Proof Genesis is not Literal in every sense...

[versastyle]

God says Adam would die the day he ate of the fruit.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Ge 2:17[/font][font=verdana,arial,helvetica]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.[/font]

Adam did not die that day. He lived many years after that.

Let me ask a question. If Adam DID die that day, would any of you YEC's say that the scripture did not mean a physical death, but really meant only a "spiritual" one which you consistently assert today?

So it is obvious that this "death by eating of the tree of knowledge" is easily interpretted to mean many different things.

 

[PaladinValer]

He did die; spiritually. It broke the human soul, making us prone to the Devil's temptations and to fault and spiritual mistake. But you are correct that this proves that a literal reading of Genesis is wrong, as it makes God a liar.

 

[Micaiah]

I understand this to mean that on the day man diosobeyed God and ate the apple he would die physically and spiritually. An that is what happened. The spiritual aspects were evident immediately - guilt and separation from God. Physically, the principle of death was in operation once man disobeyed God. Man began to die on that day. We all experience death as a result of Adam's sin.

This is a good topic to consider in detail, as it demonstrates why God would not have used evolution to create man and the animals. Sickness, suffering, and death are part of evolution, but were the result of sin.

 

[1denomination]

I understand this to mean that on the day man diosobeyed God and ate the apple he would die physically and spiritually. An that is what happened. The spiritual aspects were evident immediately - guilt and separation from God. Physically, the principle of death was in operation once man disobeyed God. Man began to die on that day. We all experience death as a result of Adam's sin.

This is a good topic to consider in detail, as it demonstrates why God would not have used evolution to create man and the animals. Sickness, suffering, and death are part of evolution, but were the result of sin.

preach it brother . hehe


just playing people. On a serious note though, Micaiah, very good points brother. to which I fully agree.

 

[PaladinValer]

Sickness is due to other living organism, not sin, biologically proven.

 

[Micaiah]

preach it brother . hehe


just playing people. On a serious note though, Micaiah, very good points brother. to which I fully agree.

I am at once grateful and humbled by your appreciation.

 

[2Pillars]

God says Adam would die the day he ate of the fruit.

Ge 2:17But 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.

Adam did not die that day. He lived many years after that.

Let me ask a question. If Adam DID die that day, would any of you YEC's say that the scripture did not mean a physical death, but really meant only a "spiritual" one which you consistently assert today?

So it is obvious that this "death by eating of the tree of knowledge" is easily interpretted to mean many different things.

When Jesus told Adam that he would surely die, In The Day, that he disobeyed, Adam had not yet been created in the image of God, for Eve had not yet been formed. Both were created in the image and likeness of God at the same time (Gen. 5:1-2; 1:26-27).

Adam was formed physically on the 3rd Day, and named the beasts of the Field and Birds, formed from the gounnd at the beginning of the 6th Day, but he was not Created in God's Image until after Cain killed Abel.


Adam did Not die either physically nor Spiritually within 24 Hours, but Adam did Die on the present 6th Creative Day, just as Jesus told him he would

There was no 24 Hour Day and Scripture does not state that there was a 24 hour Day. Genesis shows that God has 6 Creative Days, and 1 Day of Rest which will Never End.

He did die; spiritually. It broke the human soul, making us prone to the Devil's temptations and to fault and spiritual mistake. But you are correct that this proves that a literal reading of Genesis is wrong, as it makes God a liar.

In order for one to die Spiritually, one must FIRST be Born Spiritually.

There are THREE (numeric)-- in the WHOLE FAMILY of God -- that bear records in Heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one (unity), ref. Eph. 3:15; 1John 5:7

"Let US create man in our image after our likeness" requires that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost operate in unity or agreement to make one a Spiritual Being.

This is confirmed by John 14:16-17 which shows that the agreement of "US" is necessary for a Spiritual Birth.

