Genesis 2

[nazz]

The translators of the King James were largely ignorant because the King James is a corruption of the Hebrew and Greek texts, with known translation errors that have been acknowledge by nearly all modern scholars. More to the point, translating "day" into "age" is not necessary when one recognizes that the words are synonymous. Only in contemporary English would one require a new "translation" in order to understand what the Hebrews would plainly interpret without one.

But the words are not synonymous. I don't agree that "age" is a literal translation of yom. It may be a figurative one just as it is in English when we say "back in the day" we are not talking about a literal 24 hour period. But someone who is not a native English speaker might not understand that expression and would need it expressed in their language a different way. So similarly when we translate from Hebrew to English we need to express things in a way English speakers will understand.

Again, the point is THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO. "Age" is already implied by the context of the scripture. There are many examples of the word day being used to represent a period much longer than 24 hours. You've already conceded this point, so I don't know what you are looking for. It is clearly understood to the reader that in these specific instances, the word day in fact refers to AGE, not 24 hours.

I'm looking for a logical reason (besides trying to prop up a certain theological view) why it should be read that way in that passage.

Of the 2,287 times the word yom appears in the OT in 2008 of those times it is simply translated "day" and most of these correspond to the usual sense of a 24 hour day. It is translated "time" only 64 times (which is the only translation approximating "age") and in the cases I checked it is in the plural yomim.

That's exactly what it was for. But there is a difference between "testing" someone, and "tempting" them!

And in order for it to be a real test there needs to temptation.

Correct. These facts are not in dispute!

So you are agreeing God set them up for failure???

Genesis 3:2-4
The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.

LIE!

On the contrary it was the truth! Because it appears the Serpent is interpreting "day" in the same manner I am!

Genesis 3:22
And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Exactly. They were already mortal. They were going to die anyway so what "God" said was not true. And when he cursed them for their disobedience death was not even one of the curses! He doesn't prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life as punishment rather he does so because if they did they would become even more like him! He is jealously guarding his position of superiority. This deity is the exact opposite of Jesus Christ who came to freely bestow both wisdom and eternal life.

 

[captainbryce]

But the words are not synonymous.

Oh, but they are! :yes:

Day 'n':
1. a period of twenty-four hours as a unit of time, reckoned from one midnight to the next, corresponding to a rotation of the earth on its axis. synonyms: a twenty-four-hour period, twenty-four hours

2. a particular period of the past; an era. synonyms: period, time, age, era, generation

https://www.google.com/#q=day+definition

I don't agree that "age" is a literal translation of yom.

It doesn't matter if YOU agree or not. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of Hebrew scholars DO AGREE that age is in fact a literal translation of Yom. The facts are the facts, whether you agree or not.

Yom (Hebrew) : (Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions)

1. day, time, year

a. day (as opposed to night)
b. day (24 hour period)
c. days, lifetime (plural)
d. time, period (general)
e. year
f. temporal references (today, yesterday, tomorrow)


Yom in Hebrew can literally refer to 12 hours, 24 hours, a year, or an unspecified long period of time (age/era).

It may be a figurative one just as it is in English when we say "back in the day" we are not talking about a literal 24 hour period. But someone who is not a native English speaker might not understand that expression and would need it expressed in their language a different way.

Here's the flaw in your logic: First, IF a non native English speaker didn't understand what is meant by back in the day, then it becomes their responsibility to research the English language and word usage in English, as opposed to relying on the word-for-word translation and accepting what is traditionally taught by people who are not educated in English. Second, the word Yom does NOT need to be expressed in any other way other than day, because in English day can also mean age! It's one of the principle, literal definitions of the word beyond the 24 hour reference. Look it up!

So similarly when we translate from Hebrew to English we need to express things in a way English speakers will understand.

And that's exactly what I've done!

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3563267-post71.html

Yet, when when I do what you ask, people like you tend to criticize it in an astonishing display of circular logic! The fact that Englishmen in 1611 failed to express the Hebrew in a way that modern day Americans will understand doesn't mean that their is a flaw in the Hebrew, or that the Hebrews interpreted the text in the way that 15th century Brits (and subsequently 21st century Americans) do.

I'm looking for a logical reason (besides trying to prop up a certain theological view) why it should be read that way in that passage.

Of the 2,287 times the word yom appears in the OT in 2008 of those times it is simply translated "day" and most of these correspond to the usual sense of a 24 hour day. It is translated "time" only 64 times (which is the only translation approximating "age") and in the cases I checked it is in the plural yomim.

