Genesis 2

[captainbryce]

Hey, we tried.

Do, or do not. There is no "try".

 

[nazz]

Do, or do not. There is no "try".

We can't make you accept it.

 

[nazz]

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.

Actually it is not even the same argument. Alter's argument is based on the construction of the verb, not the definition of "yom". He apparently accepts that "yom' in this context refers to a literal day and is explaining why they did not immediately die on the day they partook of the fruit.

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.

I'm talking about originally.

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?

Not at all.

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.

he was upset that they had become like him and wished to prevent them from becoming even more like him.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

- “Are women seen as the lower gender because they were not created from dust/dirt but instead the bone of a man?”

Hmmm...so it's better to made from dirt than a man. How sexist is that?

 

[gnostic]

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

I agree with this.

Nothing in Genesis said they were created to live forever? If they did (or were immortals), there would be no need to plant the Tree of Life in the Garden in the 1st place.

God gave them a warning that they would die if they eat the fruit on that day. They didn't die, so the serpent didn't lie. That Adam died 930 years later, mean very little.

I said so, that they were made mortals.

This is where we disagree. You are drawing a conclusion that the "day" in this verse refers to a 24 hour period.

No, I am not. 24-hour period is a man-made construct, though it is scientifically accurate.

No, I am referring to the ways most ancient people measure day as a cycle of evening and morning (or cycle of morning and evening, depending on what civilisation or culture they belonged to).

I wrote nothing of hours, because nothing in the bible showed the day being divided into hours (not as far as I can see).

In Genesis 1, God divided light into day, darkness into night, which followed one evening and one morning (dusk to dawn...to another dusk, marking the new day) to make up the first day (Genesis 1:3-5).

But any astronomer or Earth scientist can tell you we only get daylight from the Sun, but according to Genesis 1, that the Sun (moon and stars) didn't exist till the 4th day (Genesis 1:14-19). So how can you possibly have morning or daylight without the sun?

 

[sincerly]

Gen.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."

It is the death that was being stressed by the context. The tense is "imperfect" and therefore, the action is "incomplete"---and is ongoing. Therefore, the "thou shalt surely die" is an ongoing process. "in dying, ye shall surely die". Which is what the narrative/Scriptures recorded.

 

[nazz]

Gen.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."

It is the death that was being stressed by the context. The tense is "imperfect" and therefore, the action is "incomplete"---and is ongoing. Therefore, the "thou shalt surely die" is an ongoing process. "in dying, ye shall surely die". Which is what the narrative/Scriptures recorded.

If I stretch my mind open real far I can almost accept this:

They were created mortal but in good health
When they ate the fruit they began to die
God stopped them from eating from the Tree of Life to prevent them from gaining immortality

But put in context with everything else it really does not fly. It took 930 years for this process of dying to complete. Were they getting gradually weaker and sicker for hundreds of years? And just how long would they have lived had they not eaten the fruit seeing they were created mortal?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Gen.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."

It is the death that was being stressed by the context. The tense is "imperfect" and therefore, the action is "incomplete"---and is ongoing. Therefore, the "thou shalt surely die" is an ongoing process. "in dying, ye shall surely die". Which is what the narrative/Scriptures recorded.

If I stretch my mind open real far I can almost accept this:

They were created mortal but in good health
When they ate the fruit they began to die
God stopped them from eating from the Tree of Life to prevent them from gaining immortality

But put in context with everything else it really does not fly. It took 930 years for this process of dying to complete. Were they getting gradually weaker and sicker for hundreds of years? And just how long would they have lived had they not eaten the fruit seeing they were created mortal?

Hi nazz, In the context of the Bible, (a compilation of the beginnings and the ending of the narrative of mankind), those Scriptures are true and mankind's living forever was drastically cut to just less than a 1000 years initially to just over 400 years to 200 years and then to 120 years(by the grace of GOD). However many of the world's population do NOT make it to 65 years.
Neither is the world's population today any more in obedience with the instructions of GOD than were Adam and Eve. Choice is the answer and the reason. The penalty is still the same. And it is still "in -dying--ye--shall--die."

No! The scriptures say that Adam and Eve were "subject to death" when/should they eat of the tree of good and evil. They were not subject to death(would die) prior to that event.

Death was the result of their Disobedience and GOD prevented them from regaining that which the had lost by actions of their own.
God had shown them the correct way of regaining Atonement which was by the clothing them with the skin of an animal.---death and blood shed for the remission of the sins/offense.

 

[sincerly]

In Genesis 1, God divided light into day, darkness into night, which followed one evening and one morning (dusk to dawn...to another dusk, marking the new day) to make up the first day (Genesis 1:3-5).

But any astronomer or Earth scientist can tell you we only get daylight from the Sun, but according to Genesis 1, that the Sun (moon and stars) didn't exist till the 4th day (Genesis 1:14-19). So how can you possibly have morning or daylight without the sun?

Hi Gnostic, and those "any astronomer and Earth scientist" you are referring to would, also, say there is no Creator GOD and the narrative of the Creation as written in the Bible is incorrect.

The "How can" is answered by GOD in Gen.1:3, "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Just as GOD had created the "heaven and the earth". "HE spoke and it stood fast".

It wasn't time to create the sun in GOD's order of creating. That came later in the sustaining of a source for a continuing light. God is the "light " of the world.

 

[nazz]

No! The scriptures say that Adam and Eve were "subject to death" when/should they eat of the tree of good and evil. They were not subject to death(would die) prior to that event.

Then what the heck is the Tree of Life for?

 

[gnostic]

It wasn't time to create the sun in GOD's order of creating. That came later in the sustaining of a source for a continuing light. God is the "light " of the world.

That sounds even worse than Genesis 1:3-5.

