Carnivores and the Fall

[Jig]

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

We are dealing with "muwth muwth" not just "muwth".

Muwth: to die, put to death, to be killed.
Muwth muwth: dying die.

Common English Translation: "you shall surely die"
Literal Hebrew Translation: "dying you shall die"

When Adam ate he entered the sin/death system (what Paul calls the "law of sin and death"). Aging definitely qualifies as "dying", since your body is decaying, and sickness and injury are also new possiblities that Adam wouldn't have been prone to before. With aging in mind, "dying you shall die" is quite appropriate.

Youngs Literal Translation of the bible is spot on:
"and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.' "

...for in the day of [disobedience] -- (aging) [is how] thou dost die.

 

[Assyrian]

'Dying thou dost die' does not really mean anything in English and it certainly does not tell us what the Hebrew means, which as you realise is 'you will surely die'. I don't know why you keep going back to this clunky mistranslation. Strong's is useful at times for showing us what the Hebrew words are, but here it does not convey the meaning. What you refer to as the 'common English translation' is the common English translation for the simple reason it is what the phrase means in English. If you are trying to come up with a new meaning by prising the word 'dying' out of the Hebrew construction (and actually the infinitive is 'to die' not 'dying') you are ignoring the actual meaning of the Hebrew phrase.

The phrase means surely die and the rest of the sentence tells us when Adam would surely die: on the day he ate the fruit. Sorry Jig, that is what the text says. You are just trying to find some way to escape the plain meaning of the text. The meaning of Hebrew is very simple. God was warning Adam he would die on the day he ate the fruit.

 

[Assyrian]

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.

You mean when the bible scholarship of modern bible translation committees tell you what the Hebrew means, but it does not fit what your doctrine, then you find a bible teacher to make it go away? Aren't we warned against that?

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)
.
​

The text in Matthew does not tell us Satan's objective. Nor does Paul tell us in Titus how the grace of God teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness. There is plenty of scope for bible teachers to expound about the outworking of God's grace in our hearts from Titus and other scriptures, and there is probably no end of teachers with their own idea of what Satan was up to in the temptation in the wilderness. But that is nothing to do with mistranslating the passage to make the text say what you want. You start with the meaning of the text.

 

[GenemZ]

'Dying thou dost die' does not really mean anything in English and it certainly does not tell us what the Hebrew means, which as you realise is 'you will surely die'."

That is a commonly held interpretation held by those who lack insight into what we find in the Word of God in its original language.

I don't know why you keep going back to this clunky mistranslation.

I would guess he hopes maybe something might sink in. Its not clunky. Its what the Hebrew says. The Jews spoke and thought in terminology that would seem 'clunky' to those who think that the manner in which he himself thinks must be universal. We find this so called 'clunky' wording when we look at literal word-for-word translations. The Greek also speaks in a manner that you would find to be clunky, or awkward.. To the one writing? That's how they thought.

"Throw momma from the train, a kiss."

To the Pennsylvania Dutch? That is not clunky. I can just picture you trying to get them to think "correctly."

Strong's is useful at times for showing us what the Hebrew words are, but here it does not convey the meaning. What you refer to as the 'common English translation' is the common English translation for the simple reason it is what the phrase means in English. If you are trying to come up with a new meaning by prising the word 'dying' out of the Hebrew construction (and actually the infinitive is 'to die' not 'dying') you are ignoring the actual meaning of the Hebrew phrase.

Obviously, you have never sat under an educated Pastor in the original languages. You'd be humbled in three seconds if you did.

The phrase means surely die and the rest of the sentence tells us when Adam would surely die: on the day he ate the fruit. Sorry Jig, that is what the text says.

He did die. Spiritually. Instantly. It was almost 900 years before his body gave out. In dying spiritually, it resulted in dying physically.

You ever wonder why you need to be born again? Because you are DEAD spiritually from birth.