Check again! Pay particular attention to Genesis 2:4, or perhaps Amos 5:18.

Does the Bible Say God Created the Universe in Six 24-Hour Days?

And in order for it to be a real test there needs to temptation.

I agree. And that's why God ALLOWED the serpent in the garden. It's also why he ALLOWED Satan to tempt Jesus in the desert.

So you are agreeing God set them up for failure???

Yes. :yes:

On the contrary it was the truth! Because it appears the Serpent is interpreting "day" in the same manner I am!

It doesn't matter HOW the serpent interprets anything, what matters is whether or not his statement is accurate according to how God intended the statement, and according to how Adam and Eve understood it. The serpent is the devil, intentionally seducing Eve, and deceiving them into disobeying God. So he clearly understands what God's command is, and what the punishment was, indicating that he was in fact lying to Eve. There is no discussion about days or yoms when the serpent addresses Eve. He merely tells her that she will not die as a result of eating the fruit. But Eve is in fact dead, and as scripture plainly reveals, she's dead because she ate from the tree of knowledge! The serpent said she would not die, therefore he lied. It's that simple!

Exactly. They were already mortal. They were going to die anyway so what "God" said was not true.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? God placed them in the Garden of Eden with the tree of life to sustain them forever. They were immortal so long as they continued to eat of the tree of life. They were no danger of death, so long as they had access to this tree. They were banished from the garden because they sinned. This was the cause of their eventual death! Had they not sinned, and not been cut off from the garden, they would potentially still be alive today! The tree of life was appropriately named. On what basis is your claim that they would have died anyway?

And when he cursed them for their disobedience death was not even one of the curses! He doesn't prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life as punishment rather he does so because if they did they would become even more like him!

That sounds like a very convoluted and contradictory argument. Forgetting the fact that every Apostle in the New Testament seems to argue that death WAS a curse (the last enemy to be destroyed), your interpretation of WHY God banished them is faulty. They had already become "like God" knowing good and evil. They were banished so that they could not live forever (which they would have been allowed to do had they not sinned). The bible is very consistent that the wages of sin is death!

He is jealously guarding his position of superiority.

No, because that wouldn't be required. There is no logic in God being jealous. He was ALREADY in a position of superiority and he ALWAYS would have been (whether they had been allowed to live or not). Therefore, jealously would not be called for. What he was guarding against was SINFUL people being allowed to live forever. The damage was already done; they were already "like God" in their knowledge. God wants us to have knowledge, but he certainly doesn't want us to have knowledge of evil. Nevertheless, being like God in that aspect was not a sin. If knowledge of evil was a sin, then God would have prevented future generations (ie: Cain) from having it, and made "thou shalt not learn about evil" the eleventh commandment. But he didn't! Breaking God's commandment is by definition a sin, and that is why Adam and Eve were banished from the tree of life!

This deity is the exact opposite of Jesus Christ who came to freely bestow both wisdom and eternal life.

And that's exactly what God intended for all mankind, which is why he sent Jesus Christ to us as a perfect reflection of himself.

 

[nazz]

Look we could argue the proper meaning of yom till the cows come home. But unless you are a native speaker of Hebrew or scholar of ancient Hebrew your opinion does not mean much. We already agree that yom can't mean a 24-hour day in all cases so that's a moot point. My repeated question is why we should think it doesn't mean that in that particular passage? You've failed to address this. Can we agree that the eating of the forbidden fruit occurred on a specific 24 hour day? That is was not an act that extended over an extended period of time, an "age"?

I agree. And that's why God ALLOWED the serpent in the garden. It's also why he ALLOWED Satan to tempt Jesus in the desert.

yeah but Jesus passed that test!

Yes. :yes:

Well I find that a rather odd view for a Christian. Why did God set up A&E to fail?

It doesn't matter HOW the serpent interprets anything, what matters is whether or not his statement is accurate according to how God intended the statement,

Which has not been established.

and according to how Adam and Eve understood it.

Also not established.

The serpent is the devil, intentionally seducing Eve, and deceiving them into disobeying God

In your view. In mine he is an agent of the Holy Spirit.

So he clearly understands what God's command is, and what the punishment was, indicating that he was in fact lying to Eve. There is no discussion about days or yoms when the serpent addresses Eve. He merely tells her that she will not die as a result of eating the fruit.

Which she didn't!

