Thoughts on the Fall of Adam

[Subduction Zone]

Be reasonable please.
You did not write the text.
You read it to mean what you think it means.
Another reads it as they understand it.
You don't know that it means what you think it does?
However, the Bible interprets itself, because only the author can confirm what it means.
So have you considered why Creationists understand it different to you? Do you care to know why they are right, and you are wrong?

Five reasons.
1. The text says, 'In the day you eat of it, you will surely die."
That doesn't automatically mean that the speaker is saying, "You will die on this particular day." Rather @Sharikind nicely explained, so there is no need for me to repeat. Just go back and read it.

The problem is that believers cannot honestly translate this from the original without running into a problem yet there are versions that do so. The KJV is one. It clearly tells them that they would die that day. So does the New American Standard Bible:

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

the Christian Standard Bible
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die."

The Contemporary English Version
except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong. If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!"

The
Good News Translation
except the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad. You must not eat the fruit of that tree; if you do, you will die the same day."

The Holman Christian Standard Bible
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die." And quite a few others. In fact it looks like one has to cherry pick translations that do not make that claim.

2. The spokesperson, said to the man, after he ate, “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and ate from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life...."
So anyone reading the Bible with an honest humble heart, will see that the spokesperson made himself clear. So that anyone thinking he meant, that said day of Adam's life, would go, "Oh. I misunderstood."
Clear as day... In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. So he couldn't have meant what you think he did.

3. Another person can understand that Adam died the same day, nonetheless, in two ways. Spiritually - from God's point of view, and physically, since the day mentioned could also have referred to the creative day of Adam and Eve, which is not the same as a day from man's point of view. That day has not ended.
However, this one will be above your head.

4. I'm sure there were five reasons, but I think the fourth just slipped my mind, so...

Mostly excuses for choosing a version that does not make God a liar. Frankly I will go with sources where they did not have to doctor the translation.

5. Only persons who read the Bible with a sincere heart, desiring to understand it, will grasp the things that are hidden by skeptics, and Bible bashers, because God will not allow them to see it. He will let them find fault, so that they never get the truth.

Now that is a laugh. One has to believe the myths of the Bible to understand the Bible. That sounds like a claim from a Christian Apologist, also known as Liars for Jesus. This makes your book worthless if you think about it.

Does that make God immoral? No, but to those who view him as a monster, they will see him that way.
God is good, wise, and just, so he does what is right.
He knows that they are persons who hate him without just cause, only because they are selfish like the first selfish person Satan, who hates righteousness, and truth, and only want to do whatever they want, So God makes sure that no such person will get the reward of those that love him, and love right.

That seems fair to me.
Would you build a nice house, and decorate it with the finest things, and then put a whole bunch of animals - namely pigs and dogs in it? That's to me quite absurd.
God is more intelligent than we are.
That's why he even refuses to feed these animals (spiritually speaking). He knows their nature. - Matthew 7:6 . . .“Do not give what is holy to dogs nor throw your pearls before swine, so that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip you open.

I think this should be clearer to you now SZ, on Genesis 2:17.
If it is not, then I would suggest you ask yourself the question you put to me... Do you understand English?

It is amazing that you would put a much lower bar for your God to be moral than a person. Your God will okay the killing of people on a whim. On a petty bet. Any person that did that would be worse than a serial killer, which the God of the Bible is too. There is no "sin" that people have been charged with that your God is not guilty of. The question is even if he was real why would anyone worship such an immoral monster?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, you are inserting wrong ideas into the text. You seem to think you understand the Bible, but it's apparent you really don't.
The trees were not magical, Where did you read that? Scriptures please.

It is good that you said, "They did not seem to know...", but do you mean it?
It might seem that way to you, but that is not the case.

Genesis 3:2, 3, 6
2 At this the woman said to the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden.
3 But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden:. . .
6 Consequently, the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something desirable to the eyes, yes, the tree was pleasing to look at. So she began taking of its fruit and eating it. Afterward, she also gave some to her husband when he was with her, and he began eating it.

1 Timothy 2:14 . . .Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and became a transgressor.
What do you say to these.

No, I am not. I am going with how it is interpreted in many if not most versions. See my previous post. Or you can check out this link:

Genesis 2:17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die."

I got tired of copying and pasting versions that said Adam would die that day.