However, the forming of Adam physically by Jesus/YHWH himself, ref Gen. 2:7 -- who became a natural living soul (flesh) – was not spiritual birth, since, it does not include the agreement of "US" at that time or event yet, therefore, it also does not harmonized or reconciled with Gen. 1:26 nor John 14:16-17.

This is also confirmed by Paul’s epistle in 1Corinthians 15:45-46

"And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." 1Corinthian 15:45

"Howbeit that was NOT first which is spiritual, but that which is NATURAL; and AFTERWARD that which is spiritual." v46


God Bless

 

[Delta Leader]

Hey versatyle,
But it did literally happen. God only said that Adam would "surely die". Don't ask me what version you have, but by the NIV Genesis 2:16-17 reads:
And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must no eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Adam did surely die. As soon as he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil he started to die physically (I don't know about spiritually) and his sin also marred the communication link between God and man. Jesus then had to come down to Earth to pay the price for our sins; as all humans "sin in Adam" (by the Bible) or sin in the likeness of Adam. We all have the same problem that Adam had about 6,000 years ago.

 

[Bushido216]

When Jesus told Adam that he would surely die, In The Day, that he disobeyed, Adam had not yet been created in the image of God, for Eve had not yet been formed. Both were created in the image and likeness of God at the same time (Gen. 5:1-2; 1:26-27).

Adam was formed physically on the 3rd Day, and named the beasts of the Field and Birds, formed from the gounnd at the beginning of the 6th Day, but he was not Created in God's Image until after Cain killed Abel.


Adam did Not die either physically nor Spiritually within 24 Hours, but Adam did Die on the present 6th Creative Day, just as Jesus told him he would

There was no 24 Hour Day and Scripture does not state that there was a 24 hour Day. Genesis shows that God has 6 Creative Days, and 1 Day of Rest which will Never End.


In order for one to die Spiritually, one must FIRST be Born Spiritually.

There are THREE (numeric)-- in the WHOLE FAMILY of God -- that bear records in Heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one (unity), ref. Eph. 3:15; 1John 5:7

"Let US create man in our image after our likeness" requires that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost operate in unity or agreement to make one a Spiritual Being.

This is confirmed by John 14:16-17 which shows that the agreement of "US" is necessary for a Spiritual Birth.

However, the forming of Adam physically by Jesus/YHWH himself, ref Gen. 2:7 -- who became a natural living soul (flesh) – was not spiritual birth, since, it does not include the agreement of "US" at that time or event yet, therefore, it also does not harmonized or reconciled with Gen. 1:26 nor John 14:16-17.

This is also confirmed by Paul’s epistle in 1Corinthians 15:45-46

"And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." 1Corinthian 15:45

"Howbeit that was NOT first which is spiritual, but that which is NATURAL; and AFTERWARD that which is spiritual." v46


God Bless

In order to die biologically one must be born biologically. Adam wasn't.

Q.E.D.

 

[Bushido216]

I understand this to mean that on the day man diosobeyed God and ate the apple he would die physically and spiritually. An that is what happened. The spiritual aspects were evident immediately - guilt and separation from God. Physically, the principle of death was in operation once man disobeyed God. Man began to die on that day. We all experience death as a result of Adam's sin.

This is a good topic to consider in detail, as it demonstrates why God would not have used evolution to create man and the animals. Sickness, suffering, and death are part of evolution, but were the result of sin.

Ignoring the biological errors in your post, could it not be said that sickness, suffering, and death need not be biological? Why can't it be said that we as a species are disconnected from God in a spiritual, Godly way?

 

[Bushido216]

Hey versatyle,
But it did literally happen. God only said that Adam would "surely die". Don't ask me what version you have, but by the NIV Genesis 2:16-17 reads:
And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must no eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Adam did surely die. As soon as he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil he started to die physically (I don't know about spiritually) and his sin also marred the communication link between God and man. Jesus then had to come down to Earth to pay the price for our sins; as all humans "sin in Adam" (by the Bible) or sin in the likeness of Adam. We all have the same problem that Adam had about 6,000 years ago.

