Genesis 2

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

God didn't lie because "day" also means "age"! Only by insisting that ONE specific definition of the word day be applied to this passage can one make God's words into a lie. A common mistake among atheists!

I suppose you mean that the word day can also refer to age and it can be interpreted as such and that not the actual word day also means age.

So I guess your argument here is that it is possible that when the word day was used it was talking about an age, and not a day. So to you it would fit well with current scientific consensus?

 

[nazz]

Well you already know what I think

 

[nazz]

If it repeats 1 in more detail then there are conflicts such as plants coming after humans.

They don't though:

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
​

The order is uncultivated plants (watered by a mist), then humans, then the planting of the garden.

 

[nazz]

The felt no shame because they were perfect, Spiritual beings. And then they tasted of the tree and became mortal. Mortality comes with some fun stuff, Like shame.

To be honest, I have no idea why women are seen as the lower gender. I suppose it came from their lack of physical strength, Since this prejudice came from a time when might was right.

He knew what would happen, But that isn't the point. The point was, It was the only thing God said not to do, And they went ahead and did it.

He put the tree there, I think, To give them choice. So that they could choose to love God, To obey him.

IOW, the deity tempted man. Yet...

Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man

 

[nazz]

I view Genesis 1 creation and Genesis 2 creation as two separate creation stories.

In Genesis 1, animals were created before humans, but in Genesis 2, the order is reverse, Adam first, then animals, followed by Eve.

I don't the text implies that. In Genesis 2 the deity merely creates animals to present to Adam. Think of the Garden as a microcosm in a larger world.

 

[nazz]

First of all, Genesis 2:17 goes:


This clearly state they would die on that day when they eat the fruit. Nothing in Genesis 2:15-17 say that they would die years later, which in Adam's case, 930 years later.

There is a huge difference between dying hundreds of years later and dying the instance they eat the fruit.

So in essence, god did lie...or alternatively, god changed his mind in making them die immediately, upon eating the fruit.

Second, reading your post, it would seem to indicate they were immortal before they ate the forbidden the fruit.

That's not the case, and it is common mistake that Christians make.

Even if they didn't eat the forbidden fruit, they still wouldn't have live forever, and nothing to indicate they were immortals. Adam and Eve were always mortals.

They would have only lived forever if they ate the fruit from the Tree of Life, but they didn't do so in Genesis 2 & 3. So they were created, by default, as mortals. Only the fruit from the Tree of Life would allow to live forever. And god drove them out of Eden, and barred them from eating from the Tree of Life.

Exactly.

The question looms in my mind why didn't they eat of the Tree of Life??? Bet they regretted that one!

Of course it's just mythology trying to explain why humans die.

 

[nazz]

Hmm, OK, God lied. What would have been his motive?

Are you a parent? Ever threaten a child with a punishment you did not intend to carry out?

Anyway this is a clue that the "God" spoken of in Genesis is not the true God.

Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie

 

[nazz]

God didn't lie because "day" also means "age"! Only by insisting that ONE specific definition of the word day be applied to this passage can one make God's words into a lie. A common mistake among atheists!

In the context of that passage "age" would make no sense at all.

 

[greentwiga]

They don't though:

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
​

The order is uncultivated plants (watered by a mist), then humans, then the planting of the garden.

True, Gen 2 records about plants that humans planted, domesticated plants, plants that need tilling or cultivating.

 

[captainbryce]

In the context of that passage "age" would make no sense at all.

Why not? Please be specific (if that capability is within you).

 

[Brickjectivity]

There isn’t really a lot that can be said about this chapter other than a few questions that were raised in my mind such as;
- “Why would god place a tree in the garden only to forbid them from touching it?”
- “Didn’t god lie about what would happen if they ate from the forbidden tree? Or was it that he didn’t know what would happen? If he didn’t know, doesn’t this go against the understanding of what god is”
- “Are women seen as the lower gender because they were not created from dust/dirt but instead the bone of a man?”
- “They felt no shame? Does that indicate that they should have felt shame or was it a setup for when they eat the fruit?”

'Beresheit' means beginning but the beginning of what? It doesn't say, but people infer for themselves what it is the beginning of. Is it the beginning of the Heavens and the Earth? Somehow it doesn't seem like the details of the world matter as much as the style and order in the story. It also doesn't say whom the book is written 'To'. Is it to you and me? Is it to grownups or children? Is it to girls and boys or only to boys? You find value in Genesis only if you can apply it, so maybe you can't find value in it. Ask yourself "To what can it be applied?" I personally find the existence of the serpent in the midst of the otherwise 'Perfect' garden to represent many things very well.

 

[Muffled]

Exactly.

The question looms in my mind why didn't they eat of the Tree of Life??? Bet they regretted that one!

Of course it's just mythology trying to explain why humans die.