1 Timothy is not Genesis. It is merely another believer's take on the Genesis myth, but it looks like he was willing to throw Adam under the bus.

As to Eve in Genesis , she was convinced by the Serpent, the only one that told the truth in the myth if you remember. Please note that it was her inability to know the difference between right and wrong that enabled the Serpent to convince her. In other words, God screwed the pooch by putting a lawnmower in his living room with the keys in it and creepy Uncle Bob telling the kids how to start the mower. Plus God was supposed to be smart guy that knew what was going on. He blew it and blamed his creation.

 

[nPeace]

Once again it appears that you have not read the myth:


"Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves."

They did not even realize that they were naked before (though why it would be wrong to be naked when it was only them and the animals that Adam did not want to have sex with I have no clue).

Are you the same person that said Creationist put themselves in trouble reading the Genesis account literally? Yet here you are using a literal understanding to a an expression that most who read the Bible realize cannot - not even most likely isn't - but cannot be understood in a literal sense. Why?
They both could literally see, and they both were naked before, and the Bible clearly states: Genesis 2:25 - . . .both of them continued to be naked, the man and his wife; yet they were not ashamed., and they lived among animals that reproduced, and they were both told to do the same. So what do you think Adam would have known?
Are you being serious?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you the same person that said Creationist put themselves in trouble reading the Genesis account literally? Yet here you are using a literal understanding to a an expression that most who read the Bible realize cannot - not even most likely isn't - but cannot be understood in a literal sense. Why?
They both could literally see, and they both were naked before, and the Bible clearly states: Genesis 2:25 - . . .both of them continued to be naked, the man and his wife; yet they were not ashamed., and they lived among animals that reproduced, and they were both told to do the same. So what do you think Adam would have known?
Are you being serious?

I am trying to show you that flaws of reading the Bible literally. If you read the Bible literally then God is at fault. He screwed up. If you treat Genesis as a morality tale that was more about being steadfast in one's belief and obedience it works much better. The story is not logical, it is not consistent. And God is the bad guy for anyone that can reason clearly.

 

[nPeace]

@Subduction Zone believe what thou wilt. I'm not throwing my pearls in that direction anymore.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone believe what thou wilt. I'm not throwing my pearls in that direction anymore.

Ah yes, an attempt at a weak insult after you were shown to be wrong in all of your claims. How many times did you try to claim that I was the one that was trying to put "on that day" in the translation? You could not even admit that there are many translations that show I did not add anything. When you showed that I was wrong I admitted it. You not so much.

By the way, if you admit that you are wrong when you have been shown to be wrong they really can't hold that fact over your head. You should try it some time.

 

[YoursTrue]

So God lied. They did not die on that day. Sentenced to die is not the same as dying.

It says the day they eat from that fruit they WILL die. First they had to eat from the tree. Then if they do that, the DAY they eat from it they will die...in the future. Their bodies changed on the day they ate from that tree. They would not have died at all if they listened to (obeyed) God.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ah yes, an attempt at a weak insult after you were shown to be wrong in all of your claims. How many times did you try to claim that I was the one that was trying to put "on that day" in the translation? You could not even admit that there are many translations that show I did not add anything. When you showed that I was wrong I admitted it. You not so much.

By the way, if you admit that you are wrong when you have been shown to be wrong they really can't hold that fact over your head. You should try it some time.

Lol you didn't show any of nPeace's claims wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

A creationist would be one that tends to believe the myths of the Bible and deny reality. For example there never were only two people.

Speaking of evidence, what evidence do you have that there "never" only two people? How about "never" only one or two orangutans? Would you say there were never only two orangutans, one specifically male and the other female, but two orangutans happened to succeed whatever they evolved from at a beneficial time so they could reproduce more definite orangutans? Please produce evidence, thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Bible was often euphemistic when it came to sex and the like. For example when Jacob wrestled with God, God won because he cheated by striking Jacob in the groin. Or the verses where priests can perform a chemical abortion at times.

Lol once again. Sorry, I laugh easily. So then you believe the evolution continued as humans were producing offspring from animals, even AFTER they were humans or humanoid types? Did that ability to produce offspring from humanoid types and animals stop at a certain point because I don't see offspring from humans having relations withanimals, do you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It says the day they eat from that fruit they WILL die. First they had to eat from the tree. Then if they do that, the DAY they eat from it they will die...in the future. Their bodies changed on the day they ate from that tree. They would not have died at all if they listened to (obeyed) God.

