Carnivores and the Fall

[shernren]

There's a lot that could be said here but I'd like to focus on the fact that TEs believe that the verses I cited have no application for the Christian and are directed exclusively toward the unbeliever. Is it any wonder we disagree so often?

Whoa. That's a huge jump. Nobody said these verses have no application for the Christian. They were written to Christians, as their place in the letters makes clear.

However, what is abundantly clear is that these verses do not describe Christians. Each passage has clear indications that the people being described in each passage have not just rejected some part of the gospel, they have rejected the core and thus the entirety of the gospel in some way or another. They are Christian descriptions alright, but descriptions of an un-Christian people.

To apply such descriptions to evolutionists - many of whom are Christians - seems to me to be irresponsible at best. Have we "exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator"? Is "the word of the Cross" "folly" to us? Those are fighting words.

There are many examples in the Bible of differences between believers and non-believers, but descriptions of differences between believers are rare in the Bible - so rare that believers in one faction trying to sully another may well resort to language that Paul or Peter would have reserved only for complete heretics. One of the few examples of a conflict handled between believers is in the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. The Judaizers had been insisting that one needed to be circumcised and become a proselyte before one could be saved. It was the old controversy of the place of works in salvation, one more basic than anything that has arose since then, one which spurred Paul to scale the twin peaks of Romans and Galatians, one which incites difficulty between Christians to this day.

And what was the response of the Council? The apostles decided:

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."
[Act 15:28-29 ESV]
​

To abstain from sexual immorality was a moral commandment not unique to the Torah, and idolatry is as much a concern for Christians as for Jews. But strangled meat, and blood? These have no moral significance, and so that commandment was solely for the purpose of making peace between Jewish and Gentile Christians, to still show some respect for the Torah.

That's an amazing concession to make, and it speaks volumes over how the early Christians valued peace.

 

[juvenissun]

Christians should just accept that not every verse of the Bible is historically or scientifically accurate. The Bible certainly never makes such claims about itself.

If the Bible were wrong on factual matter, how could one trust any philosophical matter in the Scripture?

Wake up, brother.

Ps 33:4 For the word of the Lord is right and true; he is faithful in all he does.

 

[The Barbarian]

Christians should just accept that not every verse of the Bible is historically or scientifically accurate. The Bible certainly never makes such claims about itself.

If the Bible were wrong on factual matter, how could one trust any philosophical matter in the Scripture?

So since Christ often spoke in parables, we cannot trust Him? Really?

Wake up, brother.

Someone should.

 

[Mallon]

Thanks, The Barbarian.

 

[Jig]

The theological problem with assuming a philosophical interpretation (of the evidence) of billions of years and uniform evolutionary progression (from one cell to every organism): Death cannot be the result of sin. Death is found before sin in this naturalistic model. Thus, death no longer can be the penalty for sin.

If death is not the penalty for sin, then the cross is meaningless. The death of Christ was made necessary because of man's sin. Man's sin brought death, which in turn brought God's Son to pay the penalty in our place. If we believe that death has always existed, then we make a mockery of the death of Christ.

We are told in Hebrews 9:22, "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." So a blood sacrifice is only necessary if there is sin. The rest of the Old Testament has similar treatment of animal sacrifice for atonement. One must observe that in the atonement the animal loses its life in the place of the human. If animal death existed before the fall, then the object lesson represented by the atoning sacrifice is in reality a cruel joke.

 

[The Barbarian]

The theological problem with assuming a philosophical interpretation (of the evidence) of billions of years and uniform evolutionary progression (from one cell to every organism): Death cannot be the result of sin. Death is found before sin in this naturalistic model. Thus, death no longer can be the penalty for sin.

It can, if you accept what it is said to be in Genesis. God says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree. But he lives on for many years thereafter. He died a spiritual death, not a physical one. Once you accept this truth, then there is no conflict between scripture and reality.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

The theological problem with assuming a philosophical interpretation (of the evidence) of billions of years and uniform evolutionary progression (from one cell to every organism): Death cannot be the result of sin. Death is found before sin in this naturalistic model. Thus, death no longer can be the penalty for sin.

