posted by Sam Richards
Okay, so this is going to stretch some of you into places I am reasonably certain you’ve not yet ventured.
Imagine for a moment, that the religious texts with which you’re familiar were actually written by humans and inspired by Allah/God/G-d. Now consider what “inspired” actually means or what it could possibly refer to. When someone inspires me, for example, they don’t sit behind me and whisper editorial comments into my ear as I’m typing along. Rather, they provoke my imagination and my mind to consider things that I’ve yet to bring to bear on some particular issue. This means that in the end, when I hit save on a document or send on an email, regardless of how instrumental another person’s ideas or thoughts were to my own, the words in the document are mine and probably reflect more of what is happening in MY LIFE than the life of my muse.
Makes sense, right? So now apply this to any religious stories that you believe were inspired by Allah/God/G-d. (If you are a strict, [read: "literal"] interpreter of religious text, you can just jump ahead to the linked article.) One can only conclude that both the sacrosanct stories that give form to our religions AND the ways in which those stories have been interpreted have at least as much to do with mundane matters of daily living as they do with some great mysterious relationship between the writer and his or her otherworldly muse.
So this article points to some things that I’ve thought about (seriously!) but never had the time nor the inclination to research. It’s rather interesting and should provoke some challenging brain activity.
Read the article: “Adam’s Family Jewels”
Wow, so I’m not really religious at all, but I find it interesting to see so much sexuality in the Bible. In a book revered and held dear by so many people in the world (the most printed book ever, actually), it’s funny to see so many sexual innuendos. I guess because it’s attached to the name of god, people can look beyond that and cast those certain passages aside. However, just because all of these passages appear to be sexual in nature, doesn’t necessarily mean that they really are. All literature is grey and up to interpretation by however the reader wants to see it. It would just be kind of interesting to see how someone would interpret Lot’s daughters raping him to “preserve the seed of our father” (Gen. 19:32) as something clean and, pardon the pun, Biblical.
[Reply]
I was raised Roman Catholic. It is a very important part of my family and our lives. I have attended Catholic school from first grade till I came to Penn State. I have studied my religion, read the bible, listened to numerous homilies and received all my sacraments. We attend mass every Sunday at home and I go most Sundays up here. Although, I have been so immersed in The Roman Catholic faith for so long, I have never thought of the sexuality in the Bible as Tibor Krausz portrays it. I have thought about the stories and questioned my faith. I have come to conclusions about these stories and interpreted many of them in my own way. I feel like I have been so immersed and so connected to the faith that I have not taken a step back. I have not examined the text from an outsider’s point of view. I have always looked at my faith through the eyes of a believer. Now that I have seen an outside point of view, I can see where they are coming from. However, I still have my faith. I believe in God, Jesus, the after-life and the sacraments. I am not an idiot; I know humans wrote the Bible. God inspired the authors of the Bible. As Sam said, he/she was not whispering in their ear exactly what to say, but I do believe they based their writing on experiences they had with him. These experiences might be interpreted incorrectly in the present day. The metaphors are outdated and we might not understand what the authors were trying to convey. This is where we need to be careful. We need to recognize hat the book was written so long ago that we can’t relate exactly the way we are suppose to. We have evolved so much as humans and live completely different lifestyles. We cannot base every decision we make on guidelines that we cannot possibly relate to. However, the basics and the roots of the Bible are still relevant. The commandments still define the basic rights and wrongs. Sexuality has changed so much that we cannot understand some of its imagery. The Bible never says nakedness and sex are bad. It just says when it is appropriate. God never wanted us to be ashamed of our bodies. He created them with love and beauty in mind. We just must respect it. We must not read the Bible literally because it is outdated, however religion guides us and will always be a part of me. I am proud of my faith even though I recognize its flaws. Although, the Catholic Church is by no means perfect. It can’t be because humans are not perfect and they are the ones who control the Church.
[Reply]
I used to be quite religious, until about six years ago when I decided it wasn’t for me. I have a few friends who share this same mentality. We sometimes play around with this idea about how the bible was written. We speculate that parts of it were written by a few drunken men in a cave. I don’t actually believe this (entirely), but I also do not believe that everything written in the bible is true. Many stories of the bible have been passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth. There is a great chance that the original stories of the bible were changed and made more interesting before being written down. This is often the case with many legends and stories of today. Whisper down the lane is a great example of this. I can’t recall many times when the first thing whispered matches the final phrase at the end. How could it all be true if on top of this, the translations over the past couple of thousands of years have been up for debate?
I found this article to be pretty humorous. Suggesting that the bible is filled with sexual innuendo is pretty funny. It’s definitely a possibility I never really explored. The ways that the bible, and many ancient writings, has been translated are oftentimes hazy translations. Words do not directly translate, leaving a lot of possibilities in what the original authors were trying to say. If we can’t be sure what we’re reading in the English version of the bible is what was originally taught, how can we be sure we’re even hearing the “word of god”? There’s a great possibility that when our language dies (or perhaps even before this) people will change the “word of God” even further.
Many people hold onto the word of the bible like it is the only truth out there. This concept has always been so confusing to me. How could someone believe in a book that has hardly any proof of any stories actually occurring, and is filled with contradictions? The way religion is taught is to not ask questions. And, looking back on the time I spent in church, I can understand why it is taught like this. People who are unsure about religion just don’t have enough faith. The answer is always “believe and you will see”. I’m not saying that this definitely is not the solution to life’s problems, (for a lot of people, it apparently is) but it wasn’t for me in the fourteen years I dedicated my life to god. I didn’t even really know what I was doing, which is how I think a lot of children (and many adults) also feel about religion.
[Reply]
After living in a Catholic home my whole life and attending Catholic school from kindergarten until high school, I can't help but say that I have frequently noticed these sexual references in the Bible but never thought anything of them because our teachers obviously tried to avoid discussions about this topic. My grandparents and parents were big on going to Church but they never made me read the Bible and honestly the only time I ever analyzed it was at school. In Catholic school they only teach you the things about the religion that they want you to know and always try to avoid questions about it that they don't want to answer. However, I feel like since I went through Catholic school my whole life and had these views and beliefs drilled into my head only makes me question the religion more and more. After reading this article, I completely agree with what it was saying. The whole idea of God taking a rib bone from Adam never made sense to me. It absolutely makes more sense for God to take the "penis" bone from Adam in order to create Eve because the story of Adam and Eve is so sexually driven. They were the first humans on earth and therefore had to have sex to procreate. I also agree with the point that Tibor Krausz makes about incest. Incest is looked at as a heinous act and is punished in today's society, but after Adam and Eve procreated, their children had to of had sex to create the rest of the world and this would have been considered incest. So how can the Bible tell a story of incest when it is considered such a heinous act today? Doesn't make sense to me. Another aspect that I don't understand is how men would offer their wives to guests for sexual acts just to please them. In today's world this would be considered adultery and to some extent, prostitution. I don't agree with the fact that we condemn all these acts in today's world, but the Bible, one of the most sacred texts, tell stories of people committing adultery, incest, and other acts that are condemned today. Even though I agree with this article, I still feel like the Bible was written as a guideline for people to follow and shouldn't be interpreted literally. It was written to explain to people how to live their lives in a good way which will result in them making it into heaven. What is written in the Bible shouldn't be literally interpreted. Overall, I can't help but agree with this article even though I been surrounded by the Catholic beliefs all my life. While reading the Bible, you can't help but notice all these sexual references.
[Reply]
This article really put a spotlight on some of the problems that many people have with organized religion. While I share many of these thoughts, I realize that the Bible, or any holy book for that example is merely a work of fiction that are supposed to be looked upon as such. You read the book and learn from the stories as most of the time they push you in the right direction according to your faith in order to make you a better person. Where we get into trouble is when people begin to take these stories literally and retranslate them to either clean up the original meaning or to adapt them to mirror their own opinions. For example, the altering of the verses mentioned in the article such as changing the meaning of “bone” and “flesh” make the text much more accessible to the family of four from rural Idaho who are looking for a greater purpose. Over time things that were once accepted, such as some of the “meanings” of these verses become less and less acceptable, so they need to be altered in order to become politically correct.
It is funny however how the church(es) as a whole try to change the meanings of things like this, yet they have no plans to change the official meanings of passages that mention stoning as a viable punishment and the angry spiteful god who is projected. This is where we arrive at a conclusion. The churches, like so many other organizations such as government rely on scare tactics to gain followers. Take the whole terrorism threat that is so often brought up. This is a key political issue when in reality we never really cared until we were struck just nine years ago. The same thing applies to death. Religion gives people an answer to the unknown and overall comfort. When someone dies, they now go someplace much greater than just a hole in the ground and are greeted by St. Peter or 25 Virgins (who I would guess aren’t virgins for long after that). I cant put down people who hold these beliefs because I wish that I could just accept these things as fact. In ways they are much stronger than the non believers.
