Thoughts on the Fall of Adam

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know the fruit they were told not to eat was an apple?

That was figurative.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like talking to you, you are funny. So you agree the expression used in such phrases like "in my grandmother's day" is using the word 'day' as more than one day.

Nope. Still spinning.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is an incorrect phrase.

Evolution is a fact. We do not "evolve into death". You can disagree all that you want. You can disagree that 2 + 2 = 4. That would not change the fact.

You are an animal. An animal is a multicellular organisms that does not make its own food. Are there more than two cells that make up your body? Do you have to consume food to live? If you answered those questions yes you are an animal.

Evolution is part of how life goes. And so the death process is built in. Maybe you have a better word for the inevitably of death, but so far I haven't heard which species of animals has sexual relations with humans and produces offspring.

 

[gnostic]

I like talking to you, you are funny. So you agree the expression used in such phrases like "in my grandmother's day" is using the word 'day' as more than one day.

It is the context, Sharikind.

What is used in Genesis 2, is completely different from your grandmother’s example and from your Ben Franklin’s example. They are not the same context as the one god gave to Adam.

What you are talking about is contemporary to those people (eg grandmother or Franklin) of when they were around. And both examples are talking about the past.

If I were to say “In Jesus’ day, they couldn’t travel by motor vehicle”, you would no that in Jesus’ time, the motor engines weren’t invented. Hence, the past.

While in Genesis 2, God was talking to Adam, giving a specific warning to what would happen to Adam, should he eat the fruit. In this case, God was speaking of future of possibilities:

1. if Adam heed his warning, he would live, but if ignore the warning,
2. he would die on that day, he ate the fruit.

The future event did occur, when Eve shared the forbidden fruit with Adam. They should have died, then and there, but they didn’t.

It is not the same thing. You would understand the differences if you were paying attention on how they were talking to each other.

You examples are what people would referred to as false dichotomy. You are applying different meaning and different context that has nothing to do with god’s warning to Adam.

Do you understand what I am saying?

 

[YoursTrue]

That was figurative.

So you just made up a figurative fruit. Because there is no mention of which fruit it was.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is the context, Sharikind.

What is used in Genesis 2, is completely different from your grandmother’s example and from your Ben Franklin’s example. They are not the same context as the one god gave to Adam.

What you are talking about is contemporary to those people (eg grandmother or Franklin) of when they were around. And both examples are talking about the past.

If I were to say “In Jesus’ day, they couldn’t travel by motor vehicle”, you would no that in Jesus’ time, the motor engines weren’t invented. Hence, the past.

While in Genesis 2, God was talking to Adam, giving a specific warning to what would happen to Adam, should he eat the fruit. In this case, God was speaking of future of possibilities:

1. if Adam heed his warning, he would live, but if ignore the warning,
2. he would die on that day, he ate the fruit.

The future event did occur, when Eve shared the forbidden fruit with Adam. They should have died, then and there, but they didn’t.

It is not the same thing. You would understand the differences if you were paying attention on how they were talking to each other.

You examples are what people would referred to as false dichotomy. You are applying different meaning and different context that has nothing to do with god’s warning to Adam.

Do you understand what I am saying?

The more we talk about, the clearer it becomes. God said in the day they eat from that tree they SHALL SURELY DIE. Yes, future leading to death not life, from that day forward.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution is part of how life goes. And so the death process is built in. Maybe you have a better word for the inevitably of death, but so far I haven't heard which species of animals has sexual relations with humans and produces offspring.

Why are you still bringing up God's failure in your myth? That was God's idea, or did you not understand that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you just made up a figurative fruit. Because there is no mention of which fruit it was.

No, that is the traditional fruit used. At least in English speaking countries. Is English your first language?

 

[gnostic]

Evolution is part of how life goes. And so the death process is built in. Maybe you have a better word for the inevitably of death, but so far I haven't heard which species of animals has sexual relations with humans and produces offspring.

That last part, which I highlighted. SZ said nothing of the kind. You’re the one making false claim of things that SZ didn’t say.

You are the one who brought up other species of animals have sexual relation with human, to produce offspring, not SZ, like when you bringing up chimpanzees and humans.

You are putting words in SZ’s mouth, bringing up false argument. That’s called “attacking the straw man”.

How many more dishonest tactics are you going to use in this thread?

 

[gnostic]

The more we talk about, the clearer it becomes. God said in the day they eat from that tree they SHALL SURELY DIE. Yes, future leading to death not life, from that day forward.

But your example, is referring to past events, like with Ben Franklin.

And this future event about adam’s death, when it speak of day referred to the day he has eaten the fruit, not his death would occur 930 years later.

On the day you eat this fruit, you would die.​

That clearly meant the moment he had taken a bite of the fruit, which didn’t occur.

The serpent spoke the truth, Adam didn’t die that day. Adam died 930 years after he was banished.

There are two possible reasons why this occurred (regarding to Adam still being alive after eating the fruit):

1. either God lied and the serpent spoke the truth,
2. or God changed his mind, spared Adam from dying that day, but the serpent still spoke the truth.