But Eve is in fact dead, and as scripture plainly reveals, she's dead because she ate from the tree of knowledge!

No, she is dead because she was created mortal and denied access to the Tree of Life!

How did you arrive at this conclusion? God placed them in the Garden of Eden with the tree of life to sustain them forever. They were immortal so long as they continued to eat of the tree of life. They were no danger of death, so long as they had access to this tree.

Nothing indicates they were partaking of that tree. Indeed the simple reading of the text indicates that eating just a single time would confer immortality:

He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.

The "also" there means in addition to eating from the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil.

They were banished so that they could not live forever

We can agree on that.

No, because that wouldn't be required. There is no logic in God being jealous. He was ALREADY in a position of superiority and he ALWAYS would have been (whether they had been allowed to live or not). Therefore, jealously would not be called for.

Yet he states over and over again "I am a jealous God".

What he was guarding against was SINFUL people being allowed to live forever. The damage was already done; they were already "like God" in their knowledge. God wants us to have knowledge, but he certainly doesn't want us to have knowledge of evil.

Illogical. If we cannot distinguish between good and evil we cannot choose the good.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Professing a belief in Jesus Christ does not mean that a person is a champion of religious indoctrination. I am not a school teacher, and I have certainly never equated evolution with Satan. So any attempt to lump me in with the people you carry a disdain for (presumably because they did this to you) is not fair, and you're creating a false dichotomy in doing so.

I'm not going to lump you in.

Again, FALSE DICHOTOMY. Expressing an opinion over the correct Hebrew word usage in any particular example does not equate me with someone who is suppressing your opinion in any way. Yom has at least three distinct definitions, all of which correlate to the word day. That's not an opinion, it's a fact! I've always maintained that you are entitled to your opinion. But if/when you can't justify your opinion with known facts (like I just did), it doesn't mean that I am suppressing your opinion, it just means that you have no case!

I see you aren't arguing over the meaning of yom but are sticking to the definition.

But the argument about the length of yoms is essential when it comes to establishing whether or not Genesis is consistent with science (in terms of aging the Earth). One of the principle arguments against the creation texts is that the Earth is proven to be 4.5 billion years old, and that the scripture somehow contradicts this. But only by insisting that Yom means 24 hours (something that is not even biblically justifiable) can one arrive at that conclusion. If you're willing to concede that the creation account does not contradict scientific evidence in this matter, then I'm willing to abandon any and all arguments concerning the word Yom.

I see what you are saying, although in my opinion changing the length of a yom couldn't make Genesis consistent with Science. There are too many magical elements like talking serpents, fruit that makes you wise, light that shines before the sun exists, naked people not realizing that they are naked, floods covering the entire planet, blood turning into water, etc. Science is kicked out the door before it can say 'Hello'. At the same time, perhaps if someone were to accept that 'Yom' actually did not conform to a strict interpretation of '24 hours' (which it doesn't conform to that) then -- perhaps -- but probably not -- they might change their mind and see Genesis as not conforming to Scientific principles. As a schoolteacher this topic must come up now and then for you. I remember telling my Physics and Biology teachers I believed in 'Creation Science' in high school. They were so polite and sweet about it and didn't try to tell me what to think.

But my opinion and position has always been that the fundamentalist approach is fundamentally flawed, and therefore wrong.

Well then you are some kind of a new creature. I'm getting old I suppose.

The word "literal" is thrown about here often, but I find that people here generally consider something "literal", at the expense of another "literal" possibility, thus creating a false dichotomy. For example, it's not that Yom means EITHER 24 hours OR a long period of time, it's that it literally means BOTH (and which one it means depends on the context).

Very true. Its an egg with more than one yoke.

 

[gnostic]

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!

If Genesis 2:17 mean "age" instead of "day", then the author should have written "age". If Genesis 2:17 truly meant AGE then this verse be written like this:

"...but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the AGE that you eat of it you shall die."​

No, captain. Nazz is right (in post 28), using AGE doesn't and wouldn't make sense in this verse; it take the verse out-of-context.

You wrote to nazz about another matter (about tempting), later:

I'm not interested in arguments of semantics, I'm interested in arguments of substance. Tomato/tomato!

The truth of the matter, you are actually playing semantics game with the day-age thingy, that has little to no substance whatsoever.

 

[captainbryce]

Look we could argue the proper meaning of yom till the cows come home. But unless you are a native speaker of Hebrew or scholar of ancient Hebrew your opinion does not mean much.

