every plant yielding seed
every tree which has fruit yielding seed
every beast of the earth
every bird of the sky
every thing that moves on the earth which has life
every green plant
food for thought
i don't think we can eat all this literally
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
That's not what it said, so I agree we aren't meant to think that.
It said the plants and trees were given to us for food.
It said that the animals were given the green plants for food.
In general principle, it means the plants were meant (originally) as the diet for the animals and humans.
Since we now have herbivores eating plants, and insectivores eating insects,
and carnivores eating herbivores, obviously it does not apply now, and something has changed.
That some plants can't be part of a diet NOW should be less of a surprise, knowing that.
MOST plants form part of an ecosystem and diet of some form of animal, whether insect
or herbivore or something else.
Then again, I still say this was not MEANT to be a scientific textbook explanation-
just sufficient for the understanding of people 4000 years ago without being inaccurate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.