The fact of the matter is that the Bible is an outdated book and the church has done a very good job adapting it to remain valid to their cause. As long as it keeps putting people in the seats and money in their pockets who is to stop them? People can believe whatever they want on the subject and that is the benefit of our society. Until we eventually die, I guess we will never know what the truth is.
[Reply]
I really enjoyed reading that article. It is so interesting that when you go really in depth into a piece of writing or scripture from mythology or religion how many things you can find out. It makes sense that to create Eve, Adam had used a phallic symbol. When I look back at biblical stories that I once took literally when I was in Catholic grade school, I see them and understand them as mythological stories. When I took a mythology class my freshman year the most common way to create life was with some sort of phallic symbol or metaphor for ejaculating. So why should the bible be any different? Eve was made from a penis bone, which is interesting to think about. People that take the bible literally would not appreciate the theory of Eve, the mother of all women and men, being made from the primary male organ. What does that say about women? I guess we all have a little bit of men in us. Well good thing I don’t take the bible seriously because I would be even more confused with gender types than I already am after Sam’s lecture on Tuesday. The most ironic thing about this whole thing is that according to this theory the bible is full of sexual innuendos, rape, incest, homosexuality, etc. With all these sinful things that were done by biblical figures, isn’t it strange that they are the sins the bible explicitly prohibits? Hypocrisy is nothing new to Catholics and Christians that follow the bible, but it’s probably a slap in the face to strict followers that have read that article or seen those books. Not that I really feel bad for them, it is never smart to follow any religion with out questioning it. Those that do become one minded and irrational. I also think looking too deep into scriptures like the Old Testament you could start looking too deep into things. What I mean by this is that you could start going so deep that you are interpreting literal things into something more than what they are. Maybe it really was a rib that created Eve. Or better yet, who cares? We all know that with the concept of evolution Adam and Eve never existed. Also, the concept that man was first and used his penis or rib bone to make all of womankind is not only sexist but creepy. The bible is full of contradictions and racism and sexism. It is a book that when take literally could actually be dangerous. I think it is an entertaining and interesting way to look back on the traditions of an earlier time, but taking it literally is childish and ignorant.
[Reply]
Although I have never heard anything about this before, it does not surprise me. Sex has always been a kind-of taboo subject throughout history, but it is something that plays a significant role in the lives of almost every human being. It seems like sex is something that is almost too good to be true. It brings pleasure to everyone, regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity. Not even humans, but animals as well. Maybe we are just so worried about trying to control those feelings that occur so often, that we try to establish commandments and moral judgments against that “too good to be true” pleasure. Sexual innuendos were probably invented in attempt to hide one’s own obvious sexual desires. These innuendos appear in many places that seem unlikely such as fairy tales, literature, Disney movies, and even the Bible. It is funny. It is entertaining. It is life and almost everyone does it.
Reading this article made me laugh, because I started to think about how often I used to read things, especially in high school, and find sexual innuendos. In English class, we read a book about war, and of course there was a section about how the soldiers snuck across the river to meet up with some local women, but the book never came out and said the soldiers had sex with the girls; the book used non-sexual language to inexplicitly mention sexual occurrences. The Canterbury Tales were also full of sex. Other than English class, sex existed in our history textbooks as well. Most of us hate history lectures, but when we were talking about King Henry VIII in high school, and how he had six wives, everyone actually paid attention for once.
I am still wondering, though, why is this so funny and entertaining to us? Is it because we are discouraged from expressing our true feelings about sex? We are never supposed to talk about it out loud in many situations. I know I could not help laughing out loud when I read about how the word testimony came about. Not only did I laugh at it, but I had to tell my friends as well.
Back to the instances of sex in the Bible, it is no surprise that the four Gospel writers included these innuendos. With a book that ultimately tells people how to live their lives, it seems like they would have to find a way to relate to the people. It would have to be able to hold people’s attention. I am not sure if I could force myself to read thousands of pages of scripture if it was dry and did not seem to pertain to me. What better way to relate to the people than include hidden messages about an experience that affects almost every human being.
[Reply]
Honestly, I think this is a little ridiculous. Saying that the writers of the Bible intentionally wrote things that were "sexual innuendoes" is absurd. Yes I do come from a Christian family and I believe that the Bible is the word of God and that the people who wrote it were told by God what to say and how to say it so that his word and his thoughts could be preached to the people. I think this is a prime example of how perverted people have become in our generation and how desperate they are to pick out the little things that someone could talk about, or think was funny. Yes, this guy was very creative in his findings in the Bible, but the truth is you can make anything perverted or have a "sexual innuendo". Something as bland as a cookbook could have a sexual innuendo (balls of dough, use a utensil to push the cheese into the hole) like really people?! Taking something that makes no sense out of the Bible, of all things is disgrace and I'm disgusted that people are agreeing that this is funny. This is a holy text, something sacred that gives people hope and rules to live by. Why is that acceptable? And even if the statements were meant to be sexual, its because thats the way it was and God was being honest when he wrote them. Appealing to peoples interests not to be perverted.
[Reply]
When it comes to religion, I cannot say that I believe in a “god”. I think God is manmade and is basically a way for people of certain groups to come together. It helps maintain order and even “goodness” in society because it tells people what is right and wrong. God, to me, is just the excuse and motivation that people have for what they do. We need something or someone to look to when we are in our darkest hours, and God is what many people turn to when they have no answers. It is not like God just comes down and tells you the answer to your problem or even that everything is okay. We just need some reassurance that somebody is with us. Other than that, we are responsible for our own actions, and we just have this mental aspect that makes us think we are being driven to do things a certain way.
[Reply]
Like many people on this blog, I find this article amusing but for a very different reason. The bible is not a child’s fairytale bedtime story. Anyone who believes that does not understand the weight of the Holy Bible. Jesus shed his blood for humanity by dying on the cross. He was willing to subject himself to pain, humiliation, and finally death so humans could be relieved of their sin. Does that sound like a light happy bedtime story? It is important to introduce children to Jesus through stories of Noah’s Ark and Jesus’s birth. As a child in Sunday school, many of us did not understand the great power and awesomeness of what we were reading, as many of us still believed in magic. Noah’s Ark was an easy story to believe because God can make anything happen. Believing in God means believing he is capable of fitting any amount of animals into any size ark. Why so many Christians have a problem with this is hard for me to understand. You believe in God, yet you limit his capabilities to what we as humans can do.
The next problem I have with this article is that it points out man’s imperfections, flaws, and sins and mocks them. Yes, some of the stories are disturbing and by no means am I supporting what they are doing. However, the people in the bible are human, not God. It seems human have not changed that much, as there is still rape, murder, and incest in the world today. One of the major themes of the bible is the fact that humans are imperfect, sinful, and in desperate need of God’s grace and mercy. I believe that is exactly what these stories prove. If the people in the bible were flawless human beings who never sinned, God would not be needed. We laugh at how perverted the stories are because we set higher standards for humans in biblical times.
The article mentions that incest must have occurred in order for the human race to have started and thrived. This is true and by all means the reason why we are alive. Because there are only two humans, of course incest must have occurred for their children to produce more offspring. They did not have a choice unless they wanted to let the human race die, which they thankfully decided not to. Another example was Joseph’s coat of many colors. It could be possible that he was a “drag queen” but I doubt it. It seems as though the article is stretching and exaggerating the probable truth in order to make a more interesting statement. As for sex, of course their reproductive organs were important to them. Men wanted sons to pass on their name and fortune to, and women wanted children to love and take care of. It sounds rather close to modern times, except nobody swears on their loins anymore. Before trying to twist the bible into something it is not, we must first remember the glaring distinction between human and God.
[Reply]
I believe that this article was highly amusing and entertaining, especially to someone like me who is normally cynical of religious things and who has never read through the bible, although I have heard most of the stories that are used as examples in this article. I just find it hard to follow something that was written so long ago and leaves many things that you just have to have faith in, because you can’t find proof of most of the things in the bible anywhere. This article provides a different perspective on the bible, one that many younger people probably find humorous but the church and the older people probably find terrifying.
The part of this article that I thought was the best and most amusing was where god pulled a bone from Adam’s penis to make woman makes much more sense than him taking a bone from Adam’s ribs. Since most of the human body is based off of symmetry of some type, taking one rib meant we would have had 25 ribs at one point, being an uneven number and completely unsymmetrical, unlike the rest of the human body. If the bone was taken from the human penis, however, than that would help explain why there are no bones in the penis and would still satisfy the symmetrical quality. This makes that part of the bible much more believable to me and something that I can see having actually happened.
