Instead of arguing over the grammar and syntax ad infinitum ?Same thing ....
All you said in your first response was the text had an AND.
Which it does ......
However, you never said the AND was between good and evil.
Now then, we have been round and round on this.
And you STILL have not shown the AND between good evil; the name of the tree was good evil.
It's the same thing ......
Then the good evil shows ...... good and evil for their prioria.
IT IS STILL THE TREE OF GOOD EVIL.
The ancient Jews did not include words to be understood by its context.
If an ancient Jew walked outside his home and saw it was raining?
Going back inside he would not announce to those still inside.. "It is raining." Instead, he would simply state... "Raining."
They had an idiomatic way of expressing certain things.
Good-Evil did not need an "and" added to express what Jews automatically understood to be so.
Its like saying... Here is a kitchen sink. It can give to hot cold water.
Paul was not praying for a plain text reading understanding when he told the Philippians the following.......No, you are taking a well-known construction in Hebrew (at least to those of us who know the language) used to intensify verbal action and trying to extract some clever "spiritual" insight from it... there is nothing legitimate about this kind of unrestrained hermeneutic, particularly when it violates the plain sense of the narrative, which is a reference to the man's physical death should he eat fruit from the tree of knowledge.
OK!This is the rub ......
And if an ancient Jew went out in the rain, came back into their house; soaked in rain
And said "raining" or even 'it is raining' .
The other members of the house would say, what / or not say?
Are you implying you do not sin anymore?
Adam and Eve were created in the (shadow) image of God. They were not created with a fallen nature.The question doesn't make any sense in the context of this thread. Almost like you didn't read and comprehend the original post. I'm directly stating that Adam and Eve chose to sin and did sin without the aid of a so called "sin nature". They did it with the nature that God gave them and in the state that God called "very good".
To answer the question directly: I have a human nature, like Adam and Eve, and I am still prone to sin.
Instead of arguing over the grammar and syntax ad infinitum ?
What do you conclude from your rendering of "Good Evil"?
What change will it bring to understanding this tree?
Adam and Eve were created in the (shadow) image of God. They were not created with a fallen nature.
Before the fall they were prone to be tempted by a greater force who was evil. Sin was their choice.
Jesus had no fallen nature and was both temptable and not able to sin, depending upon which nature of His hypostatic union we look at.
Yet, to be able to die for man, as a man, in man's place? He needed to deny himself to his full right to operate in His Deity's powers which could not be tempted. (Philippians 2:6-8)
The LXX is a fraud
When it is raining it is raining.
If it is not raining ..... it is not raining.
The people in the house are not ignorant to that.
Canopy or not.
The LXX has been a great help in understanding of tenses that the Greek can convey with exactness, that one's not knowing the idiomatic ways of Jewish thinking in the Hebrew text would reveal.You have absolutely ZERO level of understanding, even after I write it on a sixth grade reading level.
The LXX is a document in history, and it is valuable for Jews and Christians to study. Get over yourself, and deal with FACTS and not the FICTION of your cult.
The Septuagint often is represented as Roman numerals: “LXX” (L  + X  + X  = 70). According to Philo, Josephus, the Letter of Aristeas, and rabbinic sources, King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–247 BC) assembled 70 (or 72) translators to render the Law of Moses into Greek. In the most limited sense, “Septuagint” refers just to this project, which covered the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
Although the usage is imprecise, “Septuagint” (and the abbreviation “LXX”) is a convenient term generally used to refer to any or all of the Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible, as well as several other Jewish religious books written in Greek (Tov, Textual Criticism, 135). Sometimes the term “Old Greek” (OG) is used to describe the “oldest recoverable form of the Greek text of a particular book” (McLay, Septuagint in New Testament Research, 7), while “Septuagint” is used to refer to a collection of books.
Johnston, J. W. (2016). Septuagint. In J. D. Barry, D. Bomar, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, D. Mangum, C. Sinclair Wolcott, … W. Widder (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
This is done for the sake of your line of reasoning...
Let's say modern day folks spoke like the ancient Jews once did.
The kids have beren playing video games in doors all day, oblivious to the world.
In walks dad, he opens the door to the kids room. Pokes his hear inside, and says.."raining."
Adam and the woman were not tempted by sin. They were tempt by Evil. And, tempted by a power higher than themselves. But, since God's command was so simple? If they chose to obey it would have been simple enough to follow.If the so called "fallen nature" or "sin nature" wasn't necessary for them to sin, then this brings up interesting conclusions.
- If Adam and Eve sinned without a "fallen nature" and we have a different nature than them
- If we have a "fallen nature", then our relationship to temptation and sin is nothing like Adam and Eve's relationship to temptation and sin.
While I suppose this sort of thing is necessary doctrine for some theologies, if Jesus could only be tempted by a force greater than himself, he couldn't be tempted at all (assuming you think he is "God" by this).
Is that where the plain reading of a text is found wanting and therefore an esoteric understanding, its deviation from the plain sense limited only by the extent of the creativity and imagination of the interpreter, is read into it? I trust the phrasing of my question reveals sufficiently what I think of such a hermeneutic...You ever hear of a dual fulfillment prophecy?
Trapped? Where? How so?You're trapped.
Deny what about Gen 1:2?Just like those who try to deny Genesis 1:2.
Not sure why you feel bullied by an educated critique of your position... that is often how people learn. Your failure to engage the substance of my post to you is duly noted...I have learned from men who know how to exegete. Some could teach you.
Stop being a bully. That's all you are being at this point.
Here's what I actually said:You said it was a translation issue.
That there is no "and", in Hebrew.
I implied nothing of the sort. Again, here's what I actually said about the hyphen:You seemed to imply, / a hyphen would probably be acceptable; good-evil.
No, I am not agreeing in any way with your claim there is no 'and' in the clause... that claim is incorrect as anyone who knows Hebrew or can properly follow along in an interlinear will tell you.Seriously .... your post was weird.
You were kind agreeing with me .....