Wouldn't it be unfair of God?

[danieldemol]

Great post!
All Jehovah God said was, "if you eat from the (one) tree, you will die."
That statement, alone, would require an explanation, if they didn't know what "to die" means. Apparently, they did.
How? Because they had seen animals die. It's the only logical explanation as to God's brevity regarding such an important & ubiquitous topic.

A & E, as God's son & daughter, were designed to live forever, i.e., never die. (All they needed to do, was remain obedient.)

This concept is easily gleaned from the fact, revealed in Scripture, that the immediate generations of their offspring lived such long lives, diminishing gradually through each successive generation.

That indicates a genetic trait. Interesting, eh?

Take care, my cousin

Remind me, in your version of the A & E story are Adam and Eve physically the same as animals?
And does God do magical intervention?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Remind me, in your version of the A & E story are Adam and Eve physically the same as animals?
And does God do magical intervention?

I don’t understand what you’re asking...”physically the same as animals”?

And what “magical intervention” in the Eden story.

 

[danieldemol]

I don’t understand what you’re asking...”physically the same as animals”?

And what “magical intervention” in the Eden story.

I'm asking if Adam and Eve are made of the same chemicals animals are made of in the pre-forbidden fruit story?

And I'm not telling you if God does magical intervention in your story, its your story, you tell me if God magically intervenes in it or not

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I'm asking if Adam and Eve are made of the same chemicals animals are made of in the pre-forbidden fruit story?

Yes.

And I'm not telling you if God does magical intervention in your story, its your story, you tell me if God magically intervenes in it or not

In the Garden? No.

 

[danieldemol]

Yes.

In the Garden? No.

So if they are made of the same chemicals as the animals why are the animals subject to decomposition and death but not the humans.
In the absence of God magic it doesn't make sense in my opinion.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So if they are made of the same chemicals as the animals why are the animals subject to decomposition and death but not the humans.

Humans are subject to decomposition and death. Just like animals. — Ecclesiastes 3:19-20
JW’s have always taught that.

The only difference, is that humans will have a resurrection. Though they won’t be resurrected back to this old System. They will come back to life during Jesus’ rulership over the Earth.

 

[danieldemol]

Humans are subject to decomposition and death. Just like animals. — Ecclesiastes 3:19-20
JW’s have always taught that.

If humans *were* subject to decomposition and death prior to the forbidden fruit then in my opinion in the absence of God magic Adam and Eve were going to die whether or not they ate the forbidden fruit.

 

[LightofTruth]

If humans *were* subject to decomposition and death prior to the forbidden fruit then in my opinion in the absence of God magic Adam and Eve were going to die whether or not they ate the forbidden fruit.

When created, Adam's nature was earthy. Which means he was created from the earth. That nature has to be changed in order to have eternal life. Paul explains by saying that those in the resurrection will have a spiritual body as opposed to the natural earthy body like Adam had when he was created.
Adam could have lived as long as he did not sin. And if he did not sin, he may have had the opportunity to eat of the tree of life and live forever having his nature changed.

However, if Adam's nature had been changed by not sinning, then he could not have had children because the nature of the spiritual body does not permit having children.

 

[Clear]

I like @Israel Khans' point regarding literature representing an incomplete version of events

But it is obvious, if it is true, that the majority of the lives of the people in the Bible and the discussions that they had is not recorded.

It has long been noted that if one simply read the words of Jesus that are recorded in the bible, it would only take minutes. Obviously Jesus said and did many, many things that were simply not recorded in the texts handed down to us. John 21:25 tells us as much when it says : "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written".

IF there is much from Jesus' (and virtually all other individuals in the biblical text...) life that was not recorded, why should the O.P. assume Adam was not told many more things that are simply not recorded? For example, in early Judeo-Christian literature and literary traditions, Adam IS told of his death, of a messiah to come and of a future resurrection.

Clear
δρσεσιω

 

[LightofTruth]

I like @Israel Khans' point regarding literature representing an incomplete version of events



It has long been noted that if one simply read the words of Jesus that are recorded in the bible, it would only take minutes. Obviously Jesus said and did many, many things that were simply not recorded in the texts handed down to us. John 21:25 tells us as much when it says : "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written".

IF there is much from Jesus' (and virtually all other individuals in the biblical text...) life that was not recorded, why should the O.P. assume Adam was not told many more things that are simply not recorded? For example, in early Judeo-Christian literature and literary traditions, Adam IS told of his death, of a messiah to come and of a future resurrection.

Clear
δρσεσιω

I accept the Holy Scriptures to be the inspired word of God. I don't go outside of them looking to refute what they say.

Was Adam told he had an immortal soul that would suffer torment for all eternity?

Maybe.

Can doctrine of Scripture be base on maybe's?

I don't think so.

 

[Clear]

@Light of truth said : "I don't go outside of them looking to refute what they say." (post #30)

You are confused and this specific application is irrational and irrelevant.


THE COMPLAINT THAT UNRECORDED SAYING AND ACTIONS OF JESUS (OR OTHERS) WOULD "REFUTE" SCRIPTURES

The scriptures TELL US that "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written" John 21:25

It is irrational to assume that that these unwritten "things done and things said" by Jesus (or any one else mentioned in the biblical text) would "refute" what was said in the bible, but rather it is probable that greater and more precise records of what Jesus said and did might clarify and support the biblical text and early theology. Historically, MORE data is always better than LESS data.