Right, on the day that they are from the tree they were supposed to die. The did not die that day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol you didn't show any of nPeace's claims wrong.

Wrong again. But you have been having trouble understanding your own book of myths. He claimed that I changed what the Bible said. I linked several translations that showed that I did not change the wording.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Speaking of evidence, what evidence do you have that there "never" only two people? How about "never" only one or two orangutans? Would you say there were never only two orangutans, one specifically male and the other female, but two orangutans happened to succeed whatever they evolved from at a beneficial time so they could reproduce more definite orangutans? Please produce evidence, thank you.

Of course, but you will have to learn some basic science. Would you care to try to learn?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol once again. Sorry, I laugh easily. So then you believe the evolution continued as humans were producing offspring from animals, even AFTER they were humans or humanoid types? Did that ability to produce offspring from humanoid types and animals stop at a certain point because I don't see offspring from humans having relations withanimals, do you?

What!? Where did you get that from? By the way, you do not seem to realize that people are animals.

 

[nPeace]

Ah yes, an attempt at a weak insult after you were shown to be wrong in all of your claims. How many times did you try to claim that I was the one that was trying to put "on that day" in the translation? You could not even admit that there are many translations that show I did not add anything. When you showed that I was wrong I admitted it. You not so much.

By the way, if you admit that you are wrong when you have been shown to be wrong they really can't hold that fact over your head. You should try it some time.

All the translations say the same thing.
I did not look at the Good News because I recognized it as a paraphrase. I googled the first one, and the auto-search recommended the second, and both were controversial, so without even checking the text I figured they too were paraphrased, and lo and behold, when I read them, I saw that they were.

However, I don't see the purpose of a discussion that goes back and forth - "It is." "It is not." "It is." "It is not." Do you?
I mean, we are not little children.
Why continue an argument where it is clear no one will budge - especially when the Bible thumper knows he's wrong, but stubbornly refuses to admit it?

I also don't see the purpose in having a discussion, where a person uses one portion of the Bible to argue his point, and dismisses another portion that does not support his position. How is that fair?
When you did that, you shut down the discussion, in my book.
Both the Hebrew and the Greek scriptures make up the Bible.

Do you object because you must be right because you are Subduction Zone?

 

[Subduction Zone]

All the translations say the same thing.
I did not look at the Good News because I recognized it as a paraphrase. I googled the first one, and the auto-search recommended the second, and both were controversial, so without even checking the text I figured they too were paraphrased, and lo and behold, when I read them, I saw that they were.

However, I don't see the purpose of a discussion that goes back and forth - "It is." "It is not." "It is." "It is not." Do you?
I mean, we are not little children.
Why continue an argument where it is clear no one will budge - especially when the Bible thumper knows he's wrong, but stubbornly refuses to admit it?

I also don't see the purpose in having a discussion, where a person uses one portion of the Bible to argue his point, and dismisses another portion that does not support his position. How is that fair?
When you did that, you shut down the discussion, in my book.
Both the Hebrew and the Greek scriptures make up the Bible.

Do you object because you must be right because you are Subduction Zone?

None of the quotes that I used were paraphrased. Where did you get that crazy claim from? I got them from Biblehub, a Christian site that quotes from various translations of the Bible.


You kept saying that what I said was not in the Bible. Biblehub shows that they were.

 

[YoursTrue]

Be reasonable please.
You did not write the text.
You read it to mean what you think it means.
Another reads it as they understand it.
You don't know that it means what you think it does?
However, the Bible interprets itself, because only the author can confirm what it means.
So have you considered why Creationists understand it different to you? Do you care to know why they are right, and you are wrong?

Five reasons.
1. The text says, 'In the day you eat of it, you will surely die."
That doesn't automatically mean that the speaker is saying, "You will die on this particular day." Rather @Sharikind nicely explained, so there is no need for me to repeat. Just go back and read it.

2. The spokesperson, said to the man, after he ate, “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and ate from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life...."
So anyone reading the Bible with an honest humble heart, will see that the spokesperson made himself clear. So that anyone thinking he meant, that said day of Adam's life, would go, "Oh. I misunderstood."
Clear as day... In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. So he couldn't have meant what you think he did.