If death is not the penalty for sin, then the cross is meaningless. The death of Christ was made necessary because of man's sin. Man's sin brought death, which in turn brought God's Son to pay the penalty in our place. If we believe that death has always existed, then we make a mockery of the death of Christ.

We are told in Hebrews 9:22, "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." So a blood sacrifice is only necessary if there is sin. The rest of the Old Testament has similar treatment of animal sacrifice for atonement. One must observe that in the atonement the animal loses its life in the place of the human. If animal death existed before the fall, then the object lesson represented by the atoning sacrifice is in reality a cruel joke.

This is only a problem if one believes that physical death is all there is and that the Bible could not be talking about something deeper and more spiritual than mere physical death.

There are also other problems with the physical death idea, physical death still seems to be here even though Jesus defeated it, even the most devout believer still dies, even though they are forgiven of their sins.

 

[vossler]

Whoa. That's a huge jump. Nobody said these verses have no application for the Christian.

It was you who said the passages I cited "clearly refer exclusively to non-believers who completely reject the gospel." Exclusive is a very absolute term.

To apply such descriptions to evolutionists - many of whom are Christians - seems to me to be irresponsible at best. Have we "exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator"? Is "the word of the Cross" "folly" to us? Those are fighting words.

The truth, for me, is worth fighting for.

There are many examples in the Bible of differences between believers and non-believers, but descriptions of differences between believers are rare in the Bible

The entire 2nd and 3rd chapters of Revelation are examples of differences between believers. The entire book of Jude warns us of false teachers. The very nature of the word teacher implies they were thought to be believers, hence the call to persevere and keep the faith. There are countless more examples.

 

[Jig]

It can, if you accept what it is said to be in Genesis. God says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree. But he lives on for many years thereafter. He died a spiritual death, not a physical one. Once you accept this truth, then there is no conflict between scripture and reality.

The phrase “you shall surely die” can be literally translated from the Hebrew Biblical text as “dying you shall die.” In the Hebrew phrase we find the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb (you shall die) with the infinitive absolute form of the same verb (dying). This presence of the infinitive absolute intensifies the meaning of the imperfect verb (hence the usual translation of “you shall surely die&#8221. This grammatical construction is quite common in the Old Testament, not just with this verb but others also, and does indicate (or intensify) the certainty of the action.

Clearly in the context of Gen. 3, Adam and Eve died spiritually instantly—they were separated from God and hid themselves. Their relationship with God was broken. But in Romans 5:12 we see in context that Paul is clearly speaking of physical death (Jesus’ physical death, verses 8-10, and other men’s physical death, in verse 14). We also find the same comparison of physical death and physical resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:20-22. So both spiritual death and physical death are the consequences of Adam’s fall.

A relevant passage to this discussion is found in Numbers 26:65. There we find “they shall surely die” (literally: dying they shall die). These are the same Hebrew verbs and the same grammatical construction as in Genesis 2:17. God told the Israelites shortly after they came out of Egypt to go into the land of Canaan and take possession of it, as it had been promised to Abraham. In Numbers 26:65 God says that because the adult Jews (20 years and older) refused to trust and obey God and go into the Promise Land, they would die in the wilderness over the course of 40 years (one year for every day that the twelve spies investigated the Land—see Numbers 13:1-14:10). But those rebellious unbelieving Jews did not all die at the same moment. Their deaths were spread over that whole 40-year period. So, dying they did all die and that death occurred at various times some years after God’s pronouncement of judgment.

 

[Jig]

This is only a problem if one believes that physical death is all there is and that the Bible could not be talking about something deeper and more spiritual than mere physical death.

I never said that physical death was ALL there is. I know and understand that "death" encompasses both physical AND spiritual expiration.

There are also other problems with the physical death idea, physical death still seems to be here even though Jesus defeated it, even the most devout believer still dies, even though they are forgiven of their sins.