Clear
φιτζτωω

 

[night912]

Great post!
All Jehovah God said was, "if you eat from the (one) tree, you will die."
That statement, alone, would require an explanation, if they didn't know what "to die" means. Apparently, they did.
How? Because they had seen animals die. It's the only logical explanation as to God's brevity regarding such an important & ubiquitous topic.

That's pure speculation. It's illogical to make an assertion and declare it to be true with no evidence to support it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That's pure speculation. It's illogical to make an assertion and declare it to be true with no evidence to support it.

But there is evidence: the lack of explanation!

Say I was the loving Creator, and I told you, "Eat from the tree, and you're going to splafinitz." If I didn't explain what 'splafinitz' is, as the text reveals, I must be aware that you know what 'splafinitz' is. How? The logic follows what my previous post stated. They knew of death, from observing the animals dying.

 

[LightofTruth]

@Light of truth said : "I don't go outside of them looking to refute what they say." (post #30)

You are confused and this specific application is irrational and irrelevant.


THE COMPLAINT THAT UNRECORDED SAYING AND ACTIONS OF JESUS (OR OTHERS) WOULD "REFUTE" SCRIPTURES

The scriptures TELL US that "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written" John 21:25

It is irrational to assume that that these unwritten "things done and things said" by Jesus (or any one else mentioned in the biblical text) would "refute" what was said in the bible, but rather it is probable that greater and more precise records of what Jesus said and did might clarify and support the biblical text and early theology. Historically, MORE data is always better than LESS data.

Clear
φιτζτωω

How does that relate to the OP?

 

[Clear]

Hi @LightofTruth

regarding your question in post #34 about how something relates to the O.P..

Can you be more specific in your question?

Are you asking about the principle where : More historical information would help clarify history?
Are you asking about the principle where : Sacred literature doesn't record all that happened anciently?
Are you asking about the principle where : Lack of historical information creates gaps in knowledge of history?
Are you asking about why I claimed that knowing more of the history rather than less would be helpful historically?
Are you asking about Johns claim in the New Testament that Jesus said and did many things that were not recorded in the literature?
Are you asking about the principle where : Since much of this history is unrecorded, this means there is much unknown? (john 21:25)
ETC.
Can you be specific in what you are asking?

Clear
φιακνεω

 

[Colt]

I think it would be unfair of God to NOT tell Adam he had an immortal soul that would either go to be with God or go to eternal torment if Adam chose to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or not.

To be fair, God could have told Adam that by his eating of the tree he would go to eternal torment.

But God did not tell Adam that. Instead He told Adam that he would surely die and return to the dust he was made from.

Which is exactly what happened.

So, why is that many Christians tell us that Adam's soul is either with God and happy, or suffering eternal torment in misery?

Don't you think it would have been unfair of God to not tell Adam his destiny if Adam did indeed possess an immortal soul?

Because eternal torment in a hell place is a human fabrication. Adam and Eve repented and were saved.

Eve first sinned, then Adam, but neither died right away, rather it took a long time because they lost the use of the "tree of life" which formerly allowed them to live on indefinitely.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Of course we can't pick at the story too much in a literal sense because there we end up w/ a lot of contradictions (e.g. Cain was banished yet he himself had kids, which means he married, which means there were other women around outside the first family).

This story works a lot better when see it w/ a spiritual eye & ponder the wisdom.

 

[thomas t]

Of course we can't pick at the story too much in a literal sense because there we end up w/ a lot of contradictions (e.g. Cain was banished yet he himself had kids, which means he married, which means there were other women around outside the first family).

This story works a lot better when see it w/ a spiritual eye & ponder the wisdom.

I think the story works perfectly well in a literal sense.
God could have created other human beings after he made Eve, for instance.
It is possible for a Creator God to have done so, I think.
There is no obigation for the Bible to report literally all things that God ever did, in my opinion.

 

[night912]

But there is evidence: the lack of explanation!

Say I was the loving Creator, and I told you, "Eat from the tree, and you're going to splafinitz." If I didn't explain what 'splafinitz' is, as the text reveals, I must be aware that you know what 'splafinitz' is. How? The logic follows what my previous post stated. They knew of death, from observing the animals dying.

But I don't know what "splafinitz" is. You assumed that I know what that is.

Lack of explanation is not evidence. An explanation would be the evidence.

Logic =/= no explanation, therefore evidence
That's a logical fallacy, argument from ignorance.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But I don't know what "splafinitz" is. You assumed that I know what that is.

Exactly! That's the entire point.

And Jehovah God doesn't assume, He knows what we are aware of.
IOW, A&E knew what death was, from observing the animals. When they died, there was no more activity; they simply began to decompose.

Same w/ us. Ecclesiastes 9:5, and Ecclesiastes 3:19-20, reveal that.

Psalm 115:17 It is not the dead who praise the LORD, nor any who descend into silence.

But most people aren't taught that: they are told "when a person dies, they go on living 'in another realm.' "

But @ John 5:28-29, what did Jesus say? He spoke of a future(John 6:44) Resurrection for "both the righteous and the unrighteous." And from where do the dead come? From 'another realm'? No...'from their Memorial Tombs'!

I hope you have a good day, my cousin.