After reading this article, I was introduced to things that I didn’t realize were talked about in the bible, such as Joseph possibly being a drag queen with his coat of many colors, or Ishmael possibly molesting Isaac. Most of these statements I don’t really believe to be true, but I find them interesting nonetheless. However, there are some statements that I could believe being true, such as the mistranslation of the word “tsela”, confusing people about whether it was Adam’s rib or his penis that a bone was taken from to make Eve.
I also was thinking about what Sam Richards wrote about in his blog post recently. My one friend and I were having a religious discussion, him being highly religious and me not so much, and I brought up the fact that why didn’t God just write the bible/torah/ Qur'an by himself and not use human hands, which obviously drastically changed the end result, since each version is so different from each other. Neither one of us could think of a good answer to that and I’ve been thinking about it ever since and I’ve yet to come up with anything besides because God works in mysterious ways, which I don’t consider to be much of an answer because it doesn’t really explain anything.
[Reply]
I think that this is one of the best blogs of the year and am excited to comment on this. I am not at all religious and don't even make it to church on Christmas. I find it despicable how people hold the church and the Bible in such high esteem. The Bible is nothing but a book, it is not holy, and it cannot tell you how to live your life. There are plenty of people who have lived a life unguided by the Bible who are some of the nicest and best people you will ever meet.
As far as the church goes, it is nothing but a business. Why do churches always ask for money? Because they are a money making business, it is as simple as that. Ministers of large churches have six digit salaries and live in luxurious houses as members of upper middle class society. They might as well be mid level business executives. If they were true ministers, they would live lives of rejection similar to Buddhist monks who actually practice their religion to the fullest extent. They would not extort money out of their members, but would live simple lives. I am not saying that they should live in complete rejection; they should own cars and live normal lives, but they cannot live luxuriously and justify their religious devotion. Unfortunately, oblivious church members who are blinded by their faith and the Bible cannot see through this smoke screen and pay large donations. I wonder how much you must pay to get into heaven.
With that said I have a lot to say about and to the people who live "pure" lives and their ridiculous antics. I am fascinated how parents are appalled if their children hear a curse word. For example, after Chase Utley proclaimed that the Phillies were "World Fucking Champions" parents almost had heart attacks. Many parents interviewed on the Philadelphia News proclaimed that their children would have to find a new role model because Utley's comments were so offensive. Another example is in this years Olympics when the viewing audience twice heard the word "fuck" during the snowboarding halfpipe final. The announce apologized for members of the U.S. men's snowboarding teams language and the fact that this was aired. The next day, bloggers blasted NBC. I mean come on, can you not hand a curse word? This is sad. Are these parents living by the purity that is the Bible? Well, if so maybe they should read the Bible, and then find a new religion. It is ridiculous. Do parents not realize that their children will go to school and hear curse words every day? All they are doing is setting their children up for a sheltered life that leads to failure.
[Reply]
thebathingape Reply:
February 19th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Definitely a very interesting idea presented here. Curiosity is part of who we are and it is pure human nature to question aspects of our lives including religion/faith. It does not seem absurd to think that the teachings of the bible are metaphorical. I mean it’s weird to think about and not that I necessarily believe this, but you have to consider that someone could have simply decided to sit down one day, pitch out some ideas and fabricate a bunch of stories that illustrate what they thought was integral to lead a “proper,” “pure” life. And then for some reason, this compilation of stories seemed appealing to people, obvious reasons aside, perhaps also, on a subconscious level, because of the resonating sexual innuendos.
Anyway, as some have mentioned, yes, the article was kind of funny. The fact that it is proposed that, in the bible, people would swear an oath, while touching one’s or someone else’s “thigh,” a biblical euphemism from male genitalia, is bizarre, but seems like it is not too farfetched and could make sense. Then again, it is merely someone’s individual interpretation.
Agc5072’s comment is great. The bible seems as though it is mostly meant to tell you how to live your life, but should rather act as a guideline, as the ideals it emphasizes are central to everyday life. In some ways, the bible is just a book, but in other ways it is more. That is not to say that to lead a “good” life it is necessary to understand and have read the bible. As you have said, there are plenty of “good” people who have not followed the bible and I 100 percent agree with you. I see where you are coming from with the entire argument though. In some situations, the bible is taken too literally and followed too strictly, which creates a problem. It cannot be held in such high esteem because it not meant to be. The ongoing war against religion is, in some ways, related to different interpretations of a book that is supposed to open to interpretation. There is no right or wrong way to look at it.
I am not with you on the church thing though.
And, yes, the way we lead our lives is in many ways different than in the past, but I believe the bible and fundamental values highlighted within it still apply to everyday life, in more ways than one.
Someone also mentioned that the first bibles were recorded in Hebrew, rather than English. This is a viable point because the bible had to be translated, which, perhaps, obscured the fluidity and originality of the bible as it was initially transcribed.
[Reply]
This article was rather interesting and made me think in a way I never have. I grew up in a family that went to church as much as we could but really only because it was the “right thing to do”. Religion has faded from my life more and more over the years, which I can’t say I am proud of. This led me to really believe what I would like to believe which is a spiritual belief. The article brings up very valid points that people have never really thought of. I believe the bible is way outdated to be directly translated into today’s meanings. The Adam and Eve story at the beginning of this article is a perfect example of this. Most people that are strict religious follows, not bashing anyone at all, have been preached the bible, or whatever their religion follows, since they were born. They never save this other light that has many other possibilities and translations.
[Reply]
I find two things very interesting: ONE, that most people who commented on this are not religious and/or do not believe in God and have not read the Bible. It is interesting because it seems that these ideas are abstract to them, which is not to say that their opinions are not valuable; it is simply to say that there is a different perspective. Maybe it is that they do not have preexisting ideas of the Bible stories and those who are religious have already been seasoned by parents, grandparents, pastors, and deacons about how to look at what is being said; possibly even to deny the intriguing argument being made within the article. TWO, the actual article is interesting. Though I am religious, I am very open to listening and understanding other peoples’ perceptions and reasoning. When it is undeniably logical I may even decide to alter some of my own thoughts. Nonetheless, I have seen and heard other arguments similar to the article and there are sometimes things that I think are “looked too far into” and other things that make me question what I have been taught in the church. In the article I don’t think that I saw things were overanalyzed, leaving me to believe that there are some reasonable truths to the ideas and also the last paragraph pretty much summed it up in that maybe we shouldn’t live rule by rule when interpreting religious texts. “ryanrichert” (that commented earlier on the topic) said that religious texts are meant to be broad enough to be altered to everyone’s life and individual personal experiences, thus, if you interpret a text one way the first time you read it then it has served its purpose. That ALMOST makes sense. Here’s why it doesn’t: because people constantly turn back to the Bible or whatever other text they are into when confronted with issues or problems that they are trying to solve. Therefore, a scripture or passage can be interpreted several different ways at different times. If an individual was given a Bible without any guidance or “instruction” on what to believe when it was read, their interpretations would most likely be very different from those who have the schema.
As I mentioned before, the examples that were brought up in the article are not all new to me. Research and studies like these are what made me question my specific religion a few short years ago. I feel like strict religion is slowly fading away, especially for our generation. I’m not sure if this is what Sam would call “picking and choosing” what to believe and what to disregard, but there are definitely some things that I feel strongly about (which really are just morality issues) and other things that I feel are seriously being hypocritical of the exact thing we are trying to do! For instance, I don’t understand how people can say that God accepts all people and then argue that gays and lesbians are not accepted. Something doesn’t click for me there, and that bothers me. So if that’s picking and choosing, so be it.
Basically, I probably won’t believe in all the examples that studies show related to religious texts when analyzed in such a way, but I certainly won’t shut out the possibilities of them being right.
[Reply]
Seeing this article posted on here really didn’t surprise me at all. I have thought about this topic a lot before, never really coming to any sort of conclusion on what I think about the whole matter. But I know it has been a debated topic for years now. My parents are pretty religious people and they always had me go to church when I was a young kid. In church though they never bring up these sexual passages from the bible. It’s kind of like that same situation with United States History in grade school. You’re never taught about the bad things we did as a country in detail, only the good things that apparently make our country so great. With my parents though, even being the very religious type, they don’t deny the sexual things that are written about in the Bible. But the way I see it is, the Bible, along with some outrageous stories, is trying to depict real life situations. And real life situations are going to have some sexual innuendos. If someone decided to write a book about now, there are going to be some things that are inappropriate and that’s just the way life is though. I don’t see it as a bad thing that should offend anybody. Sex is part of life. Do you think that back in that time it was so much different than it is now? Like offering up sex to guests is very similar to prostitution in the United State today. I agree with some other people that have posted on this when they say that the majority of the people making posts on this article are not religious at all which means that I can say with almost complete certainty that they have not read the Bible. So those individuals making comments about this subject, or judging the book, is ridiculous. I don’t judge people when I have no clue about the subject matter in discussion, why should this be any different. I have personally only read part of the Bible, so I am trying my hardest to not be biased because I haven’t even read it. So people who have not even opened it because they don’t believe in God, should not have a strong opinion on this matter. On the other hand, the people that say the writers of this book put these sexual things in the Bible on purpose is a little ridiculous. I mean, I’m sure some of the stuff was intentionally put in it, but I think in some cases people look in it just a little too much. And even if it was all intentional, whatever, if you are actually mature enough to read and understand the Bible, you should be mature enough to accept the sexual innuendos involved.
