Original Sin

[Heathen Hammer]

Where does it say "same day?" I'm not seeing it.

Where does it say 'not the same day', I'm not seeing it.

The implicit concept is that something you eat will slay you, as an immediate result.

[Later edit]
Better yet, God's own words, from Hebrew:
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.


IN THE DAY

 

[Sleeppy]

but god knew he would offer eternal life in spite of the fall...

Not to Adam's inheritance, but to reformed bodies in Christ.

 

[Sleeppy]

Where does it say 'not the same day', I'm not seeing it.

The implicit concept is that something you eat will slay you, as an immediate result.

Exactly. You set that restriction "same day," not the words.

There was no specification of when the death would occur.

 

[Sleeppy]

I am reading this exchange but as I mentioned earlier, this is irrelevant, because you are still speaking of a time BEFORE the fruit was eaten, as if they possessed understanding possible only AFTER the fruit was eaten.

You appear to be avoiding the actual issue.

You're saying that the understanding was gained from the fruit. I'm telling you it wasn't.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It's absolutely absurd, though, to try to make such a desperate distinction.

If you are presented, Sleeppy, with an edible object before you and someone else warns you not to eat it or you'll die, describe what image or manner, in your mind, in which the death you are warned of, occurs. Does it occur randomly some time in the far future, or do you believe you'll die for all intents and purposes, immediately?

You are attempting apologetics. Feel free to show us the native Hebrew of this scripture and explain how the words imply a nebulous future event rather than an immediate event.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

You're saying that the understanding was gained from the fruit. I'm telling you it wasn't.

Of course you are. But in the context of the myth you would be dead wrong.

 

[waitasec]

Not to Adam's inheritance, but to reformed bodies in Christ.

huh?
adam is going to hell?

 

[Sleeppy]

It's absolutely absurd, though, to try to make such a desperate distinction.

If you are presented, Sleeppy, with an edible object before you and someone else warns you not to eat it or you'll die, describe what image in your mind the death you are warned of, occurs. Does it occur randomly some time in the far future, or do you believe you'll die immediately?

You are attempting apologetics. Feel free to show us the native Hebrew of this scripture and explain how the words imply a nebulous future event rather than an immediate event.

You're putting your own little spin onto the text. It doesn't specify when they would die. Your thought isn't going to change the text.

 

[Sleeppy]

Of course you are. But in the context of the myth you would be dead wrong.

According to you.

huh?
adam is going to hell?

Adam went to hell. Is he there now? I don't know.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

According to you.

No need to be petulant as well as being wrong. Not according to me, according to the scripture.



But Sleeppy you're the one trying to change the text. That's what apologetics is.

Describe your thoughts about the edible object as I asked, please.

 

[Sleeppy]

But Sleeppy you're the one trying to change the text. That's what apologetics is.

Describe your thoughts about the edible object as I asked, please.

How? You're bringing up thoughts, like they change anything. A "What would you think if I said this," type of thing.

The text doesn't specify.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Did you want to set a time constraint on these too?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

How? You're bringing up thoughts, like they change anything. A "What would you think if I said this," type of thing.

The text doesn't specify.

Actually we both know what I'm doing: I am forcing you to place yourself in the same situation and then reveal to us what you would think, thereby forcing you to admit that you would, in the same situation, agree with what I am saying, rather than what you are trying to shoehorn into the tale.
And you are refusing to admit it, refusing to go through the exercise, because you realize I am right.

Did you want to set a time constraint on these too?

Did you want to add anything extra to those too? And besides, quoting Paul is irrelevant; that's not God speaking, and he misinterpreted a heck of a lot, too

 

[Sleeppy]

Actually we both know what I'm doing: I am forcing you to place yourself in the same situation and then reveal to us what you would think, thereby forcing you to admit that you would, in the same situation, agree with what I am saying, rather than what you are trying to shoehorn into the tale.
And you are refusing to admit it, refusing to go through the exercise, because you realize I am right.


Did you want to add anything extra to those too? And besides, quoting Paul is irrelevant; that's not God speaking, and he misinterpreted a heck of a lot, too

Honestly, no. You're not right. I'm also not arrogant enough to realize I'm wrong and stick to being wrong. But, it seems to me that I can't reason with you, so I'll leave you to whatever assumption you may have.

If you want to cross reference, look it up.. Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Let's be honest here. If you warn a kid about touching a hot stove burning them [a comparison so often brought up for this], do you state or infer the burn will happen immediately, or sometime in teh future? If you're presented with a poisoned apple, will it kill you when you eat it, or some years in teh future?

When Adam and Eve ate of the apple, did they gain the knowledge of Good and Evil right that instant? Or some time in the far future?

We all know the answers to these questions; and to attempt to suddenly alter this universal conclusion for one specific Bible tale, simply because this normal circumstance completely screws up the viability of the tale and shoots it to pieces, is blatantly intellectually dishonest.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm also not arrogant enough to realize I'm wrong and stick to being wrong.

Actually, you are that arrogant, as is being demonstrated.

You're not being reasonable with me, you're throwing a tantrum and insulting me, because you were wrong about something.

I find that happens a lot here.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Honestly, no. You're not right.

Then answer the thought exercise.

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Thief]

people are sinful through being humans - all to do with the ego.

Everyone's ego needs massaging - one of the ways in which we survive - however for most people the best massage comes from trampling on someone else's , I guess it makes us feel good.

this condition was inserted into the human DNA system by Satan around the time of Adam and Eve.

Really?....omg.

 

[Thief]

Let's be honest here. If you warn a kid about touching a hot stove burning them [a comparison so often brought up for this], do you state or infer the burn will happen immediately, or sometime in teh future? If you're presented with a poisoned apple, will it kill you when you eat it, or some years in teh future?

When Adam and Eve ate of the apple, did they gain the knowledge of Good and Evil right that instant? Or some time in the far future?

We all know the answers to these questions; and to attempt to suddenly alter this universal conclusion for one specific Bible tale, simply because this normal circumstance completely screws up the viability of the tale and shoots it to pieces, is blatantly intellectually dishonest.

Gotta ask....do you think Adam existed at all?

 

[Sleeppy]

Let's be honest here. If you warn a kid about touching a hot stove burning them [a comparison so often brought up for this], do you state or infer the burn will happen immediately, or sometime in teh future? If you're presented with a poisoned apple, will it kill you when you eat it, or some years in teh future?

When Adam and Eve ate of the apple, did they gain the knowledge of Good and Evil right that instant? Or some time in the far future?

We all know the answers to these questions; and to attempt to suddenly alter this universal conclusion for one specific Bible tale, simply because this normal circumstance completely screws up the viability of the tale and shoots it to pieces, is blatantly intellectually dishonest.

This is the last time I'll answer these questions from you.

Again.. Saying, "Don't touch that hot stove, or it will burn you," does not specify when. Neither does saying, "Don't eat that, or you'll get fat."

They didn't gain any knowledge. They were released to their own decisions of good and evil. What sense does it make to say we have the knowledge of good and evil, from a fruit our ancestors ate, if it's obvious we don't. If that was true, there would be no need for Moses to come down from the mountain with tablets with commandments on them.

 

[Sleeppy]

Actually, you are that arrogant, as is being demonstrated.

You're not being reasonable with me, you're throwing a tantrum and insulting me, because you were wrong about something.

I find that happens a lot here.

Wait.. When did I insult you?


..or throw a tantrum for that matter?