Ah, so now we have disagreement between various versions of the text. Oh dear. Where are we to go now?! Which literal version of Genesis should I adhere to!

Luckily those TE's can make the same case no matter which Bible they're using!

 

[2Pillars]

In order to die biologically one must be born biologically. Adam wasn't. Q.E.D.

Main Entry: biological
Variant(s): also biologic
Function: adjective
Date: 1859
1 : of or relating to biology or to life and living processes
2 : used in or produced by applied biology
3 : related by direct genetic relationship rather than by adoption or marriage <biological parents>
- bi·o·log·i·cal·ly /-ji-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Here's the biological process of life in the beginning based on the Scriptures (BC) which science finally agreed to after centuries of studies and speculations.

In the beginning God Created the heaven (Air) and the Earth (Ground). And the Earth (Ground) was without form, (Dust) and void; (Empty) and darkness (Death) was upon the face of the deep, (Water) and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The 3 elements necessary for all physical form are shown... Air, Dust, and Water. Everything which is physical is composed of these 3 elements. The text is correct in showing that the water was not directly created, or spoken into being, because it consists of elements of the Air or Atmosphere. Water is Hydrogen and Oxygen and came from the Atmosphere and is not shown as a separate creation.

FYI - Adam was formed by Jesus from the dust of the ground after the process of evaporation and condensation which watered the whole surface of the earth.

Genesis 1:21 tells us that every living thing which moveth, originated in the water. Science has finally agreed, after thousands of years of foolish speculation.


God Bless

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

Getting back to the original question. Did Adam die on the day he ate of the fruit? Was his death physical or spiritual? Is Genesis therefore literal, or only symbolic?

These are important questions, because the whole foundation of the Bible is layed down in Genesis. EVERY major doctrine of the Bible has its beginnings in Genesis. So is it any wonder that satan would want to do his utmost to discredit this very important part of the Bible. When you weaken Genesis, you weaken the whole.

Take it from another angle. There is a common linkage between Jesus and the Word. Jesus is described as the Word who dwelt among us. John in particular calls Jesus the Word. If we there fore accept that Jesus and the Word of God are inseparable, do you really think it acceptable to take chunks out of Jesus, saying they have been proven to be un-literal? Really. I don't think so.

Genesis stands on its merits, and the best of science has yet to conclusively disprove it, despite the passionate attentions of many and atheist scientist.

So, did Adam die "on the very day". What is 'die' Is not dying the process of the removal of life. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth AND THE LIFE". Located in the garden was the "Tree of Life". On the very day that Adam sinned he was removed, 'separated from' this LIFE. That is he died. The removal from being in the presence of Life that commenced that day, took another 930 years for that death to be fully outworked.

We see this principle at work in reverse many times in the Bible. God meets Gideon in the winepress and calls him a mighty warrior. Did it happen that day. No but it did happen. God calls Abraham the father of many nations. Did it really happen in his life-time. Not not really but it did happen. And so God is true and His word can be fully relied upon.

God said Adam would die, and He did. Separated that very day from the presence of LIFE, and finally outworked some 900 years later.

BTW, the comment about science proving sickness being the result of living organisms. And is it not possible these organisms were created as the result of that original sin, or more likely corrupted by that act, or most likely are a result of the curse placed upon Adam, Eve, the serpent and the Earth.

I see nothing in Genesis that conflicts with science, but I see a lot of science that tries to conflict with Genesis by making conclusions that are not based upon truth. IF you ask the wrong questions, or start with the wrong premis, you are bound to get very poor conclusions.

EG. sickness caused by organisms. No question about that. However the isssue is, when, how, why did they come to exist and behave as they do. Science can't answer that. It therefore draws conclusions based upon opinion. Where it doesn't, the unbelieving community will. And if not, satan will find those that will, to do his work.