Though our sins are forgiven by the blood of Jesus, would you dare venture off and pronouce yourself sinless presently? Are you currently not a sinner?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I never said that physical death was ALL there is. I know and understand that "death" encompasses both physical AND spiritual expiration.

Why toss in physical death then? Physical death seems to be the cause of the theological problems, using it as the punishment of sin causes the Bible to be out of step with the revelation of creation. Since truth cannot contradict truth, then I'd say the item that causes the written revelation to contradict the created revelation should be looked at skeptically.

Though our sins are forgiven by the blood of Jesus, would you dare venture off and pronouce yourself sinless presently? Are you currently not a sinner?

Ah, you accept incomplete forgiveness. I do not. I think that the sacrifice made by Jesus is complete.

 

[Mallon]

What are your thoughts on the Tree of Life, Jig?

 

[Assyrian]

The phrase “you shall surely die” can be literally translated from the Hebrew Biblical text as “dying you shall die.” In the Hebrew phrase we find the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb (you shall die) with the infinitive absolute form of the same verb (dying). This presence of the infinitive absolute intensifies the meaning of the imperfect verb (hence the usual translation of “you shall surely die”). This grammatical construction is quite common in the Old Testament, not just with this verb but others also, and does indicate (or intensify) the certainty of the action.

And what it says is that Adam would surely, certainly die, in the day he ate the fruit. And as you say, the only death death Adam and Eve died that day was spiritual death.

Clearly in the context of Gen. 3, Adam and Eve died spiritually instantly—they were separated from God and hid themselves. Their relationship with God was broken. But in Romans 5:12 we see in context that Paul is clearly speaking of physical death (Jesus’ physical death, verses 8-10, and other men’s physical death, in verse 14). We also find the same comparison of physical death and physical resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:20-22. So both spiritual death and physical death are the consequences of Adam’s fall.

You need to be careful with Romans 5, especially verse 14. Paul tells us he is making a figurative comparison between Adam and Christ Rom 5:14 Adam was a figure of the one who was to come. I think people misunderstand what Paul is saying about death and sin. Paul is talking about a death that spread to all men because all sinned v12. This is the kind of death Paul describes about himself in Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. Death spread to Paul because he sinned too, when he sinned he died. Spiritually of course not physically, he was physically alive when he wrote this in Romans. That is why Paul uses the present tense in 1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. We are 'in Adam' today because Adam means 'mankind' and people continue to die 'in Adam' like Paul did when we first understand God's command and disobey.

A relevant passage to this discussion is found in Numbers 26:65. There we find “they shall surely die” (literally: dying they shall die). These are the same Hebrew verbs and the same grammatical construction as in Genesis 2:17. God told the Israelites shortly after they came out of Egypt to go into the land of Canaan and take possession of it, as it had been promised to Abraham. In Numbers 26:65 God says that because the adult Jews (20 years and older) refused to trust and obey God and go into the Promise Land, they would die in the wilderness over the course of 40 years (one year for every day that the twelve spies investigated the Land—see Numbers 13:1-14:10). But those rebellious unbelieving Jews did not all die at the same moment. Their deaths were spread over that whole 40-year period. So, dying they did all die and that death occurred at various times some years after God’s pronouncement of judgment.

Both passages use the same phrase to describe surely dying, but they have quite different descriptions of how the people would die.
In Numbers the Israelites were told they would surely die in the wilderness.
In Genesis Adam was told he would surely die in the day he eats of the tree.
Elsewhere Numbers gives the time limit that the Israelites would die over forty years in the wilderness. Num 14:33 And your children shall be shepherds in the wilderness forty years and shall suffer for your faithlessness, until the last of your dead bodies lies in the wilderness.

I don't see how you can take the time and specific location of the surely die in Numbers, and think it negates the specific time given for the surely die in Genesis. Genesis is clear Adam was to die the day he ate the fruit, and seeing as he didn't die physically for a long time after, either 'day' was not meant literally, or the death being described was not literal physical death.

