My Genesis Challenge

AV1611VET said:
If Adam would have died physically that day, would we be having this conversation?
Click to expand...
YES!!!!!

That is what everyone is failing to see.

There is a reason God called Jesus the 'Last Adam'. There was a series of them.

The First Adam died. Go back and study Genesis without bias and pre-conceived notions.

I can help you if you need. Again, the Truth may be too difficult for you to receive. These things take time to process.
 
Base12 said:
Go back and study Genesis without bias and pre-conceived notions.
Click to expand...
If you read

"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"

without preconceived notions, you come away with the conclusion

"Adam eats fruit, dies - physically - on the same 24 hr day."

The preconception "Yahweh cannot be wrong or lie" has to be in place before one can drum up "it meant die spiritually", or "it was a Yahweh-day".
 
Base12 said:
That is precisely what happened.
Click to expand...

This your belief, but whether you are correct remains to be seen.

Romans 5:12-14

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for [h]until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a [i]type of Him who was to come.
 
AV1611VET said:
On the other hand, calling it a "contradiction," or saying, "God lied" to Adam isn't the way to handle it, either.

As I have pointed out:
  1. God punished Adam for eating the forbidden fruit, and Adam accepted that punishment.
  2. Within the context of Adam's punishment, God made it clear Adam would live to see another day.
  3. Within the context of Eve's punishment, God made it clear she would be bearing children in the future.
These are not words indicative of someone who is about to die physically before the day ends.
Click to expand...
The claim is that God first said "you will die on the day you eat it," then they did not die on the day they ate it, and this constitutes either a contradiction or a failure of God to keep his word. Pointing out that they did not die on the day they ate it doesn't refute the claim, obviously; it merely points to a fact which is part of the claim. Neither does the fact that, after the command has been disobeyed (a command which supposedly would lead to death) God never talks to Adam and Eve as if they were about to die. It looks rather like confirmation of the claim that God simply changed his mind and decided not to go through with the punishment he originally warned of.

AV1611VET said:
Thus a mature Bible student would know that there must be more to the story than meets the eye, and would look for another meaning later on in the Scriptures.
Click to expand...
Any apparent contradiction in any text -- or anything in any text which seems absurd or immoral -- can be handled this way; if you look hard enough for another meaning, you will certainly find it. And it will never be possible to demonstrate with geometric logic that the reading you produce is false or impossible. But if a book constantly has to be read in such a strained and counter-intuitive way, in order to avoid conceding that it's fallible, then the book can't be relied on. Any passage might in fact turn out to have the opposite meaning to the one which seemed obvious, if you look long enough at the possibility that it was using a play on words, or hyperbole, or accommodation to the times, or....

AV1611VET said:
And sure enough, he eventually learns that man is a tripartite (three parts in one) human being, consisting of body, soul, and spirit.

And we also read later that, of the three, it's the spirit that died first -- then the body followed later.
Click to expand...
Of course there are times when an author uses a word in one sense which is commonly used in another. But typically, either it is immediately obvious which sense is being used, or -- if it isn't -- the author will take pains to disambiguate. If I read that the hero was "deeply wounded" by the heroine's rejection of him, I don't need the author to specify that this mean emotionally wounded, not physically wounded. In this case however, even conceding that the Bible portrays humans as "tripartite beings," by your own account, the multiple meaning of "die" is something we only learn "eventually." In that case, I do expect an author to disambiguate, explicitly. Why wouldn't he?
 
5wize said:
You haven't explained away these direct words. You are claiming they just aren't there.
Click to expand...

Those direct words don't need to be explained away.

Here, let's try this.

Genesis 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 [spiritually].

NOW do you get it?

I left all the words in there, and I added one word for clarification.
 
AV1611VET said:
Genesis 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 spiritually.

NOW do you get it?

I left all the words in there, and I added one word for clarification.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the fat pitch:

5 Every word of God proves true;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Do not add to his words,
lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

Proverbs 30:5-6.
 
Komodo said:
The claim is that God first said "you will die on the day you eat it," then they did not die on the day they ate it, and this constitutes either a contradiction or a failure of God to keep his word.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, Komodo.

People are interpreting God as saying:

Genesis 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, it will kill you.

Either that, or:

Genesis 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, I will kill you.

Then, when Adam & Eve are still alive the next day, people then play the CONTRADICTION CARD, or the LIAR CARD.

And that's not how it works.
 
Komodo said:
I assume @Tiburon meant, by "unquestioning believer," one who will never question that the Bible must be free of any contradiction or any other flaw. Are you not an unquestioning believer in that sense?
Click to expand...

I'm past that now.

I don't go around anymore wondering if the Bible has contradictions in It.

I investigated the matter to my own satisfaction, and have moved on from there.
 
Eightcrackers said:
Thanks for the fat pitch:

5 Every word of God proves true;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Do not add to his words,
lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

Proverbs 30:5-6.
Click to expand...

(I knew this was coming. ;))

Fine.

Call ME a liar, if you have to -- not God.

As long as you understand the passage in Genesis better, I'm cool with that.
 
Eightcrackers said:
Without the words you added, he is.

Or just wrong.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true novice.

Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
 
AV1611VET said:
Those direct words don't need to be explained away.

Here, let's try this.

Genesis 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 [spiritually].

NOW do you get it?

I left all the words in there, and I added one word for clarification.
Click to expand...
Exodus 20:14 “You shall not commit adultery [unless she's hot].​

I left all the words in there, and I added a few words for clarification.
 
The Pixie said:
Exodus 20:14 “You shall not commit adultery [unless she's hot].​

I left all the words in there, and I added a few words for clarification.
Click to expand...

And now I understand better what goes through your mind, when you read that.

Thank you for the clarification.

Of course, I'm assuming that's what you truly believe.

Now I have a choice to make, don't I?

I can either believe it your way and drop any accusations against that verse I made in the past, or I can handwave your addition away.

The choice is mine, isn't it?
 
The Pixie said:
Genesis 2:5 Now no shrub of the field was yet on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to [d]cultivate the ground.
Can you explain why there were no plants at the start of day six, when God had created them back on day three?
Click to expand...
Plants were created in the world and a second creation of Garden of Eden plants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top