Here's the part you obviously don't understand: It's not MY OPINION. It's the opinion of the Hebrew Scholars. If you can find ONE Hebrew scholar that does not agree that one of the definitions of Yom is a long age, then please provide his name and credentials so that we can discuss why his opinion is the minority.

We already agree that yom can't mean a 24-hour day in all cases so that's a moot point. My repeated question is why we should think it doesn't mean that in that particular passage? You've failed to address this.

I'm sorry, but I thought that this was obvious at this point. Keep in mind that the word of God must be taken consistently throughout scripture. You cannot "ignore" what it says in one place in order to support a contrary interpretation of scripture someplace else. That's called picking and choosing! Either God's word (as a whole) is ALL TRUE, or it is ALL A LIE. If we assume it's all true, then it cannot contradict itself, and if/when it appears to contradict itself, then the flaw must be in the readers interpretation and ability to understand what he has read. That being said, let me give you the reasons why it CAN'T be 24-hours in this case.

1. God CAN'T lie:

Psalm 119:160
All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal.

Numbers 23:19
God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

Hebrews 6:17-18
17 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged

2. Satan ALWAYS lies!

John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

2 Thessalonians 2:9–10
9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

Revelation 12:9
The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

So right there, we should assume that God was telling the truth, and that the serpent was lying.

3) After Adam and Eve sinned, God banished them from the Garden of Eden and cut them off from the tree of life. God specifically states that man must not eat from the tree of life and live forever, indicating that death is part of their curse.

4) The bible says that "the wages of sin is death", and that "sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin"! If God has declared this, then it must be true, and it justifies the deaths of Adam and Eve.

5) God commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and fill the earth.

Genesis 1:28
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Therefore, this had to be accomplished before either of them could be allowed to "die". It is illogical for God to kill Adam and Eve BEFORE they even reproduce! Since God knew that their sin would occur before they had children, then he also knew that they would not die within 24 hours of eating from the tree of knowledge.

6) The fact that Yom can and does refer to periods of time longer than 24 hours, the logical assumptions is that when God says "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die", the word Yom (day) means sometime in the future. And in case there is any doubt about how Yom can be used in this way, I'd direct you to other texts in Genesis.

Genesis 2:4
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

The word used is here yom, but in this passage Yom is actually describing the period of 6 creation days. So at MINIMUM, this particular usage of the word yom is referring to 144 hours (if you choose to interpret the creation days as 24 periods). If you agree that the creation days in themselves were long periods of time, then the yom used in Genesis 2:4 is at least six times longer than those periods of time!

Based on all available evidence, and the most consistent, logical interpretation of all texts included, God never implied that Adam and Eve would die within 24 hours of eating from the tree of knowledge, only that they would die at some point "in the future". He proceeded to banish them from the tree of life, and after spawning many children (who filled the earth) they died. Everything God said was true, and nothing Satan said was true.

 

[nazz]

Here's the part you obviously don't understand: It's not MY OPINION. It's the opinion of the Hebrew Scholars.

Well so you say anyway.

I'm sorry, but I thought that this was obvious at this point. Keep in mind that the word of God must be taken consistently throughout scripture. You cannot "ignore" what it says in one place in order to support a contrary interpretation of scripture someplace else. That's called picking and choosing! Either God's word (as a whole) is ALL TRUE, or it is ALL A LIE. If we assume it's all true, then it cannot contradict itself, and if/when it appears to contradict itself, then the flaw must be in the readers interpretation and ability to understand what he has read. That being said, let me give you the reasons why it CAN'T be 24-hours in this case.

1. God CAN'T lie:

Psalm 119:160
All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal.

Numbers 23:19
God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

Hebrews 6:17-18
17 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged

2. Satan ALWAYS lies!

John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

2 Thessalonians 2:9–10
9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

Revelation 12:9
The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

So right there, we should assume that God was telling the truth, and that the serpent was lying.

3) After Adam and Eve sinned, God banished them from the Garden of Eden and cut them off from the tree of life. God specifically states that man must not eat from the tree of life and live forever, indicating that death is part of their curse.

4) The bible says that "the wages of sin is death", and that "sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin"! If God has declared this, then it must be true, and it justifies the deaths of Adam and Eve.

5) God commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and fill the earth.

Genesis 1:28
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Therefore, this had to be accomplished before either of them could be allowed to "die". It is illogical for God to kill Adam and Eve BEFORE they even reproduce! Since God knew that their sin would occur before they had children, then he also knew that they would not die within 24 hours of eating from the tree of knowledge.