 

[Jig]

Ah, you accept incomplete forgiveness. I do not. I think that the sacrifice made by Jesus is complete.

So, you believe you are now sinless?

 

[Jig]

And what it says is that Adam would surely, certainly die, in the day he ate the fruit. And as you say, the only death death Adam and Eve died that day was spiritual death.

You need to be careful with Romans 5, especially verse 14. Paul tells us he is making a figurative comparison between Adam and Christ Rom 5:14 Adam was a figure of the one who was to come. I think people misunderstand what Paul is saying about death and sin. Paul is talking about a death that spread to all men because all sinned v12. This is the kind of death Paul describes about himself in Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. Death spread to Paul because he sinned too, when he sinned he died. Spiritually of course not physically, he was physically alive when he wrote this in Romans. That is why Paul uses the present tense in 1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. We are 'in Adam' today because Adam means 'mankind' and people continue to die 'in Adam' like Paul did when we first understand God's command and disobey.

Both passages use the same phrase to describe surely dying, but they have quite different descriptions of how the people would die.
In Numbers the Israelites were told they would surely die in the wilderness.
In Genesis Adam was told he would surely die in the day he eats of the tree.
Elsewhere Numbers gives the time limit that the Israelites would die over forty years in the wilderness. Num 14:33 And your children shall be shepherds in the wilderness forty years and shall suffer for your faithlessness, until the last of your dead bodies lies in the wilderness.

I don't see how you can take the time and specific location of the surely die in Numbers, and think it negates the specific time given for the surely die in Genesis. Genesis is clear Adam was to die the day he ate the fruit, and seeing as he didn't die physically for a long time after, either 'day' was not meant literally, or the death being described was not literal physical death.

I'll go over it again, and this time I'll also focus on "in THAT day".

The Hebrew phrase in English is more literally:

“Tree knowledge good evil eat day eat die (dying) die”

The Hebrew is “die die” (muwth—muwth) with two different verb tenses (dying and die), which can be translated as “surely die” or literally as “dying you shall die,” indicating the beginning of dying—an ingressive sense—and finally culminating with death. At the point when they ate, Adam and Eve began to die and would return to dust (Genesis 3:19). If they were meant to die right then, God would have used muwth only once, as is used in the Hebrew to mean dead, died, or die, not beginning to die or surely die as die-die is used in Hebrew. Old Testament authors understood this and used the terms appropriately, but sometimes we lose a little during translation.

There are primarily two ways people translate: one is literal or word-for-word, and the other is dynamic equivalence or thought-for-thought. If this were translated word-for-word, it would be “dying die” or “die die,” which is difficult for English readers to understand since our grammatical construct doesn’t have a changed emphasis when a word is repeated. The Latin Vulgate by Jerome, which permits such grammatical constructs, does translate this as “dying die” or “dying you will die” (morte morieris). So, most translations into English rightly use a more dynamic equivalence and say “surely die,” which implies that it isn’t an instant death but will certainly happen (surely).

With regards to the Hebrew word yom for day in Genesis 2:17, it refers directly to the following action—eating—not the latter “dying die.” For example Solomon used an almost identical construct in 1 Kings 2:37 when referring to Shimei:

“For on the day (yom) you go out and cross over the brook Kidron, you will know for certain that you shall surely (muwth) die (muwth); your blood shall be on your own head.”

This uses yom (day) and the dual muwth just as Genesis 2:17 did. In Genesis 2:17, yom referred to the action (eating) in the same way that yom refers the action here (go out and cross over). In neither case do they mean that was the particular day they would die, but the particular day they did what they weren’t supposed to do. Solomon also understood that it would not be a death on that particular day, but that Shimei’s days were numbered from that point. In other words, their (Adam and Shimei) actions on that day were what gave them the final death sentence—it was coming, and they would surely die as a result of their actions.