[Reply]
The craziest thing about this to me is how different the world would be if the Bible had been a bit more clear on most of the supposedly lewd and inappropriate bits. All of the sexual guilt and prudish attitudes about basic human functions would be gone, and ultra-conservative, by-the-book Catholics would have a lot less to talk about. I think a lot of the issues many religious people continue to fall back on are sexual in nature, since they are often the most debatable in terms of morality (compared to things like murder and theft, which are obviously wrong to the overwhelming majority).
[Reply]
I really liked this article on the case that it was the first that i have not even thought about and some of the texts included within the article makes a lot of sense of how some words were changed around to 'censor' the Bible. I was never that religious in the first place but my belief is from evolution that humans came upon the earth but some divine intervention had to allow the creation of atoms and particles to make the universe what it is today. I have tried explaining this to my friend that for over billions of years it took the creation from single celled organisms, amoebas , to that of multicelluar organisms capable of high capacity of thought. But the bible where it takes the religious view and what is considered today to be very objectionable topics to talk about, like a woman raping a man, is it unheard of? no. Has it been used to 'preserve the seed of the father' carrying with it a insestual theme which is described in the Bible? Yes but i can guarantee anyone who has not really thought about the censorship of religion would not have known that without reading an article of this type, explaining that the book held of the highest moral and ethical standards to convey the message of faith to other people has actually been a book, revealing the vulgar topics of today's society where things like this would not be discussed inside a faith based house.
I am really intrigued about this article to see what other kind of fallacies that religion is based on and what it can determine that would be the complete objection against any science based facts.Such as in where in the grand scale of time does the earth being formed and the dinosaurs come into play? Was jesus' first pet a triceratops? or was the wheel invented when Adam decided he had nothing to do one day within the garden of Eden and fire was first discovered when god was throwing down lightning bolts and the family of insest who was sent fourth to 'be fruitful and multiply' just happened to run across a burning bush. If they were all born of the same parents wouldn't you think that they would stay together in a tribe-like fashion instead of branching out into different countries almost immediately after creation? I understand that its not the book that people should be worried about but the story it tells within the book that people have to have faith in. But if the fallacies are always uncovered and something new is learned about the censorship or whatnot, will catholic faith always come into question. It makes me want to ask a preist or someone that whole heartedly believes in god what they think on the subject matter and how wrong do they think the book really is.
[Reply]
This is in response to the doll Roxxxy. I had already written this but the article is no longer up so I am putting it here.
I find this article very interesting. This doll Roxxxy could become very popular. It goes to show how much people desire to be with someone in a sexual way. This robot costs $7,000! Five thousand people have already preordered it and at least 20,000 more people have shown interest in it. All of this is for a fake robot to perform sexual acts with. To me, this sounds like a ton of money being spent on something that should not be costing $7,000.
People who are buying this doll seem pretty desperate to me. If someone wants to have sex they should just turn to their wife or go out to the bars looking for someone special. This is an easy way out for people who can’t find a mate. I think that most of the people who buy this are going to be either very rich or really into sex.
[Reply]
This article really brightened up my day! I think sexuality is a natural characteristics of humans and I am not surprised to see that there is so much covered up innuendo in the Bible. I think it is really progressive of the authors to write about the sexual aspects of the Biblical characters and I applaud their efforts. It makes me happy to see that they are gaining support and that people are starting to think about their beliefs instead of just blindly following someone else's ideas. The most irritating people to me are those that do something without questioning the validity of it and then believe it to be the only correct choice.
[Reply]
I can see this doll Roxxxy having some positive effects on society. People will no longer make complicated relationships that lead to problems. If all they want is sex, they can get it with this doll. If people are having sex with this doll, then that means that they are not having sex with other people which will decrease the spreading of STDs. This will also help prevent people who are unable to find a mate from becoming so lonely that they do something stupid such as suicide. I know that these aren’t the greatest supporting points to this new doll but I can’t really think of too many.
[Reply]
Reading this article reminds me of a very popular show I like to watch. It’s called ‘Everybody loves Raymond’. In the show Raymond is always begging and coming up with plots to have sex with his wife. He is a great target consumer for this product. If he had this doll he would no longer have to worry about what his wife wants to do. He could just play around with this doll. Also, it’s not considered cheating because it’s not a real person. Although, I can’t see him actually wanting to do that. I can’t imagine sex being better with a doll rather than your spouse.
[Reply]
In my opinion, this is a very weird invention. I understand that there are going to be consumers out there but it seems way to strange to me. I would never buy something like this. I would rather be with a real women. It is a very creative invention though. This goes to show how much our technology has advanced over the years. One hundred years ago nobody would have every imagined something like this. Somehow people have managed to design a talking sex doll that comes with five different personalities. It’s very impressive and our technology will only continue to grow. I’m curious to see how this doll will improve even more in the future.
[Reply]
I really liked this article, its just another example of why the bible is completely ridiculous. I actually believe that there is a god out there. But people who take the bible literally have completely shut their brains off. Bill Maher said that something like 60% of people polled said that they believe that the Noah's Ark story is actually true…60%! I don't understand why people believe in something so obviously metaphorical. I guess it gives people some kind of comfort that god can perform miracles and that Jesus is coming to save them, and that's the problem. If you blindly believe that god can solve your problems your not looking for real solutions.
[Reply]
I found myself snickering as I read the article in the link. I was raised a Christian, circumcised and baptized into the church as a child. Like many, I went through numerous years of Sunday school, and was confirmed. Throughout my high school years I attempted numerous times to read through the Bible in its entirety, only to end up halfway through the book of Genesis. Upon my arrival at Penn State, I quickly became involved in Navigators, a religious group on campus. My bible study leaders encouraged me to read from the Bible everyday to understand what the Lord expects from us and also to accept His promise of admission to Heaven. The point of my writing this is not to push my faith and beliefs upon anyone, but to establish that I have some knowledge of the Bible, but also agree with what Tibor Krausz wrote in “Adam’s Family Jewels.” Many of you have expressed that you find it hard to believe that any of these biblical stories, and with exponential scientific evidence disproving many of these miracles; I would have to agree with your reluctance. Additionally, the first bibles were recorded in Hebrew, therefore making the Standard English version of the Bible an interpretation. I have a sneaking suspicion that when the Bible was being translated to English, religious officials didn’t want God’s pure and perfect stories tainted by sexual references and obscenities. Wording the passages the way they did made it harder for the untrained eye and mind to interpret the real meaning of the Bible.
If you’ve ever read any of the Bible, you may agree with me that it is one of the hardest texts to follow. At times, the wording and language seems so unnatural and almost forced. I’m not saying that this may not be the result of the translation from Hebrew to English, but there is the possibility that this choppiness is a result of trying to change the intended meaning of certain passages. Basically what I’m saying is they tried to change certain words, without changing the overall meaning of the text. The comical part of the whole thing is the fact that people still pick out many of the sexual references mention by Krausz’s article. Whether you read that far into it or not, I continue to believe that the Bible holds many truths, and helps people connect with the very first individuals who also believed in a higher power.
[Reply]
The article was enjoyable to read. In my opinion I think these people are looking way into it though. Of course people were erotic back in the day. The Bible has been around for thousands of years and it took this long to figure that out? Who cares that they reference giant penises and jerking off? I think most people think the Bible is boring and full of random stories of Jesus. Maybe this will open people’s eyes. Sadly it takes a bunch of erotic references to get people interested. I never really read the Bible that much before and I doubt this will inspire me to.
[Reply]
Then one day, we read a section of the Bible that talked about bashing babies upon rocks. In the book of Isaiah, the prophet Isaiah talks about the killing of babies, then in Psalm 137, it is said, "O Babylon, you devastator, Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall be they who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!" I know this is not a sexual reference, as are the ones mentioned in the article, but it is controversial as well. I mean, the whole Psalm is about celebrating the bashing of babies' heads against rocks. So basically, the bible is saying here that there is no problem with this act.
[Reply]
A little later, we then talked about the story of Lot, also mentioned in the "Adam's Family Jewels" article. We first learned of the two angels that came to visit Lot, along with his wife and daughters. While the angels stayed in Lot's house, he offered his two daughters to them. Then, whenever the family left Sodom, Lot's wife looked back at the city, which was forbidden, and she turned into salt. The death of their mother caused the two daughters to begin plotting how to have sex with their father in order to continue his bloodline. The daughters proceeded to get Lot drunk, and then went to bed with him. The discussion after the story of Lot was a very interesting one in our class. We were all disgusted with the act of the two daughters. I mean, unless they suffer from the Oedipus or Electra complex, how many children really want to have sex, or be intimate at all, with their parents?
