Adam and his wife died physically after eating the Forbidden Fruit. Genesis 2:17 is Literal.

[Brian2]

Adam and his wife died *physically* after partaking of the Forbidden Fruit. Moreover, it was on that very day...

Genesis 2:17
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

• Day means Day, as in twenty-four hours or less.
• Surely Die means Surely Die, as in physical death.

As far as I know, I am the only person on the planet that believes the above verse.

Both Christians and Non-Christians alike will take away and add words to the verse to make it state something it does not.

Some examples include...

• Spiritual Death: Adam and his wife 'died Spiritually'.
• Begin to Age: The 'aging process' for Adam and his wife 'began ticking'.
• Day is a Thousand Years: Adam and his wife 'died within a thousand-year timeframe'.

Note that taking away and adding to the Word of God is of course a very big no-no, yet everyone does it with Genesis 2:17.

There is no need however, to alter the verse. Genesis 2:17 agrees with the entire Bible when taken literally.

In fact, it is the *only* way in which it does!

I have looked at a few possibilities for the meaning of Gen 2:17 and do not think that the verse is a mistake. The one that strikes me as correct at the moment is if we see God as our life and that Adam and Eve became separated from God when they ate the fruit, on that day. "Spiritual death" does not require changing the text.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Perhaps?!?!?! Irony?!?!?! Nothing to see.

A storm tide are well known but rare, and could have caused by God based on natural circumstances in the inundation of the Egyptian Army. You are still neglecting the facts of Exodus and do not need a natural explanation.

You have presented nothing of substance beyond coincidence, conjecture and speculation to support an Indus Valley cultural agenda. I have repeatedly documented the archeological, historical, cultural, linguistic, and genetic direct links of the Hebrews to the Levant and Egypt and you have failed to respond and present any equivalent evidence for you Indus Valley scenario.

There is overwhelming evidence linking Hebrews as Canaanite tribes in the Hills of Judah dating back to before 3000 BCE. There is no such evidence to link the Hebrews to the Indus Valley.

I believe we have reached a dead end in this discussion. I have provided evidence that does not seem to convince you, and you are not addressing my evidence point by point, but rather debunking the overall approach. So, let us revisit this another time.

Regarding the so-called overwhelming evidence linking Hebrews to Canaanite tribes, I think the jury is still out. I have read some research, but the evidence is quite skeletal and I am not very familiar with it, so I will leave it at that for now. Thank you for the discussion.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe we have reached a dead end in this discussion. I have provided evidence that does not seem to convince you, and you are not addressing my evidence point by point, but rather debunking the overall approach. So, let us revisit this another time.

You have not provided any evidence of actual archeological, historical, geographical, cultural nor genetic links of the Hebrews with the Indus Valley. Your argument is based a cultural bias, conjecture and speculation and vague linguistic similarities.

I responded to ever issue you brought up and read your article. There is no actual evidence of the link of the Hebrews to the Indus Valley I am willing to listen, but so far you have presented absolutely no specific evidence.

Again the overwhelming evidence establishes the Hebrews as a Canaanite tribe in the Levant to before 3000 BCE.

Regarding the so-called overwhelming evidence linking Hebrews to Canaanite tribes, I think the jury is still out. I have read some research, but the evidence is quite skeletal and I am not very familiar with it, so I will leave it at that for now. Thank you for the discussion.

If you find anything specific with evidence of a direct link of the Hebrews with the Indus Valley I am willing to listen.

There also remains problems of the various literal interpretation of aspects of the Genesis Creation scenario, and the actual existence of Adam and Even and the Garden of Eden. The speculation abounds without any specific evidence concerning the Genesis scenario and much of the Pentateuch , which is based on mythology and created history going back to Sumerian narratives recorded in the first written language cuneiform. Evolved oral legends become fixed and believed as history with the advent of writing,

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

You have not provided any evidence of actual archeological, historical, geographical, cultural nor genetic links of the Hebrews with the Indus Valley. Your argument is based a cultural bias, conjecture and speculation and vague linguistic similarities.