6) The fact that Yom can and does refer to periods of time longer than 24 hours, the logical assumptions is that when God says "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die", the word Yom (day) means sometime in the future. And in case there is any doubt about how Yom can be used in this way, I'd direct you to other texts in Genesis.

Genesis 2:4
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

The word used is here yom, but in this passage Yom is actually describing the period of 6 creation days. So at MINIMUM, this particular usage of the word yom is referring to 144 hours (if you choose to interpret the creation days as 24 periods). If you agree that the creation days in themselves were long periods of time, then the yom used in Genesis 2:4 is at least six times longer than those periods of time!

Based on all available evidence, and the most consistent, logical interpretation of all texts included, God never implied that Adam and Eve would die within 24 hours of eating from the tree of knowledge, only that they would die at some point "in the future". He proceeded to banish them from the tree of life, and after spawning many children (who filled the earth) they died. Everything God said was true, and nothing Satan said was true.

Ah, as I suspected it is theology driving your interpretation and worse yet it is based on circular reasoning. Oh well.

 

[captainbryce]

Can we agree that the eating of the forbidden fruit occurred on a specific 24 hour day? That is was not an act that extended over an extended period of time, an "age"?

Of course.

yeah but Jesus passed that test!

Correct, and that proves that we can also pass such tests if we resist wicked temptations. But if we succumb to temptation and ultimately sin, then we will fail, just like Adam and Eve did.

Well I find that a rather odd view for a Christian. Why did God set up A&E to fail?

It was necessary for the greater good! When you look at it from a very narrow perspective (our perspective) it looks like what God allowed to happens was unfair to Adam and Eve. But when you look at the bigger picture, it absolutely had to happen in order for mankind to learn from their mistakes. Because God created man with "free will" he always had to have the choice to obey God or to disobey him. Adam and Eve choosing to sin shows the rest of mankind the results of such a choice, and why we must choose the opposite. If Adam and Eve never sinned, then one of their offspring would have, or one of their offspring in some future generation. The potential always exists for man (created with free will) to sin, so it was going to happen at some point or another. It is logical for God to set up the first humans in this scenario as an example to all others that would follow.

If God had shielded Adam and Eve in ignorance throughout their entire lives, and they and their offspring lived in paradise for countless generations, what would be the result when the future human ultimately sinned? Paradise would be destroyed not only for all the sinners who came after the first one, but for all the ones that came before as well. The world that all humans occupy would be tainted by sin, wickedness, disasters, disease, starvation and death. So even though all of the generations who lived before the first sinner had done NOTHING to warrant living in such a world (they did not have a sinful nature), they would still have to suffer along with all of the other sinners because of it. Is that fair? At least by having all humans be culpable to the sins of the first man, the curse is justified.

Remember, Adam was not the FIRST sinner, Satan was. And God allowed him to sin (and all of the other angels that chose to follow Satan) because they all had free will too. So Satan's sins (and subsequent punishment) serves as an example for all the other angels in the same way that Adam's sin and subsequent punishment serves as an example to all other humans.

Which has not been established.

Also not established.

I believe the collection of biblical evidence provided in the last post serves to establish both of these! :yes:

In your view. In mine he is an agent of the Holy Spirit.

He's BOTH. He is an agent of the Holy Spirit because God uses him (for a time). What did you say your religion was again?

No, she is dead because she was created mortal and denied access to the Tree of Life!

But WHY was she denied this access? Because she ate of the forbidden fruit!

Nothing indicates they were partaking of that tree.

It is not logical to assume that God would put this tree in the middle of the Garden, that this tree would be one of only two mentioned by name, and the expect Adam and Eve NOT to eat from it. Why else would God have put it there if Adam and Eve were not going to eat from it? That doesn't make any sense!

Indeed the simple reading of the text indicates that eating just a single time would confer immortality:

He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.

Uh, no. That is unwarranted conjecture. That's where you went from what is said to an interpretation of what is said that is not even consistent with logic. Again, God put the tree in the middle of the Garden, suggesting that Adam and Eve ate from it regularly (along with all the other trees the were allowed to eat from) as long as they were in the Garden. Only when they sin are they denied access to the tree. You already agreed that Adam and Eve were not created to be immortal! Yet clearly God DID plant the tree of life in the Garden before they sinned. Why would God plant the tree of life if Adam and Eve were NEVER meant to eat from it? He knew in advance that they were going to sin, yet he still planted the tree of life! Why would he do that? The logical assumption is that they previously ate from the tree of life (before they sinned), and were expected to continue eating from the tree in order to sustain their lives.