[Reply]
I was raised and continue to practice the Roman Catholic religion. Before I came to college, I had never been truly tested by others on my faith. I also did not notice how much other people critique the Catholic religion and think that every Catholic believes every aspect of the religion. That is actually quite opposite of how I am and do not believe at all in the I Corinthians 6:9-10 bible passage, “Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." I have never really gone with what the bible says, except the stories about Jesus and how he was born and died for our sins. I do not believe the stories about how God does not accept some people such as gays because the bible also says how Jesus died for our sins and how we are forgiven for our sins. Just because I say that, it does not believe that I sin just because I know that I will be forgiven.
Additionally, I am pro gay marriage, abortion and pre-marital sex. These previous views were established before I came to college but then through the exploration of other religions from friends I have met in college and classes I have taken, my view of my religion has been further altered.
In particular, SOC 119 and the article by Krausz have allowed me to see other people’s views on the Catholic faith. It is very weird to take a step back and see how the text of the bible is truly translated, especially where the words “bone” and “flesh” are used for the male genitalia. Also, the connection between testify-testis to witness to something in court and how in the bible men held their genitalia to swear by oath on something. And where men were touching their own or each other’s “thigh,” meaning penis. Next, in the story of Adam and Eve where God took Adam’s “tsela,” which has been traditionally translated to mean “rib” but the literal meaning is “penis bone” is very peculiar to me. That makes it sound very sexual and sort of incest. What was the writer trying to portray by this story?
That brings into point the thought that Sam said about how when someone is inspired by a higher power, that being is not sitting there whispering in the ear of the write. Imagining this by those who wrote the bible, it was collaboration and combined their daily life experiences. Were these men just extremely horny or what was going through their minds? I’m not saying that this is what was going on with the writers of the bible or trying to make fun of them or my religion, it is just that this article has just allowed these thoughts to come into my mind.
This article was so interesting and eye opening to how the bible is translated and what the writers of the bible were really saying, including all of the sexual innuendos.
[Reply]
The Bible is a book that is interpreted in many different ways because of its provocative nature, historical background, and the fact that it was written in a different language – and any time when translation is involved it leaves room for misinterpretations and changing the meaning of the message from its original purpose. That being said, text from the Bible needs to be taken with a grain of salt (as does a lot of things in life). Being a Christian, I think the Bible should be read with an open mind and taking many things into consideration (including what I said above and also the fact that it WAS inspired by God and written by human hands who most likely held biases, as we all do). Look at the big picture and the message rather than implied meanings that could be interpreted in many different ways.
Religious viewpoints are created for the purpose of giving answers to life’s questions, like: why are we here? How did we get here? How are we to interact with others? What will happen after life here? People are then drawn to certain religions based on family values or what strikes a chord within them. I would hope that after someone has found that religion that resonates with their core values, that they’ve come to follow this religion after questioning it and speaking with people of that religion who understand it and have had a long relationship with the religion, giving them credibility. After developing an overall understanding of the religion I think it’s fair to go with your “gut” feeling. But keep an open mind to what others have to say because it’s quite possible that you’ve got it wrong. But if religion has answered the questions of life and it is in accordance with the way you feel it is right to live your life, hasn’t it served it’s purpose? I think it’s undeniably more important to understand the big picture and take home message than the little minute details that can be lost in translation and easily misunderstood; for one can apply their own biases to the interpretation.
There should be a balance of getting caught up in the inconsistencies and understanding the overall message. The danger in living this way, obviously, is believing in something false, offensive and hypocritical. And it can extend further and more personally into daily life – not questioning institutions, laws, those in authority, ideologies, and cultural norms can lead to a parochial view of the world. But if you keep your wits about you and don’t dive into a religion blindly, then you’ve found the answer. Take everything into account and weigh your options.
[Reply]
This article was really kind of an eye-opener for me. I consider myself a christian (although not a die-hard bible thumber as some can be). In this I mean that I try to be a good person but let's face it, I'm in college and the prime of my youth. I can't hold myself to this higher standards. At the same time however I have always believed in the bible and the things it said. but lately with the things we've been discussing in class as well as now reading this article it really does make you think. Although I wasn't overly impressed with this article because it seemed like some of the research might of been spotty, I think it does provide a lot of valid information in showing that the bible is not some high and mighty rulebook that we all see it as.
[Reply]
And also things were said to happen in the bible that we now condemn or at the very least look down upon. Now I’m not saying we should all start having incest, but I find it very ironic that the very bible that millions and millions look to for their path to life and the afterlife, also talks about these things in not so negative of a way. I also was intrigued by what Dr. Richards said in class the other day about the sins. I think that is a major problem with the people who are really against homosexuality is that they can simply support their argument by throwing out “it’s a sin.”
[Reply]
But what Dr. Richards showed us was hey there are a lot of sins out there and nobody has lived their life, or is living their life, without committing some of these sins. I also thought this article was interesting because I had never known that there was so much sexual discussion in the bible. While I think that the authors arguing that they actually meant penis when they mention Adam’s rib was wrong, you can’t look past all the other sexual mentions in the bible such as the one person swearing an oath while holding the other man’s thigh. I’m pretty sure we’d be ok with a handshake or fist-pump these days. But I think the biggest lesson we can take from this is he who has not sinned shall cast the first stone.
[Reply]
This article is pretty amusing. I am not a religious person now but I did go to church with my parents for most of my life up until college. I used to sit and listen to the readings in the bible and I never really considered the second meanings behind a lot of the terms in the stories. It is very interesting how many sexual innuendoes are in these readings and I would think most people do not give it a second thought. I will probably never read the bible because I never have, but when I come across these stories again I will never think of them the same way.
[Reply]
I don't really consider myself very religious. I do believe that there is a god and that he has some influence on the lives of people and the way things work in the world. Yet for the most part, I don't follow any specific religion or believe in a set of rules the way devout Catholics would. I don't even follow it closely whatsoever. Because of this I don't exactly believe in the bible and all that. I think its either the greatest piece of fiction ever written or maybe it is the word of god written and delivered by christ. Since I don't really believe much of what the bible says this story doesn't come as much of a surprise to me. I think that the historians reexamining this are right. I don't think god created man, I think it was evolution, but even if he did he wouldn't create humans from the rib of a man. If he were to create more human being he already knows how we reproduce. Obviously he knows this because after all he apparently "made" us. So if he were to create another person to be Adam's companion he would probably make that other person in a way similar to the way we reproduce. That doesn't even make sense that he would create a human from a rib. It's stupid.
With all of that being said, I think it leads to many more questions about the bible and the way it was originally interpreted. I feel like if they got one part of it wrong, I am sure there are many other things that they probably could have screwed up. Just imagine how many chapters there are in the bible where words with different meanings back when they were written now were thought to mean something else. I think that scholars should start taking another look at not just this, but all of the other religious documents for all religions. People based their lives around these books thinking they were meant to be the word of god. They should at least know for sure what the writing were meant to say.
[Reply]
Like prof Richards I have also thought about sexuality in the bible. Growing up Quaker, I was encouraged from a young age to read the bibles, and was “forced” to attend Sunday school. We learned about most of the stories of the bible. This is what I thought. After reading books on scripture, I realized that I had not been told ALL of the stories. There are many tales in the bible that would go against many bible-belt’s morals. It seems so ironic that the people who take the good book to be completely literal are the same ones who protest against some of its ideals. It seems that the bible embraces sexuality, and the religious fanatics who love the bible it seem to hate it. I would really like to sit down and have a discussion with one of those people and see if they have actually read the bible. Although I guess it is easy to simply read something and not understand it. I could read a book on mechanical engineering and be no wiser. It takes a certain level of education and higher thinking to comprehend what is read.
It is also very interesting to me that right wing religious fanatics teach abstinence only. In the article, it quoted the bible when god told adam and eve to be fruitful and multiply. It seems as if god wants us to have sex and recreate. Even in the New Testament, Jesus’ closest friend was a prostitute. Many scholars actually believe Mary Magdalene wasn’t actually a prostitute, and that later Christians made this up to cover up the fact that Jesus was married. Whatever the case, in many instances in the bible sexuality is not frowned upon, but rather accepted as a part of life.
The last comment I made actually came up in our discussion group this week. I argued that we are all animals and that sex is just another basic human instinct. Some of the other members of the group were saying that sex is not influenced by our instincts, but rather by our gender roles. I agree that this helps shape our sexual “structure,” but I really do think that when it comes down to it, we are all animals. Men are hunters and we like to catch our prey. Women are supposed to be the selective ones, picking out a mate who is strong and will create healthy children. Whether we know it yet or not, I think when push comes to shove; we do what we do because it is engrained in us from birth.