I believe they may have been doing so since it was not forbidden to do so.

i believe that is unjustified speculation.

I don't believe that it does so. The latest scientific discoveries suggest that we have been genetically engineered to die. For those who believe in God as creator, then we believe it is He who does the genetic engineering and that He can also change it to genes that do not require death. So when He says that He will give us eternal life it is easily believable.

 

[nazz]

Why not? Please be specific (if that capability is within you).

"In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die"

"Day" here refers to the day in which the fruit is eaten. IOW, a specific day. To say it means "In the age that you eat of it you shall surely die" would imply eating of the tree over an indefinite period of time or at least a time period in the far future. This is supposedly a brand new world; there are not yet any "ages".

 

[Thana]

IOW, the deity tempted man. Yet...

Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man

He didn't not in the sense you imply,
He gave them choice, Not temptation.
The serpent tempted Eve, That was true temptation.

 

[nazz]

I believe they may have been doing so since it was not forbidden to do so.

That is contradicted by the text:

Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”

i believe that is unjustified speculation.

Seeing that scientific evidence contrradicts the account and there are many other similar mythological accounts I'd say it is quite justifiable to treat it as such.

I don't believe that it does so.

I don't either. That's the point.

 

[outhouse]

i believe that is unjustified speculation.

.

You can believe what you will, but that doesnt place certain aspects of Genesis outside mythology and allegory according to every credible scholars and historian, and all of science. Pretty much means all of reality dictates it is mythology in my opinion.

 

[captainbryce]

"In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die"

"Day" here refers to the day in which the fruit is eaten.

I agree. But that isn't in dispute here. The question is, which definition of the word DAY applies in this particular instance? There are many examples in the bible where the word "day" does NOT refer to 24 hours. You are suggesting that in this passage, the word day must refer to a 24 hour period (I presume). I'm asking on what basis you are drawing this conclusion.

To say it means "In the age that you eat of it you shall surely die" would imply eating of the tree over an indefinite period of time or at least a time period in the far future.

No, that's not what it would imply. It would imply simply that a some point in an unspecified future (in that age), they will in fact DIE. The time period specifies when they will die in relation to when they eat, not the period of time that they need to be eating. They only have to eat from the tree ONCE at some point during that age; this guarantees their death at some point during that age. We know that God never intended for them to die in that 24 hour period because they had not yet reproduced (which was his original commandment). It would make no sense for him to kill them within 24 hours; therefore it is not logical to assume that the "in the day you eat" comment refers to a 24 hour period. But it does make sense that he condemned them to death at some unspecified time in the future (which is a valid Hebrew definition of the word day).

This is supposedly a brand new world; there are not yet any "ages".

According to whom exactly? The bible certainly doesn't say this. So where are you getting this supposed information come from exactly?

 

[captainbryce]

IOW, the deity tempted man. Yet...

Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man

Warning someone NOT to do something, and threatening them with death if they fail to comply is the OPPOSITE of "tempting" them. God provided them a choice (to either obey, or to disobey). Choice is not temptation! Unless there is some concerted effort to entice an individual to do something that they would not otherwise consider, you cannot claim that God "tempted" them to do anything. :sarcastic

 

[nazz]

Warning someone NOT to do something, and threatening them with death if they fail to comply is the OPPOSITE of "tempting" them. God provided them a choice (to either obey, or to disobey). Choice is not temptation! Unless there is some concerted effort to entice an individual to do something that they would not otherwise consider, you cannot claim that God "tempted" them to do anything. :sarcastic

I don't think "God" tempted anyone. I am talking about a creator deity in a mythological tale. THAT character most certainly DID tempt Adam and Eve by placing the tree in the Garden (or at least situating the Garden to include the tree).

 

[nazz]

I agree. But that isn't in dispute here. The question is, which definition of the word DAY applies in this particular instance? There are many examples in the bible where the word "day" does NOT refer to 24 hours. You are suggesting that in this passage, the word day must refer to a 24 hour period (I presume). I'm asking on what basis you are drawing this conclusion.

No, that's not what it would imply. It would imply simply that a some point in an unspecified future (in that age), they will in fact DIE. The time period specifies when they will die in relation to when they eat, not the period of time that they need to be eating. They only have to eat from the tree ONCE at some point during that age; this guarantees their death at some point during that age. We know that God never intended for them to die in that 24 hour period because they had not yet reproduced (which was his original commandment). It would make no sense for him to kill them within 24 hours; therefore it is not logical to assume that the "in the day you eat" comment refers to a 24 hour period. But it does make sense that he condemned them to death at some unspecified time in the future (which is a valid Hebrew definition of the word day).

According to whom exactly? The bible certainly doesn't say this. So where are you getting this supposed information come from exactly?

You are simply engaging in hermeneutic gymnastics. If I warn you that the day you do something you will die I am not talking about some "age" .