God bless.
Kerry.

 

[Didaskomenos]

So, did Adam die "on the very day". What is 'die' Is not dying the process of the removal of life. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth AND THE LIFE". Located in the garden was the "Tree of Life". On the very day that Adam sinned he was removed, 'separated from' this LIFE. That is he died. The removal from being in the presence of Life that commenced that day, took another 930 years for that death to be fully outworked.

I must say that's a viable interpretation. But if it requires a redefinition of "die", it nevertheless falls short of the "plain, literal" seal of approval. The obvious interpretation of "die" means to keel over dead. Heart stops beating. Breathing ceases. To say anything else is itself not as plain and literal as if the Bible had said, "Starting on the day you eat of it, ye shall surely begin to die."

 

[Crusadar]

Godatword said: Getting back to the original question. Did Adam die on the day he ate of the fruit? Was his death physical or spiritual? Is Genesis therefore literal, or only symbolic?

Lets look at the specific verse of Gen 2:17 in question in various translations shall we?

"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." King James Verson

"except fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat of its fruit, you will surely die." New Living Translation

"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." New King James Version

" but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." New American Standard Bible

"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 die." Revised Standard Version

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt surely die." Noah Webster Version 1833

"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." Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898

"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt certainly die." J.N.Darby Translation 1890

"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." American Standard Version 1901

"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat of it you will surely die." Hebrew Names Version 2000

However with any translation of scripture it is always a good idea to refer back to the original language in which it was written to get the meaning that it was intended to have. I think the only version which did justice in the particular verse in question is the Robert Young Literal translation. In the Hebrew language the phrase "you shall surely die" literally translates to "dying you shall die" – meaning that when Adam ate of the fruit he will start dying, continue to die and die until he is dead - and he did.

 

[Didaskomenos]

This from http://www.biblefragrances.com/studies/docsh.html:

Hebrew Grammatical Study: qal infinitive absolute used for emphasis

DYING YOU SHALL DIE - Genesis 2:17

There is a common grammatical construction in the Hebrew language that expresses emphasis. It combines the qal infinitive absolute (to die or dying) with a main verb in either the imperfect or perfect tense, in order to bring special attention to the action of the main verb and give it emphasis. The context will determine the nature of that emphasis. Usually the emphasis is historical certainty which is indicated by the English word, "surely."

At Gen. 2:16, we see an example of volitional certainty - that is, the certainty of having a choice in a particular situation.

There is no grammatical basis for signaling out each of the verbal forms in this construction and giving them a different meaning. The statement does NOT mean, "dying spiritually, you shall die physically." It simply means, "you shall most certainly die!" The type of death that is in view must be determined by the context of both Genesis 3 and the rest of the Bible, and it is the determination of this writer that spiritual death is the primary concern at this point and is the initial result of Adam's sin. The consequence of physical death did indeed arise out from spiritual death and the acquisition of the sin nature, but the critical issue is loss of relationship with God, not loss of physical life. In fact, even in view of the condition of spiritual death, the consequence of physical death could have been prevented had Adam and Eve eaten from the tree of life (Genesis 3:19-24).



Gen. 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;

qal inf. absolute + qal imperfect of Akal = eating you shall eat

The emphasis is on volitional certainty.


​

Gen. 2:17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die."

qal inf. absolute + qal imperfect of muth = dying you shall die

The emphasis is on historical certainty.


​

Gen. 3:4 And the serpent said to the woman, "You surely shall not die!

qal inf. abs. + qal impf. of muth (neg. in front) = not dying you shall die.

The emphasis is on contrary historical certainty.