I responded to ever issue you brought up and read your article. There is no actual evidence of the link of the Hebrews to the Indus Valley I am willing to listen, but so far you have presented absolutely no specific evidence.

Again the overwhelming evidence establishes the Hebrews as a Canaanite tribe in the Levant to before 3000 BCE.


If you find anything specific with evidence of a direct link of the Hebrews with the Indus Valley I am willing to listen.

There also remains problems of the various literal interpretation of aspects of the Genesis Creation scenario, and the actual existence of Adam and Even and the Garden of Eden. The speculation abounds without any specific evidence concerning the Genesis scenario and much of the Pentateuch , which is based on mythology and created history going back to Sumerian narratives recorded in the first written language cuneiform. Evolved oral legends become fixed and believed as history with the advent of writing,

By repeating that there is no actual evidence of the link of the Hebrews to Indus Valley, I can say nothing. The only way for this discussion to move forward would be if you take my paper and point out a couple of paragraphs where you think the evidence is not tangible. Otherwise, I think we have to let it rest here.



I am attaching here with a paper published in the International Journal of Religion on the Garden of Eden which provides evidence for the garden to be in India.

 

[shunyadragon]

By repeating that there is no actual evidence of the link of the Hebrews to Indus Valley,

Repeating this article gets you nothing There is no historicity of the Garden of Eden and the Creations story nor Exodus. It i is mythology, and created history based on the history of the Hebrews in the Levant and Egypt.

I can say nothing.

You have said nothing of substance.

The only way for this discussion to move forward would be if you take my paper and point out a couple of paragraphs where you think the evidence is not tangible.

The only way the discussion can go forward is if you acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of the history of the Hebrews in the Levant and Egypt.

Otherwise, I think we have to let it rest here..

You have repeated this over and over and over again without responding to the overwhelming evidence of the history of the Hebrews in the Levant and Egypt.

I am attaching here with a paper published in the International Journal of Religion on the Garden of Eden which provides evidence for the garden to be in India.

The paper is meaningless, because it does not provide any objective evidence for the origin of the Hebrews from the Indus Valley and ignores the overwhelming evidence for the history of the Hebrews in the Levant and Egypt,

 

[Brian2]

The only way the discussion can go forward is if you acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of the history of the Hebrews in the Levant and Egypt.

LOL. Surely you don't mean this considering your views on the Hebrews having been in and come from Egypt.

 

[shunyadragon]

LOL. Surely you don't mean this considering your views on the Hebrews having been in and come from Egypt.

The bold above is a bit vague, No never remotely stated that, but if worded better it my reflect my view My dialogue with @Bharat Jhunjhunwala involved his belief the that Exodus is form the Indus Valley and his distorted view of the Garden of Eden and the Creationist account in Genesis.

If you read my posts I hold a strict view of the academic archeological and historical evidence concerning the history of the Hebrews, and the Pentateuch is not an accurate historical account of the Hebrews before 600 BCE.

The archeological, historical, and other evidence cited demonstrates that the Genesis Creation account is basically mythology and the Exodus account is created history after 600 BCE. The history of the Hebrews evolved from Canaanite tribes going back to before 3000 BCE, and the Hebrews and Canaanites have a long association in conflicts and relationships with Egypt. Hebrews and other Canaanites were slaves in Egypt and a result of the wars. What are misnamed as the Hyksos (not Hebrews) were Canaanites who settled in Northern Egypt and even ruled part of Egypt and at times had good relationships with Egypt and at times in conflict,

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Repeating this article gets you nothing There is no historicity of the Garden of Eden and the Creations story nor Exodus. It i is mythology, and created history based on the history of the Hebrews in the Levant and Egypt.



You have said nothing of substance.

The only way the discussion can go forward is if you acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of the history of the Hebrews in the Levant and Egypt.

You have repeated this over and over and over again without responding to the overwhelming evidence of the history of the Hebrews in the Levant and Egypt.

The paper is meaningless, because it does not provide any objective evidence for the origin of the Hebrews from the Indus Valley and ignores the overwhelming evidence for the history of the Hebrews in the Levant and Egypt,

Let it rest here.