Yet he states over and over again "I am a jealous God".

Actually, it is stated SIX times to be exact. Yes God does state that he is "jealous", but in a completely different context. The word "jealous" as used by God is always in the context of being "angry" that humans undeservedly place their faith in false gods instead of where it belongs. Unlike human beings, when God is "jealous", it is with good reason (our sake). The worship and veneration of his own people (the Jews) is going to things that cannot save them. The "gods" that he is jealous of are not in any way "superior" (or even equal) to God's status. The bible states that he is the one and only true God, and there are none other like him. So he isn't jealous because someone else is achieving his status. He's not literally jealous of the fake gods themselves. It's simply an expression to denote anger at people putting faith in things that they shouldn't!

Illogical. If we cannot distinguish between good and evil we cannot choose the good.

Wrong, it IS logical when you realize how God created man. You see, God created man in his own likeness. That means man was created good because God is good. Scripture says that everything that God created in heaven and Earth was initially good.

Genesis 1:31
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

So Adam and Eve were good at creation (in spite of their knowledge, or lack thereof). Everything that they knew was in fact good, for they had no knowledge of evil until they ate of the tree. It was at that point which they were able to distinguish between good and evil, and at that point that they now had the ability to choose to do evil (since they became aware of it).

 

[captainbryce]

Well so you say anyway.

I do say. And if you say otherwise, I'd be happen to entertain any evidence you might wish to offer on this matter. I've already provided a Hebrew dictionary definition of the term Yom. Do you have another reference that contradicts the fact that Yom means an era/age? If you don't, then you have no case!

Ah, as I suspected it is theology driving your interpretation

That's part of what drives my interpretation. The rest of it is just plain reasoning. But the issue isn't what drives my interpretation, the issue is which interpretation is more CONSISTENT with the theology. And I think I've successfully proven that mine is the one that is!

 

[captainbryce]

I'm not going to lump you in.

I appreciate that.

I see you aren't arguing over the meaning of yom but are sticking to the definition.

Correct!

I see what you are saying, although in my opinion changing the length of a yom couldn't make Genesis consistent with Science.

All arguments that I'd be perfectly willing to entertain (in their own threads).

There are too many magical elements like talking serpents, fruit that makes you wise, light that shines before the sun exists, naked people not realizing that they are naked, floods covering the entire planet, blood turning into water, etc.

Well firstly (and to your point), in order to accept the possibility of the existence of God in the first place, one must also accept the possibility of the supernatural. There is no such thing as "magic". Magic is a term that we use when we don't understand how something works, or why something happens. "Supernatural" which literally refers to something that is beyond or above "nature" is a term we use to describe events or phenomenon that have no naturalistic cause (as we know it). But the reality is WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING about the natural world, and there are some things that we couldn't possibly hope to understand given the limitations of the human mind. Having said that, if there really was a God who is "all-powerful", then the events you describe would certainly be within his power to accomplish. Same thing regarding angels and/or Satan (also supernatural beings).

That aside, I do not believe that the bible states that light existed before the sun, or that a flood covered the entire planet. These are distortions, misapplications of the scripture as it has been translated. But I don't believe God ever intended to imply that the either of these things occurred. Again, I'm prepared to discuss why the sun existed before light (according to Genesis) as well as why the worldwide flood was not "global" (according to Genesis).

Science is kicked out the door before it can say 'Hello'. At the same time, perhaps if someone were to accept that 'Yom' actually did not conform to a strict interpretation of '24 hours' (which it doesn't conform to that) then -- perhaps -- but probably not -- they might change their mind and see Genesis as not conforming to Scientific principles. As a schoolteacher this topic must come up now and then for you. I remember telling my Physics and Biology teachers I believed in 'Creation Science' in high school. They were so polite and sweet about it and didn't try to tell me what to think.

I hope I haven't misled you into thinking that I was a "teacher". I am not.

Well then you are some kind of a new creature. I'm getting old I suppose.

I'll take that as a compliment!

 

[captainbryce]

If Genesis 2:17 mean "age" instead of "day", then the author should have written "age".

He did. He wrote "yom" which also means age/era in Hebrew!