Therefore, the day in Genesis 2:17 was referring to when they ate (disobeyed), and not the day they died. On that day, Adam and Eve began to physically die (decay).

 

[Jig]

What are your thoughts on the Tree of Life, Jig?

The Tree of Life stood in the center of the Garden of Eden which elsewhere is called ‘The Garden of the LORD’. It was a real tree, to be sure, but let me suggest that it was also symbolic of the fact that God was, and is, the source of eternal life and blessing. Adam and Eve were to have their life centered in Him, even as the Tree was in the center of His Garden.

Other parts of the Bible also mention The Tree of Life. In Ezekiel 47:12 we read of trees whose ‘fruit will be for food and their leaves for healing’. This image is taken up also in Revelation 22:2. It is clear particularly in Proverbs where a number of things are referred to as ‘a tree of life’ (wisdom (3:15), the fruit of the righteous (11:30), desire fulfilled (13:12), and a soothing tongue (15:4)) that the Tree of Life in these references symbolises that which brings joy and healing to people.
This, I suspect, was what the original, the real Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden symbolised. It was material, yet it stood for the blessing of eternal life which God would give to Adam and Eve, and their descendants, if they were to pass the test of obedience. They were permitted to eat of any tree in the Garden except the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil on pain of death.

Now, use a little lateral thinking. What else in the Bible is real and material, yet at the same time symbolises the life which is in Christ and points us repeatedly to Him? Something in which Christians share, and which reminds them that Jesus’ death brings us life? It is the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

Now, let us return to the Garden of Eden. I want to suggest that the Tree of Life was there to perform such a sacramental function. If Adam passed the test of obedience, it would be the means of God’s imparting eternal life to him, not by magic, but by the working of his Spirit ‘by, with and under’ the fruit of the Tree.

But Adam sinned. He failed the test and lost his right to eat from the Tree. As one commentator puts it, ‘that he might understand himself to be deprived of his former life, a solemn excommunication is added; not that the Lord would cut him off from all hope of salvation, but, by taking away what he had given, would cause man to seek new assistance elsewhere.’

Just as Christians who profane the Lord’s Supper are subject to judgment, so Adam would have been further condemned if he had presumed to eat the fruit to which he was not now entitled. In doing so, he would have been trying to rob life from God, a grave blasphemy. The implication of Genesis 3:22 ‘And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live for ever,”’ is that he, and us with him, would have been plunged into a condition of absolute lostness. He would have lived eternally cut off from God without hope of escape from the terrible consequences of sin. This would have been God’s just punishment for such a presumptuous sin, not merely a ‘magical’ effect of the Tree of Life.

Mercifully, God did not permit this to happen. Adam was cast out of the Garden of Eden. No longer could he even contemplate eating from the Tree of Life. It was beyond his reach. Physical death now began to enter the human race. Adam began to die! The last Adam (Christ) later came to Earth to die so that through faith in Jesus, we may now inherit the eternal life Adam forfeited. Indeed, Jesus says to those who persevere in faith, ‘To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the Tree of Life which is in the Paradise of God.’

The Genesis account of the Tree of Life reminds us there is only one way to attain to an eternal life of blessedness—the way God has appointed. That is through His Son, the Creator of heaven and Earth—the Lord Jesus Christ. It is He alone who can say, ‘I am the way, the truth and the life.’

 

[Assyrian]

I'll go over it again, and this time I'll also focus on "in THAT day".

The Hebrew phrase in English is more literally:

“Tree knowledge good evil eat day eat die (dying) die”

The Hebrew is “die die” (muwth—muwth) with two different verb tenses (dying and die), which can be translated as “surely die” or literally as “dying you shall die,” indicating the beginning of dying—an ingressive sense—and finally culminating with death. At the point when they ate, Adam and Eve began to die and would return to dust (Genesis 3:19). If they were meant to die right then, God would have used muwth only once, as is used in the Hebrew to mean dead, died, or die, not beginning to die or surely die as die-die is used in Hebrew. Old Testament authors understood this and used the terms appropriately, but sometimes we lose a little during translation.