So am I going to go up to my religious friends and yell TOLD YOU SO.. no. It would just be nice if the people who were doing the preaching (ie the Willard preacher) would take a minute to research the things they are talking about every single day. It is still a great book and can teach us many things, but maybe we shouldn’t base every single action we take on something that is morally questionable and a bit outdated.
[Reply]
The authors of the Bible were loosely “inspired” by God’s hands/voice/work. If I do believe in this statement, then I have to believe that the Bible, as written by the human hand, is not in itself perfect and does in fact have flaws/imperfections/ mistakes. I think the Bible, just as any other work of literary nonfiction bears truths, as well as certain misunderstandings, and most importantly there will be some exaggerations or fabrications. I consider myself a religious individual. I believe in God, I attend mass, I pray somewhat regularly. I will even go as far as to say I consider myself a good Catholic. But with that said it does not mean I have a literal or strict interpretation of the bible or what the catholic church requires from us as followers. I mean every human based entity has flaws. The Catholic church and the bible itself we formed by humans—which by definition are flawed. Humans are predictably irrational, and even though I believe Christianity and the bible itself was truly even though sometimes inexplicably inspired by God – the argument always comes down to—in my mind anyway—that religion is not going to be perfect because it was touched by human hands. I mean, the Catholic church used to see indulgences ( basically you could purchase tickets to heaven) back in the day. The Catholic church—and in turn the bible can sometimes be corrupt—but that dosent mean that the message and the meaning—the faith—behind it is any less true, or meaningful. I don’t know though. No one does. That’s why religion is such a hard concept for most people to understand. Its faith and your personal relationship with God that fuels it—not some literary text or even supposed holy institution. I personally believe the Bible is not to be taken literally—or most parts anyway. It was probably inspired by some very real events and the authors probably drew on some very real experiences but to take everything literally would be a mistake in my book or “the book.” Also, about the sexual innuendos—I don’t know how much I really buy into that. I mean there is so many interpretations of so many words and any recent book I even read today I could point to and say “Hey, look that’s a sexual innuendo,” and sometimes I’d be right and sometimes I’d be wrong. And maybe the world back then was just more sexual. It would make sense and all since they needed to reproduce to actually make the existing population what it is today. To summarize, I don’t know what I feel about this article. I’m sure there’s some truth to it but I can’t look at it in its entirety and completely agree with it without question.
[Reply]
Apparently there is someone educated enough to analyze the bible so much that he/she can clarify what they meant by rib in the story of Adam and Eve. Fuck that. I don’t believe that bullshit that someone can just go out and say they are educated enough to translate ancient texts because they learned from someone who grew up in the 20th century. What is to stop me from saying by apple they meant dick. So in my translation Eve was sucking on Satan’s dick. I can’t say that because it’s fucking ridiculous. I wish people who don’t believe in God the way a Christian was taught it would just sit down and keep their mouth shut. We get it, you don’t believe in religion the way Christians teach it, but that doesn’t mean you have to try and destroy it. Not every story in the Bible has something to do with someone getting laid. Sure some of the stories are far out there, but I believe that’s why they call it faith. People like me need to have faith in these stories because we need to have faith in something. If your telling me that having faith gets you no where well than my answer to you would be not having faith gets you no where too. So why can’t we all just shut the fuck up and accept the world for how it is. It is very rare that someone can make a huge impact on the world and whatever ass tried to retranslate the bible, has impacted the world very little. I wish for people to one day wake up and realize they make nothing of their life by trying to ruin the lives of others. It will never happen though so it’s not my problem to have to deal with. My only hope is that I can grow up in an environment of people who all see the world how I do. So for the most part I will be spending a majority of my life living alone since people are all far different than me. I’ll be able to die happy though because I don’t care what other people think because that is also something that gets people no where in their life. A lot of people think they are getting somewhere in their own life when in reality they aren’t because they have their priorities out of order. Priority numero uno is you. So lets stop worrying about others and start worrying about where our own lives are headed. Selfish? Yes, but how else are you going to get anywhere else in life if all you ever think about is how to help other people. So please people, STOP CARING WHAT OTHERS BELIEVE IN!!!!!!!
[Reply]
I see where this article is heading, but quite honestly, it is really difficult to agree with it entirely. I believe that with every book, people have different interpretations of its meanings and underlying messages. The Bible is no exception. If Tibor Krausz, the writer of the article, has fully read the Bible and interpreted many of its stories as dirty and inappropriate, it is his own opinion. Although, on one hand, I doubt that Krausz has ever fully read the Bible. Anyone who has read the Bible would agree that the things that Krausz talked about are no more than a fraction of the stories. Unless he was looking to find stuff like that, it’d be hard to read the Bible and immediately think, “This book is so inappropriate!” Just because the person reading it thinks the text might have sexual innuendo, does not mean that it actually does. The article said that “thigh” referred to the male genitalia, but who reading it would actually think that? Not I!
Plus, like others have mentioned, the Bible was written long ago, and the linguistics and logistics have changed a lot since the time it was written. Therefore, it is hard to argue to interpret the Bible literally. Sure, some of the things are arguably (and obviously) morally wrong in our standards, like Lot’s daughters raping of Lot. But is it really important to linger on that fact alone when analyzing a text like the Bible? It’s like lingering on the fact that Harry Potter tripped and fell flat on his face when he defeated Voldemort (I’m making that up, obviously, but you get the point).
I would just like to argue and point out that the people that are saying that the Bible is X-rated and inappropriate, probably have never read the Bible in its entirety. I have never met a non-Christian that has read the Bible cover to cover say to me that it was harmful and inappropriate. There are more important things in the Bible to concentrate on than to argue about the morality of the people and their deeds. So to the people agreeing with this article: read the Bible first! So top lingering on the trivial, unimportant facts and read for yourself what the Bible is actually about, thank you very much!
[Reply]
Ok, so I’m going to get real technical on this issue. I am actually going to this post to pose a question of my own based on what Sam is saying. I will give you guys a bit of how I was raised and offer my opinion on God off of that. I am basically asking if anyone who reads this feels the same way as I do, or just to simply let me know if the way I feel is even right?
So I was raised as a Catholic and my whole family firmly believes in God and all that holy. As a child I regularly attended church and went to Catholic school, but slowly, as I grew older and more independent, I stopped going to church and started to develop my own opinions about God and religion.
The reason I am asking for an opinion, or any sort of feedback on this topic is because I feel it will be helpful to me in accepting who I am. I was always afraid, and still am to this day, to bring this issue up with anyone in my family because I know what their reaction is going to be.
I firmly believe in evolution, I do not think that there was some sort of imaginary power that created everything in 7 days, its just not possible, I’d rather believe in the hard scientific facts that support our evolution from apes and how Earth actually came about.
And since we are in prime Lent season, I also do not buy into the fact that if I eat meat on Friday’s that I am going to hell. After attending Sam’s class on Tuesday and reading the passage from the Corinthians about all of the things “man shall not do”, I honestly believe that someone sat down one day, thought of a whole bunch of shit that would screw everyone over in one way or another, and write them down in a “holy” book that we still cherish today.
I mean come on, someone or some group had to write The Bible throughout a period of time since we evolved from apes, where did all of these crazy ideas come from?
Ok, so now that I’ve vented, here is where the weird part sets in that I believe makes me truly different from most others that believe in one thing or the other…
I still feel a need to pray every night to my god and all of my family members and loved one’s who have passed on. I thank them for the life that they have given my family and me and ask that they keep me safe and secure each day. I also ask that they provide me with the right tools necessary to stay on the right path.
Even stranger, I live by a saying that my grandmother always told me. “Fear God”, because throughout the bible the word fear is used in place of respect. I admire the saying so much that I even had it tattooed on my forearms…which is apparently going to send me to hell too right? We are not supposed to deface our bodies or do anything to alter them in any sort of way right?
The reason I believe in this saying so much is because, to me, it is a message of staying strong throughout life. Between the ages of 800 and 1400 A.D., the Catholic Church was a strong staple in the social structure, it basically set people straight and told them their place in life and no one ever questioned it. I think too many people are always trying to attain too much of what they cant have and are never satisfied with what they do have. So for me, the saying represents the meaning of my existence and always reminds me that I should never live outside of my means. I promised myself that I will always be thankful for what I have and I just want to live a happy life, with no overwhelming desire to be rich and famous or powerful.
I know this whole theory is really contradicting, but it is my thoughts and that is where I stand to this day, so if anyone has any comments or any suggestions please feel free to respond.