​

Gen. 17:13 "A {servant} who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

niphal inf. abs. + niph. impf. of mul = being circumcised he shall be circumcised



​

Gen. 18:10 And he said, "I will surely return to you at this time next year; and behold, Sarah your wife shall have a son." And Sarah was listening at the tent door, which was behind him.

qal inf. abs + qal imperfect of shub = returning, I will return



​

Gen. 18:18 since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed?

qal inf. abs. + qal imperf. of hAyAh = becoming, he will become



​

Gen. 20:7 "Now therefore, restore the man's wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you, and you will live. But if you do not restore {her,} know that you shall surely die, you and all who are yours."

qal inf. abs. + qal imperf. of muth = dying he shall die



​

This is the same construction that occurs at Gen. 2:17.


Gen. 26:11 So Abimelech charged all the people, saying, "He who touches this man or his wife shall surely be put to death."

qal inf. abs. + hophal imperfect of muth = dying, he shall be killed.



​

Gen. 30:16 When Jacob came in from the field in the evening, then Leah went out to meet him and said, "You must come in to me, for I have surely hired you with my son's mandrakes." So he lay with her that night.

qal inf. abs. + qal perfect of sAchar = hiring I have hired



​

Gen. 32:12 "For Thou didst say, 'I will surely prosper you, and make your descendants as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.'"

hiphil inf. abs. + hiph. imperfect of yAtabh = prospering, I will prosper



​

Gen. 37:33 Then he examined it and said, "It is my son's tunic. A wild beast has devoured him; Joseph has surely been torn to pieces!"

qal inf. abs. + pual perfect of tAraph = being torn, he was torn



​

Gen. 44:28 and the one went out from me, and I said, "Surely he is torn in pieces," and I have not seen him since.

qal inf. abs. + pual perfect of tAraph = being torn, he was torn



​

Gen. 50:24 And Joseph said to his brothers, "I am about to die, but God will surely take care of you, and bring you up from this land to the land which He promised on oath to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob."

qal inf. abs. + qal impf. of pAqad = visiting (aiding), he will visit (aid).



​

Gen. 50:25 Then Joseph made the sons of Israel swear, saying, "God will surely take care of you, and you shall carry my bones up from here."

qal inf. abs. + qal impf. of pAqad = visiting (aiding), he will visit (aid).



​

 

[GenemZ]

He did die; spiritually. It broke the human soul, making us prone to the Devil's temptations and to fault and spiritual mistake. But you are correct that this proves that a literal reading of Genesis is wrong, as it makes God a liar.

Not really..... Because a literal reading should be from the Hebrew text, not some English translation. The Hebrew says, "in dying, you shall die."

So..... In dying spiritually on the day he ate, he ended up dying physically later on as a result. "In dying, you shall die." That's the literal translation.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Didaskomenos]

?! Did you not read my post, genez? What about those other instances of the qal infinitive absolute? Do you really believe they should be conceptualized as "__ing spiritually you shall __ physically"?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Getting back to the original question. Did Adam die on the day he ate of the fruit? Was his death physical or spiritual? Is Genesis therefore literal, or only symbolic?

These are important questions, because the whole foundation of the Bible is layed down in Genesis. EVERY major doctrine of the Bible has its beginnings in Genesis. So is it any wonder that satan would want to do his utmost to discredit this very important part of the Bible. When you weaken Genesis, you weaken the whole.

Right. Here's the first problem. You associate non historicity with a "weakening", as if theological truth is somehow less "true" than historical truth. What is your justification for that?

Take it from another angle. There is a common linkage between Jesus and the Word. Jesus is described as the Word who dwelt among us. John in particular calls Jesus the Word. If we there fore accept that Jesus and the Word of God are inseparable, do you really think it acceptable to take chunks out of Jesus, saying they have been proven to be un-literal? Really. I don't think so.

Am I really seeing such a ridiculous fallacy of equivocation here? Because Jesus is called the Word, and because you call the Bible the Word, they must be the same thing?

Words Do Not Always Mean The Same Thing In Different Contexts! How about "Morning Star" - is this Jesus or Satan in the Bible? Are they the same because the same term is used of both?