There are primarily two ways people translate: one is literal or word-for-word, and the other is dynamic equivalence or thought-for-thought. If this were translated word-for-word, it would be “dying die” or “die die,” which is difficult for English readers to understand since our grammatical construct doesn’t have a changed emphasis when a word is repeated. The Latin Vulgate by Jerome, which permits such grammatical constructs, does translate this as “dying die” or “dying you will die” (morte morieris). So, most translations into English rightly use a more dynamic equivalence and say “surely die,” which implies that it isn’t an instant death but will certainly happen (surely).

I am afraid this is another of those cases we have been discussing lately where creationists have real difficulties with the plain meaning of the text of Genesis.

You seem particularly torn Jig, alternating between a common YEC mistranslation of the passage, beginning to die followed by a gradual death. But then you switch back to the actually meaning of the Hebrew construction. As you say the construction is emphatic, Adam was really really going to die if he ate the fruit. And as you say the proper translation is surely die.

Again you are correct in saying the construction 'surely die' expresses the certainly of the death not when it is to happen, but that is what the construction 'in the day you eat' is for. Adam was going to surely die the day he ate the fruit.

With regards to the Hebrew word yom for day in Genesis 2:17, it refers directly to the following action—eating—not the latter “dying die.” For example Solomon used an almost identical construct in 1 Kings 2:37 when referring to Shimei:

“For on the day (yom) you go out and cross over the brook Kidron, you will know for certain that you shall surely (muwth) die (muwth); your blood shall be on your own head.”

This uses yom (day) and the dual muwth just as Genesis 2:17 did. In Genesis 2:17, yom referred to the action (eating) in the same way that yom refers the action here (go out and cross over). In neither case do they mean that was the particular day they would die, but the particular day they did what they weren’t supposed to do. Solomon also understood that it would not be a death on that particular day, but that Shimei’s days were numbered from that point. In other words, their (Adam and Shimei) actions on that day were what gave them the final death sentence—it was coming, and they would surely die as a result of their actions.

Therefore, the day in Genesis 2:17 was referring to when they ate (disobeyed), and not the day they died. On that day, Adam and Eve began to physically die (decay).

There is a significant difference between the two passages. You are right the same construction is used to emphasise the certainty of death and both use 'on the day', but in 1Kings Shimei is not told he would die the day he crossed the Kidron. The day he crossed the Jordan he was to know he was going to die. It is not that he would die the day he crossed the river, it is that he should know when he crossed it that he sentenced himself to death. 1Kings 2:37 For on the day you go out and cross the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall die. Your blood shall be on your own head."

On the other hand Genesis does tell us when Adam was going to die. He would certainly die on the day he ate the fruit. Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

 

[Jig]

You seem particularly torn Jig, alternating between a common YEC mistranslation of the passage, beginning to die followed by a gradual death. But then you switch back to the actually meaning of the Hebrew construction. As you say the construction is emphatic, Adam was really really going to die if he ate the fruit. And as you say the proper translation is surely die.

I did not switch around, you must have misunderstood my position in explaining why the translation "surely die" is correct and how it corresponds to what it literally means. Even you freely admit that the "construction 'surely die' expresses the certainly of the death not when it is to happen". Feel free to re-read my post.

Again you are correct in saying the construction 'surely die' expresses the certainly of the death not when it is to happen, but that is what the construction 'in the day you eat' is for. Adam was going to surely die the day he ate the fruit.

You misunderstand the construction. I believe it is due to you looking at it in its English translation, look at the Hebrew formation. "In the day" refers directly to the following action—eating—not the latter “dying die.” Thus, the day in Genesis 2:17 was referring to when they ate (disobeyed), and not the day they died.

 

[Assyrian]

I did not switch around, you must have misunderstood my position in explaining why the translation "surely die" is correct and how it corresponds to what it literally means. Even you freely admit that the "construction 'surely die' expresses the certainly of the death not when it is to happen". Feel free to re-read my post.