[Reply]
I guess the first question that comes to mind is what is the point of bringing this to light? Or rather why is Sam asking us to take a look at sexual innuendos in the bible when he says that he has no inclination to study them anyway. I am not overly religious and certainly do not adhere completely to my Episcopalian roots but I find it annoying that for something we are not meant to take literally anyway we are asked to look at how Eve may have been “born” just because it is sexual. I personally do not care what the direct translation is of tsela is. They are just stories for us to take meaning from about how we should live our lives. I also do not understand why it would be a big deal anyway even is tsela was originally meant to indicate Adam’s penis. I mean it would be more scientifically correct for another being to be generated from a penis anyway. It is not as if people who lived in the ancient times did not know where babies came from. Maybe I am just taking this article too personally because it always seems to be the people who claim to be agnostic or atheist that are the ones that bring up the tiny details that might uproot something. What is to gain by doing it other than having a deeper understanding of ancient languages? On the other hand of thinking about how the authors of the bible are inspired I always like to think about what I learned in high school about the gospels. How all of the writers had their own style and that it probably reflected more their lives than a spirit influencing them. If anyone is familiar with the bible they know that Luke’s gospel is particularly friendly towards women. He mentions them the most and generally softens the stories that are displayed differently in Matthew, Mark, and John. It would be great to think that the authors really draw from their experiences because it would give Bible readers a feel for the time. At the same time maybe there is a higher power that is the inspiration because why would a male (Luke) write about women and put it more in a woman’s perspective in a time when women did not have rights and probably had a lesser status than the animals? Again to me it doesn’t matter. I just don’t like to put too much stock into word play when the bible is a book I don’t take literally anyway. If Eve is made from penis or rib who really cares? How could that possibly change religion now?
[Reply]
I'm not really surprised that this is news. The church is probably the best organization out there at hiding the truth, and hearing that the bible contains lewd passages that most people don't know about doesn't surprise me. There are some people out there who follow the book very literally, and yet even those people ignore whatever passages in the bible they don't agree with. It seems to me that over the years, bibles have been printed and reprinted again and again with more ambiguous terms. There are even biblical texts that the vatican has kept from being printed in newer editions of the bible. The truth of the matter, as it appears to me, is that the bible was written to spread love and good will towards others, but over the years, after continuous manipulation from those in charge of the church, the bible has turned into something of a novelty item. Most people that I know these days have never actually picked up and read a bible. Now, I don't believe in organized religion, but I feel that everyone has the right to their own spiritual path. That being said, I think that with the sex saturated media we are all exposed to today, people could stop being less prude about some naughty innuendos in the bible. Ancient religions were chock full of deities and gods that were praised for their fertility and reproductive success. Statues of these gods can still be seen today, most with a more than impressive endowment. All of these different religions from the beginning of spirituality have influenced all religions that followed them, regardless of what people today might say. The fact that the bible talks about genitalia and sex should, if anything, be seen as impressive. This book is the most popular book of all time, and at parts its almost as risque as a Penthouse article. Not only that, but a massive religion is built around this book, which happens to describe Eve as being created from the literal bone of Adam's manhood.
The best part about this entire story is that it is based on interpretation. Some people read the bible and took deep spiritual meaning from it, while others sat around, read the bible, and i guess got turned on by how dirty it was. To each his own i suppose, and whatever message you take from the bible, i recommend taking it with a grain of salt. This book was written thousands of years ago. No one will ever know 100% for sure what the events were that caused the bible to be written and the religion it created to flourish. Nothing should be read literally in every aspect, and that goes for bible as well.
[Reply]
Even though it is a topic in which i probably should have thought about, but i guess never did till now. Growing up in a very catholic family, you obviously never question what is taought to you or look more into it. I am not so much religious now, but i still never even thought twice about sexuality in the bible. Of course though when i read this article it got my brain flowing about what could have been taken differently from the bible. Don’t get me wrong, i with out a doubt know that over the years of changing the the language over and over that some of the bibles versus could be miscontstruted. But to think that one word or a few words could change the way we look on how we read the bible and almost in a way change the past is mind blowing. what shocks me the most in this article is the part where the women may have actually cam efrom the mans penis instead of the rib. in does make a lot of sense, but its quite a reach of word tranferring but if it is true then to have the concept completely changed around is incredible. i would just love if we could prove it, and all the bible straight forward people would lose their minds. Dont get me wrong, i believe in a god and still jesus chirst but for people in todays world to think and take the bible so literal after all of these discovieres is so insanely ignorant its sickening. i believe you take the bible as something to live by as living a good life and not something to live for. if anything it just makes you realize that we are all humans in the end n we all make mistakes, but these mistakes could have led to where we are today. as Sam says, it is something written by humans and influenced by maybe a god or spirit. but even whe i am influenced i still say whats on my mind and nothing would stop me from that. also the story of god and jacob seems more realistic to me because it even says thigh which could be taken for the pelvic region and the story would even make more sense. i am defineltely going to look more into this subject by reading the uncnsored bible and see what else it has to say. i still think the bible has some valaditiy and is great for our society to live by but i would like to point out to the cult of the bible people that would they read could be something completely opposite to what they believe.
[Reply]
I liked this posting it made me laugh. Ive always thought about the absurdity of people who take the literal word for word meaning of religious texts. not that faith is wrong but it is a guide and people forget that most texts are translated and rewritten over time so meanings are lost or edited out. this post made me laugh cause Ive discussed this with friends and found that people forget that people wrote these books not the god of the religion. and so people tend to hold them to standards that are unrealistic but this post says that which Ive always thought that some things are just interpreted for the time they are read. I was raised as a follower of no religion because my family believes in finding your own path and so I don't understand the compulsion to follow a religion at all. and this has long been an argument Ive used against the hard core believers who think that the book is the way and not just the instructions on how to get to the way. the post brings up several interesting points about the interpretations of the bible such as Adams member being what was given to create eve and not a rib as Ive always heard. now I see that no matter how you look at it the writers who were themselves separated by centuries and even continents wrote to suite their own values and not what might have been the religions before they wrote their version. I loved that the misconception people have is that the book cant be wrong because it would some how destroy their religion. I just ask how can a book being wrong destroy their personal faith? isn't that then saying that they have no faith? this post I hope brings all those that believe a bit of comfort in their faith because until a god any god tells me exactly what to write I will always be skeptical of any teaching of a religion. this is not my anti religion sentiment but a caution I have seen. people use religion as a tool and a weapon. this is my belief in religion. the fact that people follow religions is beyond me, I just follow the "golden rule" as it were. I grew up with the discrimination of Catholics for being a Wicca child, or a witch by lamens standards. so I just looked at a lot of different religions and found none to be very good or useful.
[Reply]
First of all, I do not like this Adam and eve article, not because I am a religious person, but because I do not think that people should try to translate the bible literally, or even guess what it means, that’s why we have so many derived religions from Christianity such as orthodox, catholic, etc. . . . I get it Sam , you are as atheist as they come, and that’s fine, you want to see a proof that their a god and blah blah blah, well you should make your own humans with a reproduction system and cells , eyes to see, noses to breathe, and voice to speak, then you I will convert to your religion. How about next class? Is that good time for you to make humans, let me know because I can bring the cameras and we will have our own little religion that is going to be better that all the other religions that exist. I just want someone to explain how humans were created, and don not give that evolution B.S because most likely it is not true, it is all theories, all I hear is we think this happened and we think that happened, there is no proof whatsoever, the fact is does not matter how hard we try, we cannot create anything as beautiful as god’s creation, look around you, trees, animals, humans, they are flawless. No matter what you do, you cannot create anything close to its perfection, we can’t survive without water which is available in oceans all around us, we can’t survive without oxygen and that is produced by trees, is that a coincidence? I don’t think so. Doesn’t matter what religion it is, they at least believe that there is a god, but you my friend think that came out of a monkey’s ass. So what if we have 99 percent similar DNA as a chimpanzee, so what if we have similar characteristics, I am not saying that we are special because we have conscious, I seriously think that we deserve to be here as much as any other animal or bug, I just want to know since you are atheist, who do you think created us? Our body works perfect, there must be a creator, for example if your hand gets cut and starts bleeding, then your cells build another skin over it to protect you, how did that come to be, I want an explanation, why is it that you are seeking proof that there is a god when the proof is right in front of you , just go look at a mirror, I am not preaching nor am I telling you Christianity is right and Buddhism is wrong, I am just saying, who created this perfect, flawless body that we keep our “soul” in?
[Reply]
I wasn’t really raised in what anyone would consider a “religious” family, I mean my mom took me to church sporadically for a few years but in elementary school I decided that what was being preached wasn’t what I was looking for she understood and we stopped going. After that for a long time I considered that some aspects of organized religion to be… half-truths at best. I was told that everyone should be forgiven and that people were inherently good even if they didn’t know it yet, and I truly like those ideas, but then I started to notice that these people that said they believed all of those wonderful things didn’t live by them. Not just a few or some of them… almost all of them went out and during their daily lives used the beliefs that they learned from bible to judge others, to look down on them, and used them as a reason to say that they were better than people that didn’t believe the same things. Because someone believed they had the right to do what they wanted with their body or that they had the right to love whoever they want. When I realized that was what these people used their religious beliefs for, I was done with organized religion, from then on I would find my own path.