You still seemed to be incapable understanding the original context of God’s warning, because like Subduction Zone have been saying, you are just “spinning”, making up excuses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That last part, which I highlighted. SZ said nothing of the kind. You’re the one making false claim of things that SZ didn’t say.

You are the one who brought up other species of animals have sexual relation with human, to produce offspring, not SZ, like when you bringing up chimpanzees and humans.

You are putting words in SZ’s mouth, bringing up false argument. That’s called “attacking the straw man”.

How many more dishonest tactics are you going to use in this thread?

Those are to be expected from creationists. Nor did she understand the verses in Genesis where God first saw if any of the animals was a "fit companion" for Adam. They weren't. That was why the separate creation of Eve was necessary. It does not explicitly say that they had sex, but it seems to be the implication that Adam at least tried.

 

[Kenny]

Hi Ken. I have been waiting in expectation for over a week now, so should I continue waiting, or should I conclude that you accept. Hence...

Actually, I tried to start the reply on multiple occasions. Dec/Jan are REALLY busy times for me and the response isn't a one liner. Haven't forgotten you at all.

So, stay tuned... I'm getting close to where the proper time investment can be applied.

 

[YoursTrue]

No but that goes to show that no one can ever truly be free

I guess true happiness would be a choice... where one is happy and sees positivity even when things aren't going their way. I don't know if true happiness can ever be attained but I think nonexistence is possibly the only way to be happy since you won't have any desires, emotions, expectations etc.

No matter how you look at it, to be free is relative. We can't fly through the air by ourselves, we can't deep sea dive without breathing equipment, etc. Freedom is relative no matter what you do.

 

[YoursTrue]

Those are to be expected from creationists. Nor did she understand the verses in Genesis where God first saw if any of the animals was a "fit companion" for Adam. They weren't. That was why the separate creation of Eve was necessary. It does not explicitly say that they had sex, but it seems to be the implication that Adam at least tried.

You are saying the first two humans evolved from [other type] animals, at just the right time to procreate more of the human kind, there were no longer hybrids from other animals. Thank you for explaining that and why the entire concept of evolution is insane. Still no offspring now from mixing human (animals, according to you) with orangutans or other animals. Somehow they stopped. (lol). I guess it just didn't continue that way biologically.

 

[YoursTrue]

Those are to be expected from creationists. Nor did she understand the verses in Genesis where God first saw if any of the animals was a "fit companion" for Adam. They weren't. That was why the separate creation of Eve was necessary. It does not explicitly say that they had sex, but it seems to be the implication that Adam at least tried.

No matter how you want to twist an expression, how again did it just so happen that a human male and female came about with opportunity to reproduce and stopped reproducing with other type animals? You are making evolution sound more and more ridiculous. You've clinched it for me. You can't explain it factually and neither can anyone else. Because it didn't happen. It's a fantasy. But thanks for the explanation, much appreciated.

 

[YoursTrue]

I understand it just fine. I am not the one spinning here.

You're the one who is telling me that Adam and Eve came from some other form of animal life. So logically you believe the evolution of mankind moved on to what is seemingly its present form. I see you guys will say anything to deny your own story. Lol. It's fantastic. And instructive.

 

[YoursTrue]

Interesting that the Bible relates that situation, doesn’t it? It reveals a candidness it seems, within its pages, many times.

It gives credence to its authenticity.

Good point.

 

[YoursTrue]

But your example, is referring to past events, like with Ben Franklin.

And this future event about adam’s death, when it speak of day referred to the day he has eaten the fruit, not his death would occur 930 years later.

On the day you eat this fruit, you would die.​

That clearly meant the moment he had taken a bite of the fruit, which didn’t occur.

The serpent spoke the truth, Adam didn’t die that day. Adam died 930 years after he was banished.

There are two possible reasons why this occurred (regarding to Adam still being alive after eating the fruit):

1. either God lied and the serpent spoke the truth,
2. or God changed his mind, spared Adam from dying that day, but the serpent still spoke the truth.

You still seemed to be incapable understanding the original context of God’s warning, because like Subduction Zone have been saying, you are just “spinning”, making up excuses.

You willfully did not understand the expression "in Ben Franklin's day." But now I am beginning to see the deliberate denying of reality and logic with you guys.

 

[YoursTrue]

@SZ- Looking over some of your comments, I see again you said you meant a "figurative" apple, as if you know why it wasn't a figurative pear.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are saying the first two humans evolved from [other type] animals, at just the right time to procreate more of the human kind, there were no longer hybrids from other animals. Thank you for explaining that and why the entire concept of evolution is insane. Still no offspring now from mixing human (animals, according to you) with orangutans or other animals. Somehow they stopped. (lol). I guess it just didn't continue that way biologically.

No I am not. That is not how evolution works. You said that. In fact I told you quite a few times there never were only two people.

Do you know how new languages arise? Latin speaking people in Spain did not wake up some day speaking Spanish. The change was very gradual with each generation speaking the same language. There was no clear cut line where you could say this generation spoke Latin and the next Spanish.