Death in Relation to the Creation and Fall

So when something is clearly fiction, like a talking snake, you should interpret the rest of that passage as fiction.

You're forgetting the rule of trusting scripture instead of treating any of it as fiction.

That rule doesn't supersede the rule of using the simple to understand the complex. If you can't recognize fiction in the first place, how can you know what to trust?

Its easy for you to convince yourself of something. The fact that you cannot convince anyone else is what should be telling you that you have a problem. But what you're interpreting scripture to be saying, is clearly not what it is saying, as shown by me quoting the scripture in context and showing what it actually says.All you can do is go "Nuh-uh, I already believe it says this other thing". Yeah, clearly wrong. You just can't bring yourself to question your original assumption, so you cannot even begin to start understanding how you might be wrong.You've trapped yourself in a happy little feedback loop and you ain't budging.

You are reading way more into this than what the Scripture states. And what it does state about the tree of life you are totally ignoring. This totally contradicts what you just stated. Eating from the Tree of Life according to Genesis 3:22 DID have an active role in being able to live forever.Honestly, through this reading it seems that they had mortal bodies just as with the rest of creation, and that only by partaking of this tree could they live forever (either by one act or continue act it does not say). Sounds pretty clear that they were not immortal if they did not eat from this tree. Why would God send them away from the garden and put a flaming sword to keep them out? It says right there that he sent them away so they could not partake the fruit from the Tree of Life and live forever. And what is that share of the tree of life? Eternal life is it not? Did they die physically that same day they ate of the knowledge of good and evil? No. But they did die spiritually. That is what this scripture is talking about. You are adding to this your own twisted interpretation.

You are mixing two lines of reasoning here. The "sins of the father" as discussed in the OT is talking about past mistakes and misdeeds being past down from generation to generation. "Sins of the father" is not Christian theology and only stems from OT scripture that uses this phrasey figuratively as a metaphore for past misdeeds causing trouble for later generations of that family. Which is a true statement, even today. It was not meant to be used in any other context.Jesus even spoke out against it as being used by the Pharasees to try to condemn those with blindness, leprosy, etc. The Pharasees took these OT statements literally which was there first mistake. There second was judging people by these OT scriptures taken out of context. Much in the similar way you are twisting and taking these scriptures out of context.This is not tied into "original sin" which is applicable to everyone, male and female alike.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

I'm not talking about "sins of the fathers" and that's not where I got the idea, it's a theological position I'd have to look up the source of. This has nothing to do with personal guilt, it's about how we inherit sin from Adam, not particular sins but sin, period.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, it ap0parently had a ROLE in it as I've acknowledged, but what role is not clear, since we KNOW they did NOT die before the Fall. You have to put it all together with God's saying DEATH would be the result of sin which means there was NO death until then, PLUS the "wages of sin is death." I've addressed all the Genesis scriptures. You are the one twisting them. There is no reason to continue this absolutely ridiculous argument.

The role is plainly stated: If they ate from the fruit of the tree of life then they would live forever. Actually, that is what we are questioning. Well, those of us who can are. Your just assuming that and being too stubborn to question your assumption. Could be a spiritual death rather than a physical one. Too bad you are unable to consider that since it goes against your undoutbable assumption. Uh huh. Gee: "Look it says right here what the tree is for". "No, that's a mystery because I already believe this other thing". Oh, sure, run away when it starts getting hard. That way you never have to face the facts that go against you.