Your interpretation is actually contradicting Genesis 1:3-5, did you know that?

If god is the Light, then why would god even bothering creating the light in the first place, by saying "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3), when he is already the source of the light for this world.

If god is light, then there would be no need for light to be created by god. It is contradictory; it's oxymoron. And if there is light because of god, then there would be no darkness, night or evening (Genesis 1:4-5) on Earth.

You are writing as well quoting verses from the bible, and yet you don't understand what you're reading and what you're writing because you're just making up as you go, but what you're writing looking only irrational.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Then what the heck is the Tree of Life for?

Taking the story as a myth makes more sense than all the clusters of misunderstanding that it can bring when trying to reconcile it with reality and reason.

I mean for all intents and purposes they were kicked out for "becoming like God" and the only step between them and Godhood was immortality.

 

[nazz]

Taking the story as a myth makes more sense than all the clusters of misunderstanding that it can bring when trying to reconcile it with reality and reason.

Agreed. Overanalyzing myth is like overanalyzing a film to see if the plot really makes sense or if it is full of wholes. It's just a story.

I mean for all intents and purposes they were kicked out for "becoming like God" and the only step between them and Godhood was immortality.

That seems clear to me.

 

[sincerly]

Then what the heck is the Tree of Life for?

Did GOD give life to Adam and Eve; or did the tree?

 

[Thief]

Now we come into the second instalment in this series. By the way, if you were wondering why I called it Bible Facepalm...it is because I cannot believe I am reading the bible lol.

I posted the first instalment which people suggested I consider Jewish and Christian commentary before responding I think this was a fair suggestion. So I will be doing that from now on.

Genesis 2
Adam and Eve
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2&version=NIV

My Thoughts
This chapter kind of repeats chapter 1 in more detail, more so with the creation of Adam and Eve. I read through both the Jewish and Christian commentaries which was interesting. I will provide links for these at the bottom of this post. So here are my thoughts based on all of this...

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?”

It was interesting to note that it was interpreted that the two flesh becoming one was not speaking of the physical act but more a reference to them both coming together in the form of a child.



http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165#showrashi=true
http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=1&c=2

An error.
Chapter Two is not a retelling of Chapter One.
(in all fairness I've seen a modern rewrite that makes that literal claim)

I don't read the Genesis account in that manner.
Chapter Two is an isolated event.
Chapter One is Man as a species.

 

[captainbryce]

Actually it is not even the same argument. Alter's argument is based on the construction of the verb, not the definition of "yom". He apparently accepts that "yom' in this context refers to a literal day and is explaining why they did not immediately die on the day they partook of the fruit.

I'm aware of that. And I don't dispute that multiple interpretations exist. But you seem to be deliberately characterizing my position on the word yom. I also believe that it is used "literally" throughout Genesis.

I'm talking about originally.

Why would they have been "forbidden" to eat from the Tree of Life if that's how they were expected to maintain immorality? They were expected to eat from the Tree of Life so that it might sustain them. When it was decided that they should NOT live forever, they were cut off from the tree. What part about that doesn't make sense to you?

Not at all.

Well, I think most Christians would disagree with you on that point as the plain reading of many texts within the bible seems to suggest otherwise. But we'll agree to disagree on this point.

he was upset that they had become like him and wished to prevent them from becoming even more like him.

But that's not what the scripture says. That is you drawing a conclusion that doesn't fit what's written.

 

[captainbryce]

No, I am not. 24-hour period is a man-made construct, though it is scientifically accurate.

No, I am referring to the ways most ancient people measure day as a cycle of evening and morning (or cycle of morning and evening, depending on what civilisation or culture they belonged to).

I wrote nothing of hours, because nothing in the bible showed the day being divided into hours (not as far as I can see).

Very well, then let me rephrase (since this is becoming an argument of semantics). You're making an assumption that "days" refers to each planetary rotation.

In Genesis 1, God divided light into day, darkness into night, which followed one evening and one morning (dusk to dawn...to another dusk, marking the new day) to make up the first day (Genesis 1:3-5).

You're missing my point. The word DAY refers to many different things, not just each cycle from dusk till dawn. I believe that the "day" in which Adam was said to die after eating of the fruit, was not meant as one of these cycles, but one of the other definitions of the word day.

But any astronomer or Earth scientist can tell you we only get daylight from the Sun, but according to Genesis 1, that the Sun (moon and stars) didn't exist till the 4th day (Genesis 1:14-19). So how can you possibly have morning or daylight without the sun?

Genesis 1 does NOT say that the Sun, moon and stars didn't exist until the 4th day. That is a misinterpretation of the text. The sun, moon and stars existed on day 1. And that's why light existed on day one!

 

[captainbryce]

Hi Gnostic, and those "any astronomer and Earth scientist" you are referring to would, also, say there is no Creator GOD and the narrative of the Creation as written in the Bible is incorrect.

That is a very ignorant generalization. There are many astronomers and scientists out there who do in fact believe in God and the bible.

The "How can" is answered by GOD in Gen.1:3, "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Just as GOD had created the "heaven and the earth". "HE spoke and it stood fast".

That is NOT a logical explanation. Yes God spoke the light into existence, but this light still had to have a source. If the source was NOT the sun, then what was it? Where was it coming from?

It wasn't time to create the sun in GOD's order of creating. That came later in the sustaining of a source for a continuing light. God is the "light " of the world.

No, actually the sun was created on the first day!

 

[captainbryce]

Did GOD give life to Adam and Eve; or did the tree?

God "gave" them life. The tree "sustained" the life that God gave them.

 

[outhouse]

Did GOD give life to Adam and Eve; or did the tree?

Isn't that all mythology written in allegory and metaphor to teach morals and theology?