Colossians 2:13
"When you were dead in your transgressions and the
uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive
together with Him, having forgiven us all our
transgressions."​

You are just trying to find some way to escape the plain meaning of the text. The meaning of Hebrew is very simple. God was warning Adam he would die on the day he ate the fruit.

Dead men do not sew on fig leaves. Spiritually dead men, do.

We were all born physically alive the first time. Born spiritually DEAD. That is why men need to be BORN AGAIN.

Two births. First we all have, physical. The second birth not all have, spiritual. Adam had two deaths.

1 Corinthians 15:46
"The spiritual did not come first, but the natural,
and after that the spiritual."​

.

 

[Assyrian]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

That is a commonly held interpretation held by those who lack insight into what we find in the Word of God in its original language.

Are you saying the translation committees of the ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV and NKJV lack insight into the meaning of the original Hebrew? Or are you talking about some hidden gnostic insight unavailable to mere experts in biblical Hebrew?

I would guess he hopes maybe something might sink in. Its not clunky. Its what the Hebrew says. The Jews spoke and thought in terminology that would seem 'clunky' to those who think that the manner in which he himself thinks must be universal. We find this so called 'clunky' wording when we look at literal word-for-word translations. The Greek also speaks in a manner that you would find to be clunky, or awkward.. To the one writing? That's how they thought.

"Throw momma from the train, a kiss."

To the Pennsylvania Dutch? That is not clunky. I can just picture you trying to get them to think "correctly."

If only we had some way of finding out what the words in their original order meant to people who spoke the language. Oh wait. It is called translation.

Your example is actually quite good, but bear in mind, the way Young translated the Hebrew is how your Pennsylvania Dutch carries over German dialectical constructions combined with English words. And trying to read Hebrew constructions that have been carried over into English as if that is what it really meant in English is like insisting the sentence really means throw you mother off the train.

Obviously, you have never sat under an educated Pastor in the original languages. You'd be humbled in three seconds if you did.

Nothing wrong with humility or respect for scholarship.

He did die. Spiritually. Instantly. It was almost 900 years before his body gave out. In dying spiritually, it resulted in dying physically.

Exactly. He did die spiritually and he died instantly, the same day he ate the fruit, just as God had warned. That is what Gen 2:17 was talking about. Now there was a consequence in his physical death because he was cut off from the Tree of Life and could not live for ever. But the death he was warned about, the death he died the day he ate the fruit was spiritual death. He did not die physically the day he ate it.

You ever wonder why you need to be born again? Because you are DEAD spiritually from birth.

Colossians 2:13
"When you were dead in your transgressions and the
uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive
together with Him, having forgiven us all our
transgressions."​

You are just trying to find some way to escape the plain meaning of the text. The meaning of Hebrew is very simple. God was warning Adam he would die on the day he ate the fruit.

Dead men do not sew on fig leaves. Spiritually dead men, do.

That is my point. Adam died spiritually when he sinned. I don't know why you are keeping on arguing about it when this is the very point The Barbarian and I have been making.

We were all born physically alive the first time. Born spiritually DEAD. That is why men need to be BORN AGAIN.

Two births. First we all have, physical. The second birth not all have, spiritual. Adam had two deaths.

1 Corinthians 15:46
"The spiritual did not come first, but the natural,
and after that the spiritual."​

Probably not relevant to this discussion but I would question being born spiritually dead, Paul says Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. In what way do you think he was alive before he sinned that ceased to be alive afterwards?

Sounds to me as if Paul was just like Adam here, he died spiritually in the day that he sinned and then he died physically much later at the hands of a Roman executioner.

 

[Jig]

Why is the penalty for sin physical death if sin only brought upon spiritual death?

I like what genez said, "In dying spiritually, it resulted in dying physically."

 

[The Barbarian]

Funny how strict literalists are strict only when a literal re-interpretation serves their purposes.

When it denies what they want to believe, suddenly we see a lot of "well, it doesn't really mean what it says..."

 

[Mallon]

When it denies what they want to believe, suddenly we see a lot of "well, it doesn't really mean what it says..."