If Genesis 2:17 truly meant AGE then this verse be written like this:

"...but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the AGE that you eat of it you shall die."​

Perhaps your argument should be that the English translators rendered that word into "age" instead of "day" to avoid confusion in modern English. And this is a valid argument, though it's unnecessary for anyone who knows how the Hebrew word can be used in such a way. Also, chronology is not important in Genesis. The exact time period, or length of time in which things occur were not relevant, only the fact that they occurred in a certain order, and that one thing was the result of something else.

The truth of the matter, you are actually playing semantics game with the day-age thingy, that has little to no substance whatsoever.

With all due respect gnostic, you simply don't know what you're talking about here. I've broken down exactly why the traditional interpretation is inconsistent and out of context (to little challenge I must say), and given extensive reasons for why my interpretation is more logical (to which nobody here has been able to refute). If you'd like to comment on a specific point of mine that is without substance, we can debate that, but it doesn't seem that you're willing to do this. So, thank you for your opinion, and if/when you ever become a biblical scholar who can put for a realistic argument about why a certain word usage makes more sense in one context than another, I'd be happy to entertain your opinion. Until then, I'm going to stick with what make sense! Cheers...

 

[nazz]

I've broken down exactly why the traditional interpretation is inconsistent and out of context (to little challenge I must say), and given extensive reasons for why my interpretation is more logical (to which nobody here has been able to refute).

 

[gnostic]

He did. He wrong "yom" which also means age/era in Hebrew!

No, he's not wrong. It is matter of context, like how it is read with all the relevant verses in the chapter. And when they are all read together, and not just a single word, yom clearly is translated to "day".

Sure, I understand that one Hebrew word may have several other definitions, but choosing the right word to translate, required that the whole verses (as well as the ones before and after the specific verse) into account.

You can't simply just put any word, willy-nilly, just because you have a different view than that of others, Christians and non-Christians.

Going back 2:17:

17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

But as "...for in the day that you eat of it you shall die", seemed to be the same as "on the day you eat the fruit, you shall die", which seemed to have the same meaning. Adam and Eve should have die, at that moment, on that day, when they took a bite. Their death would be imminent (if not immediate).

But they didn't die until some centuries later.

It is matter of context, captain.

Now if we look at when the serpent and woman (Eve) were speaking. When the serpent ask if she should die, should she eat any fruit, Eve corrected the serpent first with this first part (Genesis 3:2):

“We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden;

This was followed by God's warning about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil:

...but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.'"

This verse 3:3 along with the earlier verse 2:17, gives us indication that death was immediate or imminent, should either of them touch or eat the fruit. Verse 3:3 confirmed 2:17.

But they didn't that day. This would suggest one of several possibilities:

1. God was wrong about the deadliness of the fruit.
2. God lied about the fruit.
3. God changed his mind, let them live, but they were force to live outside of Eden.
4. They didn't die, because God had plan for them still.

Perhaps your argument should be that the English translators rendered that word into "age" instead of "day" to avoid confusion in modern English. And this is a valid argument, though it's unnecessary for anyone who knows how the Hebrew word can be used in such a way.

I was wondering, captain. Can you read Hebrew? Can you read the Masoretic Text?

We can always ask one of the Jewish members, who can read the Masoretic Text, if יוֹם yom translate to "day", "age" or "era".

I think you are confusing the days as in of indefinite period (hence age, era or epoch) in English, and I might be wrong, but the Hebrew word יוֹם doesn't mean "age" at all; I don't think as many meaning as they do in English.

I think AGE, as in period, era or epoch is תקופה.

Can any Jewish member please provide transliteration for תקופה, please?

I don't think it really matter, how many definitions yom possibly have...what really what yom best-fit in verse 2:17, and AGE doesn't fit that bill, especially when one's compare 2:17 with what Eve said in 3:3.

 

[nazz]

I think AGE, as in period, era or epoch is תקופה.

Can any Jewish member please provide transliteration for תקופה, please?

Not Jewish but Google translator says that means "period, time, era, epoch, term"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"... for on the day you eat from it, you are doomed to die." See Alter.

 

[nazz]

"... for on the day you eat from it, you are doomed to die." See Alter.

Is there another example where this verbal construction refers to a sentence of death to be carried out 930 years later?

Plus A&E were already doomed to die. They were created mortal and doomed to die is the meaning ob being mortal.