So I think that the general idea behind religion, more specifically the bible, is a good one, it’s meant to provide morals and gives someone a path when they are feeling lost. In this way it is much like the stories of the Grimm brothers. But when someone begins to interpret these stories as absolute truths and even as laws, we start to see it create more of a divide among people rather than a way to bring them together.
While I still need to go get a bible and look at the examples that the author gave, these ideas are intriguing. They also make me wonder whether or not the same type of things occur in other religious texts.
[Reply]
I have often thought about many of the points brought up in the article “Adam's Family Jewels.” Up until my junior year of high school, I attended Sunday school at my church, going every week in order to learn different things about the bible, as well as about myself and others. During my senior year, I actually helped to teach the preschool aged children from our congregation. However, before I began to teach, our Sunday school class often had very interesting conversations. For a few weeks, all we did is learn about controversial bible verses, and talk about how they made us feel. Of course, we started at the beginning, with Adam and Eve. Our main conversation topic there was about how their children would've practiced incest in order to populate the entire earth. If you think about it, there is really no way around this fact. It is also mentioned in the article, “Adam's Family Jewels.” The author wrote, “Take incest. Adam and Eve’s sons and daughters couldn’t have perpetuated the human race without it.” Both me, and my Sunday school class back home, completely agree with the article in this sense.
[Reply]
The Bible is such a sensitive topic to talk about period. No matter what side you stand on, you always walk out from a conversation about religion, especially Christianity heated and read to even give up living in this world and believing in anything supernatural power. What many people don't understand about the Bible is its validity. It is said that God appointed these men/women to write these verses and chapters that make up the Bible but with all these different versions, the King James, NIV, New American, Contemporary, etc. How are we suppose to know that those who translated it did not have any biased as to how they read the message or what they thought was the main point of the original version.
[Reply]
Let me begin by saying that although I have not read the bible in its entirety, I think I am familiar enough with it to speak on it relatively accurately. Being raised in the church, both Catholic and Anglican I have always been surrounded by the stories of the bible. When I was younger and I was given children’s bible and watered down stories of the bible I thought that the bible was a book of good and righteous people to emulate such as Joseph, Abraham, Ester and Noah. When I became older I realized that is not what the bible is actually about. It shows the story of regular, sinful people, in their historical context and honestly what I read in the article reflects little different to that. Why wouldn’t there be sexual references in the bible, there was definitely sex during that time or we wouldn’t exist. The story that God used a bone from Adam’s penis to make Eve doesn’t make any more or less sense than the story of the rib. God is all powerful and could have taken a lock of Adam’s hair to make Eve if he wanted to. It changes the story of Adam and Eve none.
Some other “sexual” things that were mentioned in the article like David circumcising the hundred Philistines and swearing oaths on your thighs and genitals should be taken in their historical context I think. Apparently as I deduced from the article, it was to display manhood to prove that he deserved King Saul’s daughter. Today men show their manhood by body building, playing sports, showing off their muscles or whatever they feel they need to do to impress a potential wife and her family. The people in the bibles were humans living in a certain time when certain things that are not socially acceptable now were. Who is to say that the things we deem socially acceptable and unacceptable are correct? Swearing an oath on your thigh or genitals is not socially acceptable now but that doesn’t make it wrong. It’s not as if the people doing it were trying to “cop a feel”. They were being genuine about what they were swearing and wanted to convey that to whomever they were swearing that oath too. I see nothing wrong with that. What is funny to me is that we look at these things and call them vulgar but walking down the beach in a thong bathing suit is acceptable to us. If we did that in biblical times we would probably be stoned to death or something to that effect.
All in all I can definitely believe that these things are true, the negative things too, such as the incest, masturbation and “wasting of seeds”, but that doesn’t change my views of the bible or my faith at all. As I learned around the age of twelve or thirteen, the bible was never meant to be something rife with righteous to emulate, but rather a documentation of the times and in those times there were sinful as well as righteous people and practices. If you thought it was then you misinterpreted it to begin with.
[Reply]
Being that I am a religious person, I found this article very interesting. The main thing religious people need to do with an article like this is to put religion aside. The approach to the Bible must be in a way to where we see it as a fictional book. This article supports every nonbeliever who can say that the Bible is man-made and could have had error when writing the stories. But in this article, the take is different. It is saying that the Bible was written the exact way it is now, but just with a different interpretation. When thinking about it, no one takes much time to think about the sexual aspects of the Bible. Most of the time it is the overall broad things in Bible stories that are sexually thought of. For example, people know stories about how David had many wives and was deceitful by committing adultery, but it has not been thought about in a way to where we see him as a man whore who slept with every woman he saw. I actually found it quite funny the way they interpreted the Adam and Eve story. If I wanted to interpret what the man believes against the typical view, I could say that God used Adam's penis as a biological method. The penis is used for reproduction, so wouldn't it make more since to have made Eve from that part of the body rather than a rib. People always say that the rib makes since to use because it is the protection for all the internal organs. It guards the heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, and more. The man is supposed to protect the woman, so the rib makes since in that way. Another interpretation is that the woman is supposed to be the support system for a man. In that way, making her out of a rib could make sense. Another thing that I hadn’t thought about is the word “testify.” We do use it in court but I hadn’t thought about its similarity to testes. Why is it that a word that relates to speaking in court is also used to describe male genitals? This is one of those everyday little things that no one takes the time to think about. It is interesting how they took different Bible stories and turned them into sexual views. My interpretation of the Bible is still the same as before. I believe people purposely try to turn the Bible’s words into things that challenge what religious Christians think. I will admit that this is a clever way to do it. How can we possible know what the article writer is stating is fact? The version of the Bible everyone knows has been translated and there is no way we can know what the ancient language actually means. We just have to trust that the people who translated the Bible are correct. I wish I could have the original document, but there’s no way I’d be able to interpret it myself unless someone else translated it into whatever they think it means. It goes that way for many societies. We have things translated so we can understand it in our language, but there’s no way of knowing whether the person who translated it is correct unless you speak with the original writers themselves.
[Reply]
Gerard Butler said it best as the lead role in the movie “Law Abiding Citizen”: it’s not what’s true; it’s what you can prove in court.
Though we’re not a courtroom, the same principle applies to the situation of lewd metaphors and sexual innuendo in the Bible. The “Adam’s Family Jewels” post by Krausz presents some intriguing theories about the meanings of certain words in the Bible, theories that had never before crossed my mind. The theories and explanations of the theories make a lot of sense. The thing is, Krausz doesn’t include any hard evidence to support the claims, so I can’t fully bring myself to believe them. They’re very convincing, and very well may be true, but because there is no proof, I’m skeptical. And that demonstrates that it’s not necessarily the truth that counts, but what can be proved. That’s what is most believable.
For instance, should Krausz’s claim the word “tsela,” traditionally translated to mean “rib,” be taken in it’s literal sense, or is it, as Krausz claims, a euphemism for “penis bone?” It’s very convincing based on the argument presented, but the bottom line is, without proof, we’ll never know for sure.
As intriguing as Krausz’s post was, what is even more interesting is how defensive the Church can become when the Scripture is challenged. What popped into my head was author Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” and the reasoning the Church provided (or didn’t provide) against Brown’s portrayal of historical fact in his book. A Christian Web site endorsed by credible ministries and churches, allaboutgod.com, attempted to convince readers Brown’s claims of fact, such as the marriage and offspring of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, were not true. Key word: attempted. Attempts weren’t good.
The site claimed because Brown’s claims were presented in a fiction book, the claims were also fiction: “Even claims that something is true, when found in a fiction book, are still fiction. If Brown had truly wanted to enlighten the world about his true nature of Jesus and the Catholic Church, he would have done so in a non-fiction setting.” The site went on to suggest Brown did this to “conjure interest” in his book and “increase sales,” or because the world he created actually does exist, but only in his mind.
Or this one: “[Brown] claims that these extra writings defined Jesus as merely a man and not divine. That is simply not true.” Nothing more said on why that “is simply not true.” How much credibility is behind claims like these? Certainly no more than is behind the claims Brown made in his book.
Brown’s claims are based primarily on testimony, not the most credible proof, but those claims were intriguing and believable. The real question is, does the fact that the Church so heavily denies Brown’s claims aid Brown’s cause in demonstrating their truth? A lack of evidence against Brown may prove just as much as concrete physical evidence for his claims. And the scary part is this: There are people who accept what the Church says as true simply because the Church says so.
[Reply]