Don't forget, "Well, it's obviously metaphor."

 

[Assyrian]

Why is the penalty for sin physical death if sin only brought upon spiritual death?

You need to be more specific. What passage are you talking about where the penalty for sin is physical death? The penalty for murder was death in the OT, a life for a life. Stealing was sin too, but the penalty for stealing was making restoration, not death, paying back two, four or five times the amount stolen depending on the circumstance Exodus 22. Which raises questions about the theft of fruit in a certain garden

You need to look at the particular passages which talk of the penalty of sin being death and try to see what kind of death is being talked about. It is not always very clear. You can't even look at the context and see physical death mentioned in one instance and think it means it is all about physical death. Look at Romans 7. Paul starts off talking about a woman being bound to her husband until he dies, certainly physical death in that instance, Paul ends up in verse 9-13 talking about how death was the result of sin in his life. Sounds like the sort of thing you are talking about. Except Paul tells us he actually died as a result of his sin. Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. As I pointed out before Paul was very much alive physically when he wrote that verse.

I like what genez said, "In dying spiritually, it resulted in dying physically."

There is a deep and complex inter-relationship between spiritual death and physical. They are not the same thing, but they result in our deepest predicament when our physical death combines with being spiritually dead. It cuts us off from God for all eternity. But how this inter-relationship came to be is another question.

It is a simplistic answer to say physical and spiritual death both came in together at the fall. It does not fit the scriptures, and it contradicts what we know about the history of life on the planet.

There is nothing in scripture that says there was no physical death before the fall. God created mankind just like we are. 1Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Man was created mortal, flesh and blood, but though man was mortal, there was also the promise of eternal life. That I think is what the Tree of Life is about. It makes no sense if everyone in the garden was immortal anyway. When Adam sinned, he died spiritually. His physical death years later was not directly the result of the fall. He died because he was mortal and his body grew old and died. That is the way God made him. What the fall did was cut him off from God and the possibility of resurrection.

 

[GenemZ]

Are you saying the translation committees of the ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV and NKJV lack insight into the meaning of the original Hebrew? Or are you talking about some hidden gnostic insight unavailable to mere experts in biblical Hebrew?

"Better be ignorant of a matter than half know it."
- Publilius Syrus

​

​

You sound to me like a college freshman who was just initiated into a little knowledge. You really do not have enough understanding to know what you are talking about. Yet? You assume others here are just like you were before you received your dollop of information.

I can not argue. For, all your responses are without sufficient knowledge to connect with what is being said, and are filled with inane, sophomoric assumptions which are simply not true. You are consistently off on a tangent. You also appear to have been trained by someone on how to find excuses not to consider what you do not know.

"A winner knows how much he still has to learn, even when he is considered an expert by others. A loser wants to be considered an expert by others, before he has learned enough to know how little he knows." - Sydney Harris
​

​

You sound doggedly determined to keep finding excuses to close your mind.

The problem you face is that there are others here who DO GET IT.
The kids are going out to have fun and to play. They are leaving you to stay behind alone because they do not want to be around your implacable negativity. That's all you offer. You spoke of gnosticism? Apparently, you do not even know what they teach on this type of matter. Its nothing to do with what is being revealed here. But? The little you know about gnosticism you used as a shield in an attempt to make yourself appear to be informed. But? To those who GET IT? You're naked and exposed.

Go argue with a baby Christian. You might qualify to be testing for someone on that level. You are out of your league here. Your remarks only reveal how little you actually know. Too little to explain what it is you are missing. You have a lots to learn first. But, the spirit is not willing.


Gnostics were not the only ones who make claim to knowledge which requires academic ability. Christianity requires it as well.

Philippians 1:9
​

"And this is my prayer: that your love may abound
more and more in knowledge and depth of insight."
​

​

To you? Who apparently has not a clue on what we speak? Yet, who wishes to maintain a sense of intellectual ascension? You have in a vain attempt labeled that spiritual process as "gnosticism?" "Modernism?"