Even if we were to accept such a convoluted translation as Alter suggests, basically that the deity is saying, "On the day you eat of the tree you are doomed to die as I won't let you partake of the Tree of Life and thereby gain immortality" it really still makes no sense. For one thing they were never forbidden to eat from the Tree of Life. For another when they are cursed for their disobedience death is not one of the mentioned curses. And finally it is made clear that forbidding them from partaking of the Tree of Life is not explained as punishment but as a result of the deity's fear they will become even more like him!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Even if we were to accept such a convoluted translation as Alter suggests, ...

:beach:

 

[captainbryce]

No, he's not wrong. It is matter of context, like how it is read with all the relevant verses in the chapter. And when they are all read together, and not just a single word, yom clearly is translated to "day".

First, forgive my typo. I meant to type "wrote" not "wrong". I have since corrected that error. Second, I am in agreement with you that Yom is clearly translated to day. That's not the issue, the issue is, which definition of the word day applies in the context of the passage in question. You agree that there are multiple definitions of the word day do you not?

Sure, I understand that one Hebrew word may have several other definitions, but choosing the right word to translate, required that the whole verses (as well as the ones before and after the specific verse) into account.

You can't simply just put any word, willy-nilly, just because you have a different view than that of others, Christians and non-Christians.

Once again, this is beyond the issue. I fully agree with you on this issue and you're attacking the strawman here! I don't think you fully understand my argument here.

Going back 2:17:

But as "...for in the day that you eat of it you shall die", seemed to be the same as "on the day you eat the fruit, you shall die", which seemed to have the same meaning.

Again, I agree! :yes:

Adam and Eve should have die, at that moment, on that day, when they took a bite. Their death would be imminent (if not immediate).

This is where we disagree. You are drawing a conclusion that the "day" in this verse refers to a 24 hour period. I do not believe that this was the intent of the passage. Adam and Eve DID die in that day (900 years later).

Now if we look at when the serpent and woman (Eve) were speaking. When the serpent ask if she should die, should she eat any fruit, Eve corrected the serpent first with this first part (Genesis 3:2):


But they didn't that day.

I believe that they did.

This would suggest one of several possibilities:

1. God was wrong about the deadliness of the fruit.
2. God lied about the fruit.
3. God changed his mind, let them live, but they were force to live outside of Eden.
4. They didn't die, because God had plan for them still.

The option you are not considering is that they DID die that day. And that "day" in that sense refers to a long period of time (an era) instead of the 24 hour definition of the word day (which you are applying to this passage).

I don't think it really matter, how many definitions yom possibly have...what really what yom best-fit in verse 2:17, and AGE doesn't fit that bill, especially when one's compare 2:17 with what Eve said in 3:3.

Here is where we simply don't agree. But I'd like you to go ahead and explain WHY the day-age interpretation does not fit. Eve doesn't contradict it in her response. She simply says that they will die! Both passages agree and what tells me that age IS the correct interpretation is what God did following Adam and Eve eating from the tree. He banishes them from the Garden and specifically addresses the fact that they will not be allowed to live forever. It seems clear that the "day" in which they would die was meant to be in a particular time in the future AFTER they have reproduced. And there is nothing in scripture that contradicts that (unless you can point to something that I'm unaware of).

 

[nazz]

And there is nothing in scripture that contradicts that (unless you can point to something that I'm unaware of).

Hey, we tried.

 

[captainbryce]

Even if we were to accept such a convoluted translation as Alter suggests, basically that the deity is saying, "On the day you eat of the tree you are doomed to die as I won't let you partake of the Tree of Life and thereby gain immortality" it really still makes no sense.

Why? That's exactly the way I've always taken it. I believe that's the only interpretation that makes sense. Any other way to look at it requires one to throw the entire scripture out.

For one thing they were never forbidden to eat from the Tree of Life.

Uh, what? :areyoucra

Genesis 3:22-24
22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

For another when they are cursed for their disobedience death is not one of the mentioned curses.

Neither is sickness or disease, however it is generally understood and taught by the apostles that all of these things (along with death) exist as a condition of sin. Why did God have to specifically mention that when the very next thing he did was prevent them from eating of the tree of life? It's seems self explanatory at that point that death is a condition of sin does it not?

And finally it is made clear that forbidding them from partaking of the Tree of Life is not explained as punishment but as a result of the deity's fear they will become even more like him!

But I've already debunked that (to which you have yet to provide an answer). The passage in question says that they have ALREADY become like God (knowing good and evil), so that wasn't a fear that needed to be addressed. Preventing them from living forever is what needed to be addressed, and that is why death befell them.