3. Another person can understand that Adam died the same day, nonetheless, in two ways. Spiritually - from God's point of view, and physically, since the day mentioned could also have referred to the creative day of Adam and Eve, which is not the same as a day from man's point of view. That day has not ended.
However, this one will be above your head.

4. I'm sure there were five reasons, but I think the fourth just slipped my mind, so...
5. Only persons who read the Bible with a sincere heart, desiring to understand it, will grasp the things that are hidden by skeptics, and Bible bashers, because God will not allow them to see it. He will let them find fault, so that they never get the truth.

Does that make God immoral? No, but to those who view him as a monster, they will see him that way.
God is good, wise, and just, so he does what is right.
He knows that they are persons who hate him without just cause, only because they are selfish like the first selfish person Satan, who hates righteousness, and truth, and only want to do whatever they want, So God makes sure that no such person will get the reward of those that love him, and love right.

That seems fair to me.
Would you build a nice house, and decorate it with the finest things, and then put a whole bunch of animals - namely pigs and dogs in it? That's to me quite absurd.
God is more intelligent than we are.
That's why he even refuses to feed these animals (spiritually speaking). He knows their nature. - Matthew 7:6 . . .“Do not give what is holy to dogs nor throw your pearls before swine, so that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip you open.

I think this should be clearer to you now SZ, on Genesis 2:17.
If it is not, then I would suggest you ask yourself the question you put to me... Do you understand English?

"18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; nI will makehim a helper fit for5 him.” 19 oNow out of the ground the LORD God had formed6 everybeast of the field and every bird of the heavens and pbrought them to the man to see whathe would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beastof the field. But for AdamOr the man" style="color: rgb(114, 171, 191);">7 there was not found a helper fit for him. "

As you see none of the animals was a "fit helper" for him.

The problem is that believers cannot honestly translate this from the original without running into a problem yet there are versions that do so. The KJV is one. It clearly tells them that they would die that day. So does the New American Standard Bible:

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

the Christian Standard Bible
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die."

The Contemporary English Version
except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong. If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!"

The
Good News Translation
except the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad. You must not eat the fruit of that tree; if you do, you will die the same day."

The Holman Christian Standard Bible
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die." And quite a few others. In fact it looks like one has to cherry pick translations that do not make that claim.



Mostly excuses for choosing a version that does not make God a liar. Frankly I will go with sources where they did not have to doctor the translation.



Now that is a laugh. One has to believe the myths of the Bible to understand the Bible. That sounds like a claim from a Christian Apologist, also known as Liars for Jesus. This makes your book worthless if you think about it.


It is amazing that you would put a much lower bar for your God to be moral than a person. Your God will okay the killing of people on a whim. On a petty bet. Any person that did that would be worse than a serial killer, which the God of the Bible is too. There is no "sin" that people have been charged with that your God is not guilty of. The question is even if he was real why would anyone worship such an immoral monster?

To subduction zone--Aside from other things, do you object to dying?

 

[Subduction Zone]

To subduction zone--Aside from other things, do you object to dying?

I see that you were confused. It was the Bible that had Adam finding other animals.we're not a fit partner. That makes God look rather bad.

And I do not want to die, but it is part of reality. Why ask? Wishful thinking will not change anything.

 

[YoursTrue]

None of the quotes that I used were paraphrased. Where did you get that crazy claim from? I got them from Biblehub, a Christian site that quotes from various translations of the Bible.


You kept saying that what I said was not in the Bible. Biblehub shows that they were.

Did you also see the various ways the Hebrew was used? It's also there on biblehub. Far more than your literal type interpretation as if it means they would go back to dust the same day (before the next sunrise or 24 hour day) on which they ate from that tree. Again, if someone is condemned to death by a judge and the judge says, today you will die, it does not mean that he is executed that same day. It means he is set to be executed at some point but he will stay in jail until then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you also see the various ways the Hebrew was used? It's also there on biblehub. Far more than your literal type interpretation as if it means they would go back to dust the same day (before the next sunrise or 24 hour day) on which they ate from that tree. Again, if someone is condemned to death by a judge and the judge says, today you will die, it does not mean that he is executed that same day. It means he is set to be executed at some point but he will stay in jail until then.

Yes, and the Hebrew version appears to match the interpretations that I linked. I mentioned that yesterday.

And please, a judge would never use such poor English.