You are out of your league, Assyrian. That's the real problem here.

I think it must baffle you that some here can be so far out ahead of you in understanding. Your reaction? "That just can't be!" "Its only this! Its only That!"

Proverbs 9:8
"Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you;
rebuke a wise man and he will love you."




.
​

 

[GenemZ]

Funny how strict literalists are strict only when a literal re-interpretation serves their purposes.

When it denies what they want to believe, suddenly we see a lot of "well, it doesn't really mean what it says..."

I see you're Catholic?

Well then? How is this for being literal?

Matthew 23:9
"And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one
Father, and he is in heaven."




​

When it denies what they want to believe, suddenly we see a lot of "well, it doesn't really mean what it says..."

Now? What were you saying?


.

 

[Assyrian]

"Better be ignorant of a matter than half know it."
- Publilius Syrus

​

​

You sound to me like a college freshman who was just initiated into a little knowledge. You really do not have enough understanding to know what you are talking about. Yet? You assume others here are just like you were before you received your dollop of information.

I can not argue. For, all your responses are without sufficient knowledge to connect with what is being said, and are filled with inane, sophomoric assumptions which are simply not true. You are consistently off on a tangent. You also appear to have been trained by someone on how to find excuses not to consider what you do not know.

"A winner knows how much he still has to learn, even when he is considered an expert by others. A loser wants to be considered an expert by others, before he has learned enough to know how little he knows." - Sydney Harris
​

​

You sound doggedly determined to keep finding excuses to close your mind.

The problem you face is that there are others here who DO GET IT.
The kids are going out to have fun and to play. They are leaving you to stay behind alone because they do not want to be around your implacable negativity. That's all you offer. You spoke of gnosticism? Apparently, you do not even know what they teach on this type of matter. Its nothing to do with what is being revealed here. But? The little you know about gnosticism you used as a shield in an attempt to make yourself appear to be informed. But? To those who GET IT? You're naked and exposed.

Go argue with a baby Christian. You might qualify to be testing for someone on that level. You are out of your league here. Your remarks only reveal how little you actually know. Too little to explain what it is you are missing. You have a lots to learn first. But, the spirit is not willing.


Gnostics were not the only ones who make claim to knowledge which requires academic ability. Christianity requires it as well.

Philippians 1:9
​

"And this is my prayer: that your love may abound
more and more in knowledge and depth of insight."
​

To you? Who apparently has not a clue on what we speak? Yet, who wishes to maintain a sense of intellectual ascension? You have in a vain attempt labeled that spiritual process as "gnosticism?" "Modernism?"

You are out of your league, Assyrian. That's the real problem here.

I think it must baffle you that some here can be so far out ahead of you in understanding. Your reaction? "That just can't be!" "Its only this! Its only That!"

Proverbs 9:8
"Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you;
rebuke a wise man and he will love you."




.
​

So much name calling, so little substance

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian points out that strict literalists suddenly say "well, it doesn't really mean what it says" when it's something they don't like.

I see you're Catholic?

Yep. Like other orthodox Christians, we know that some of Scripture is figurative.

Well then?

So when we know that we see such verses, they aren't a contradiction.

How is this for being literal?

Matthew 23:9
"And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one
Father, and he is in heaven."

​

Perfect example of the way literalism takes you from God. Jesus says:

Matthew 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

If you take these verses literally, then no one can be Jesus's disciple, unless he hates God. You really believe that? Seriously? So then, if this isn't true, why is Jesus calling mere humans "fathers?"

Barbarian observes:
When it denies what they want to believe, suddenly we see a lot of "well, it doesn't really mean what it says..."

Now? What were you saying?

I'm saying we're about to get another round of "well, it doesn't really mean what it says..." from the literalists. Or maybe dead silence.

 

[GenemZ]

Barbarian points out that strict literalists suddenly say "well, it doesn't really mean what it says" when it's something they don't like.