So why even bring up the Creationist mistranslation "indicating the beginning of dying—an ingressive sense—and finally culminating with death"? if you know the real meaning?

You misunderstand the construction. I believe it is due to you looking at it in its English translation, look at the Hebrew formation. "In the day" refers directly to the following action—eating—not the latter “dying die.” Thus, the day in Genesis 2:17 was referring to when they ate (disobeyed), and not the day they died.

Then why mention in the day at all? You are saying in the day they ate fruit they ate the fruit. That makes no sense. In the day specifies a specific day and tells us what happens on that day.

Do you notice how 'you eat' is an infinitive? It is not the main verb in the sentence but is part of an infinitive construct, a temporal subclause telling us about the main verb in the sentence, when it takes place. On the day of eating the fruit Adam would die, really really die.

This is a very common construction. Gen 5:1 In the day that God created (infinitive) man, he made him in God's likeness.
When did God make man in his likeness? On the day he created him.
Gen 5:2 and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created (infinitive).
When did God call their name Adam? On the day when they were created.

You get b'yom in a number of different constructions telling us the day something happens
Gen 22:4 On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place far off.
When did Abraham see the place far off? On the third day
Gen 26:31 In the morning they rose early and exchanged oaths. And Isaac sent them on their way, and they departed from him in peace. 32 It happened the same day, that Isaac's servants came, and told him concerning the well which they had dug, and said to him, "We have found water."
When the Isaac's servants tell him about the well? The same day.

Deut 27:2 It shall be on the day when you shall pass over the Jordan to the land which Yahweh your God gives you, that you shall set yourself up great stones, and plaster them with plaster:
Here the day is described in a subclause with 'when' and a qal imperfect, but it is the same idea, we have a b'yom and a description of which particular b'yom, and then it tells us what happens in that day.
When was Joshua to build the monument? On the day when he crosses the Jordan. Did Joshua think this mean he would cross over the Jordan one day and as a result some time later he should come back build the monument? No he built it the same day just as he was told. Joshua 4:1 It happened, when all the nation had completely passed over the Jordan, that Yahweh spoke to Joshua, saying, 2 "Take twelve men out of the people, out of every tribe a man, 3 and command them, saying, 'Take from out of the middle of the Jordan, out of the place where the priests' feet stood firm, twelve stones, and carry them over with you, and lay them down in the lodging place, where you will lodge tonight.' "

In the day you eat of it tells us when Adam will surely die.

 

[GenemZ]

I am afraid this is another of those cases we have been discussing lately where creationists have real difficulties with the plain meaning of the text of Genesis.

He is giving you the plain meaning of the Hebrew which is not given plainly in most English translations. That is why we have exegetical teachings from those who are qualified teachers, for those who truly desire to go beyond the quite often generic and superficial meaning we find in English translations.

Ironic...


You want plain meaning?


What is Matthew 4:3 telling you from the plain reading of the text?

"The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God,
tell these stones to become bread."



​

What was Satan's objective in his challenge? Can you tell us?


And, while your at it? Plain text the following for us, please?

Titus 2:11-12
"For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.
It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and
to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age."

​

How does the grace of God teach us to say "No"? You will have NO CLUE from English translations. Interesting how the NIV captured the correct feel for this passage, yet the plain meaning of the Greek is still not seen as to why it was translated this way.

Have fun with your "play'in text" ploy. Plain to whom? Those who read the English translations? Jig DID give you the plain meaning of the Hebrew text that Genesis was written in. You keep wanting to stand by the plain text meaning of the English which is an attempt to convey what the Hebrew states. In the eyes of any advancing serious student of the Bible that's plain crazy.


Now... tell us what your "play'in text" renderings are for Matthew 4:3 and Titus 2:11-12? No cheating now. Plain text renderings only.

"Standing before the LORD..

When all of man's BS will disappear.

Some will find great glory in His love.

Others, rendered speechless, and in fear. "

(these, refused to hear)



.
​