We know what the role was. It is clearly written here: Pretty clear to me. If God made the distinction here, it seems to me it was for a reason. Spiritual death. Again, God said on the day you eat of the Tree of Knowledge, you shall die.Did they die physically on that day? No. So what is God talking about. Spiritual seperation from God aka spiritual death."wages of sin is death." The wages of sin is spiritual death, a seperation from God in spirit/soul. Jesus was seperated from God spiritually on the cross. This is why he say "Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani" (very similar to David's Psalm 22:1) translated as "God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?". He had not yet died physically, but at that moment or shortly before he was spiritually seperated from God. This was not a lament of his physical seperation from God because he had not died physically. It was a cry of despair when he was seperated from God in spirit because he took on the sins of the entire world. He could not be in the presence of God the Father with the sins of the world and thus was seperated from him.You still did not answer why would God put an angel (cherebum) and a flaming sword to prevent Adam and Eve from reentering the Garden of Eden and eating from the Tree of Life? Because all your hand waving does nothing to prove your case. And no, not all traditionalist theologists do agree with you as I have discussed earlier.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

the scholarly approach has made belief difficult. i'm not sure if it's made it impossible just yet. he also said,

quote:

---

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

---

how can you be given, if you don't ask? how can you find if you don't seek? if it is god's word, it should stand up to scrutiny. i don't think this is particularly a hard demand. any belief that has that belief as a prerequisite is just question-begging. it's an echo-chamber: start with belief, affirm the belief, and only listen things that function to affirm the belief. why? because even you understand that any book you approach this way will enter that echo-chamber; that doing so will affirm the truth of anything?what's interesting is that even the bible advocates testing the bible. the torah advises you to approach any prophet with an attitude of skepticism, especially those that claim to speak for yahweh:

quote:

---

But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him (Deuteronomy 18:20-22)

---

the god of the bible is commanding you to question those who speak in his name, and words that are claimed to be his. and he's demanding an objective test. why do you think that if this was literally meant to be applied to joshua first, jesus's namesake, and then to every other prophet that was to follow, that it should not also apply to jesus, or the people who reported what jesus said?Edited by arachnophilia, : grammars

i wasn't being entirely serious in my post. but i think the overall point is still valid. it's hard to argue for going with tradition when you're very specifically rejecting older traditions. in fact, jesus's mode of criticism of the religious establishment is entirely in line with the old testament mode of the prophets, and even several of the biblical authors. christians tend to say stuff like that, yeah, but honestly, the whole thing got significantly clearer the moment i started reading jewish thought. as lewis black quipped: it's not your book.

"on the day that" or "in the day of" is a hebrew idiom that means "when". it's more immediate than the same day.but the spiritual notion is totally unfounded in genesis, which doesn't seem to regard spiritual concerns as distinct from physical ones.there are really only two possibilities: either yahweh lied (implying the tree was poison, as the woman understood it), or yahweh decided not to kill them for some reason, perhaps mercy. it is, in fact, the psalm. jesus was just speaking in aramaic, not hebrew. kerubim is plural.

doesn't follow.if A then B ≠ if B then A.eg: "if i go to church, i will be busy on sunday." i was busy on sunday. did i go to church? no, not necessarily. maybe i was busy doing something else.so in the above instance, sin entailing death does not mean the sin is the only condition that causes death.

Yes, from a literal analysis of the Israelite/Hebrew Talmud and even more archaic Jewish texts and philosophical writings, I understand and agree with you. However, that is not to say this could not be the meaning even if it was not understood in early Israelite/Jewish understanding of the oral passed down from generation to generation and eventually written down tradition. Or YAHWEH is literally or figuratively foretelling the concept of spiritual death as experience by the Christ. The Jewish term karath is used in Genesis (17:4),Leviticus and other books to describe not just a physical death but a spiritual cutting off as a result of transgression against God. It is not to far to imply this could apply to this passage as well. It is suspected that Genesis 1 and possibly 2 are much older than the rest of the book as far as when they were first written down. There is an element of uncertainty to how exactly these passages should be interpreted. I am much less certain as to exactly how these should be interpreted than Faith is and open to further researching these passages. Yes, it is from the Psalms, that is why I mentioned it. And yes, I understand Jesus spoke in Aramaic not Hebrew on the cross. I never said he spoke in Hebrew, but thanks for the clarification. Ah, I suspected it might be but wasn't sure. Thanks.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.