Yep. Like other orthodox Christians, we know that some of Scripture is figurative.



So when we know that we see such verses, they aren't a contradiction.

​

Matthew 23:9

"And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one
Father, and he is in heaven."​

​

Perfect example of the way literalism takes you from God. Jesus says:

Matthew 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

If you take these verses literally, then no one can be Jesus's disciple, unless he hates God. You really believe that? Seriously? So then, if this isn't true, why is Jesus calling mere humans "fathers?"

Barbarian observes:
When it denies what they want to believe, suddenly we see a lot of "well, it doesn't really mean what it says..."


I'm saying we're about to get another round of "well, it doesn't really mean what it says..." from the literalists. Or maybe dead silence.

Thanks for a lesson in how to evade answering a question.

 

[The Barbarian]

Thanks for a lesson in how to evade answering a question.

Here's the question you evaded:

Barbarian observes:
Yep. Like other orthodox Christians, we know that some of Scripture is figurative. So we know that when we see such verses, they aren't a contradiction.

Matthew 23:9

"And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one
Father, and he is in heaven."​

Perfect example of the way literalism takes you from God. Jesus says:

Matthew 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

If you take these verses literally, then no one can be Jesus's disciple, unless he hates God. You really believe that? Seriously? So then, if this isn't true, why is Jesus calling mere humans "fathers?"

You ducked the question, of course, because it is a perfect example of the way literalism damages scripture.

If you are right in your legalism, Jesus is saying that no one can come to Him unless they hate God. How do you justify that? I answered your question; it's your turn to answer mine.

 

[GenemZ]

So much name calling, so little substance

What I said was getting right to the heart of the matter. It was not name calling. It was pointing to the problem.

Just the same, I can appreciate your desire to deny any wrong doing.

As you wish...




.

 

[GenemZ]

You ducked the question, of course, because it is a perfect example of the way literalism damages scripture.

If you are right in your legalism, Jesus is saying that no one can come to Him unless they hate God. How do you justify that? I answered your question; it's your turn to answer mine.

Well, at least you are revealing how you are rightly handling the Word of truth challenged.

Its not that complex,as you make it to be. Nor,is it as over simplified.

2 Timothy 2:15​

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."


​

Because God grants freedom, we will find those who will know what it means to be ashamed.

And, on the other side... Because God grants freedom, we will find those who will know what it means to glory in knowing God's Grace has granted them truth.

Grace is not IQ dependent. Its a willingness to be corrected dependent. Grace is (in part) the process of the Holy Spirit making us able to see what the natural mind can not know exits.

James 4:6
"But he gives us more grace. That is
why Scripture says:
"God opposes the proud
but gives grace to the humble."​

So be it.



.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is nothing complex in my argument. Your verse cannot be literal, for if it is literal, Jesus is saying one must hate God to be a disciple of Jesus. On re-reading, I gather you understand now. And I'll let it go.

 

[GenemZ]

There is nothing complex in my argument. Your verse cannot be literal, for if it is literal, Jesus is saying one must hate God to be a disciple of Jesus. On re-reading, I gather you understand now. And I'll let it go.

Really? How could you know if I were being literal, or figurative, if I appeared to agree with you?




.

 

[Jig]

You need to be more specific.

Let's discuss the reasoning behind animal sacrifice.

God required animal sacrifices so that mankind could receive atonement for their sins (Leviticus 4:35; 5:10). The animal served as a substitute--that is, the animal physically died in place of the sinner.

First, the animal had to be spotless. Next, the person offering the sacrifice had to identify with the animal. Then the person offering the animal had to inflict physical death upon it. When done in faith, this sacrifice provided atonement for sins. The animal sacrifices were only symbolic and prophetic. The death of the Messiah is the reality to which those symbols pointed, and it accomplished what they only adumbrated. The OT sacrifices atoned for sin, but our Lord’s physcial death and sacrifice purged our sin away.

Explain why it took physical death to atone and purge our sin if our sin's penalty was only spiritual death?