Genesis stands on its merits, and the best of science has yet to conclusively disprove it, despite the passionate attentions of many and atheist scientist.

Not so. The concept that the universe is only six thousand years old is comprehensively falsified.

So, did Adam die "on the very day". What is 'die' Is not dying the process of the removal of life. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth AND THE LIFE". Located in the garden was the "Tree of Life". On the very day that Adam sinned he was removed, 'separated from' this LIFE. That is he died. The removal from being in the presence of Life that commenced that day, took another 930 years for that death to be fully outworked.

Yes, you're nearly there. The life that was lost is the life Jesus talked about. The only error is in associating that with physical life. People who reject the Light of Christ are considered by the scriptures to be "Dead in their sins", but physically they may be in the best of health. On the other hand, Jesus tells us that the great patriarchs of old are physically dead, but to God, they are spiritually alive.

We see this principle at work in reverse many times in the Bible. God meets Gideon in the winepress and calls him a mighty warrior. Did it happen that day. No but it did happen. God calls Abraham the father of many nations. Did it really happen in his life-time. Not not really but it did happen. And so God is true and His word can be fully relied upon.

Someone the other week - GodSaves IIRC - was saying that when God speaks it's already happened - do you guys want to get your heads together and decide on your story?

God said Adam would die, and He did. Separated that very day from the presence of LIFE, and finally outworked some 900 years later.

Nope. Spiritually he died that day, as God had said. Weird - my interpretation of God's words there is more literal than yours.

Leaving aside, of course, the fact that I consider the whole episode to be non-literal, but that's by the by.

BTW, the comment about science proving sickness being the result of living organisms. And is it not possible these organisms were created as the result of that original sin, or more likely corrupted by that act, or most likely are a result of the curse placed upon Adam, Eve, the serpent and the Earth.

No. The Creed says that God is the Creator of all things, visible and invisible. Everything was created by God. And we have perfectly good scientific evidence that creatures around long before the first humans suffered from diseases.

I see nothing in Genesis that conflicts with science, but I see a lot of science that tries to conflict with Genesis by making conclusions that are not based upon truth. IF you ask the wrong questions, or start with the wrong premis, you are bound to get very poor conclusions.

What, exactly, other conclusion can you reasonably draw from the fact that you can see supernovae millions of light years away, other than that these supernovae occurred millions of years ago, and therefore the universe is millions of years old? It strikes me that alternative explanations to the obvious one here require an a priori commitment to a 6000 year old universe. It is therefore not surprising that such explanations end up in ad-hocery, unevidenced claims and sometimes dishonesty.

EG. sickness caused by organisms. No question about that. However the isssue is, when, how, why did they come to exist and behave as they do. Science can't answer that.

Er - it can, rather well. Disease organisms have found that other organisms are a perfectly good biological niche. That this damages the host is just one of those things. It works; you jump to another victim.

It therefore draws conclusions based upon evidence

Corrected that sentence for you.

Where it doesn't, the unbelieving community will. And if not, satan will find those that will, to do his work.

God bless.
Kerry.

Yes, it's all the evil atheist satanic conspiracy at work, isn't it?

 

[GenemZ]

?! Did you not read my post, genez? What about those other instances of the qal infinitive absolute? Do you really believe they should be conceptualized as "__ing spiritually you shall __ physically"?

No, I had posted prior to reading your post. Just the same, I have heard other exegetes, some who speak the language, that do not agree with your conclusion. (like everything else we find in Scripture, I might add)

Just the same.... in dying on that day (which he did), Adam, as a result, died physically later on.

We are all born to be dead in our trangressions before salvation. And, Jesus did tell the young man to let "the dead bury their own dead." That indicates that God always knew we should come to understand the true meaning to death of Adam when he ate. He died spiritually when he ate.

Matthew 8:22niv

"But Jesus told him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."

That was the kind of death Adam experienced while physically alive. God did not lie. Adam died when he ate.

Grace and peace, GeneZ