Proof Genesis is not Literal in every sense...

[Didaskomenos]

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)

Let me guess - those exegetes are gap theorists. And you know what? Speaking modern Hebrew in no wise entails understanding the nuances of grammatical constructions of ancient Hebrew. And the Genesis account is some of the oldest material in the Bible.

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.

Too true! Do you think someone here disagrees?

 

[GenemZ]

Let me guess - those exegetes are gap theorists.

Are they? You a mind reader? Or, did you simply check my profile to see what I personally believe?

My exposure has been pretty varied. One was a professor of ancient languages who used to teach at Harvard. Professor Stan Ashby. Very incompetent scholar. He taught at the Bible College I attended.

As far as the GAP theory? It may not be what you think it is. Even Origen of the first century saw something unusual in the Hebrew, long before Darwin set forth his challenge. There were others long before the evolution debate, that saw from the Scriptures that the earth is very old, and has had more than one creation. As far as the "hayah" issue? I don't need to say it "became." Makes no difference, and the Young Earthers have created a false issue in rightly dividing the Word. Care to bring this up in another thread?

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Didaskomenos]

Gene,

I'm devastated. Don't you remember me and our rousing gap vs. TE debates? It was only this past summer. Alas! I am too, too forgettable.

 

[GenemZ]

Gene,

I'm devastated. Don't you remember me and our rousing gap vs. TE debates? It was only this past summer. Alas! I am too, too forgettable.

Forgive me. Did you say something that I should remember?


GeneZ

 

[Didaskomenos]

*Ouch!* Well, yes, I can't imagine that the posts by which I debunked gap theory would be easy to forget. Some people have selective memory, I suppose.

 

[GenemZ]

*Ouch!* Well, yes, I can't imagine that the posts by which I debunked gap theory would be easy to forget. Some people have selective memory, I suppose.

Those with discernment are "selective."


Oh hummmm.... Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[tqpix]

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.

But the thing is, Adam did die that day. He did not die that self-same day, but he did die that day.

Example #1: Let's say you turn 30 years old this year on December 20. December 20 would then be your birthday, isn't it? Even though it's your birth day, we know that you weren't born on that self-same day; you were born on that day 30 years ago.

Example #2: Independence Day is on July 4 of 2005 isn't it? When that day rolls around, even though it's called Independence Day, we all know that the U.S. didn't get their independence on that very day. Their indendence happened on that day 229 years ago.

As for Adam, he didn't die on the self-same day that he the fruit, but he died on the day he ate the fruit years into the future; i.e. he died on the anniversary of the day he ate the fruit.

If God really meant that Adam would die on the very day which he ate the fruit, he should've said "in that self-same day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die;" many biblical passages have the word self-same (at least in the KJV) to indicate that the events described happened on those very same days.

 

[Vance]

Where do you find that he died on the anniversary of the date he ate the fruit?

 

[tqpix]

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.

 

[Vance]

Right, but where do you get that it is meant to be the anniversary and not the day itself?

 

[tqpix]

Right, but where do you get that it is meant to be the anniversary and not the day itself?

Two things:

1. God didn't say Adam was going to die on the very day that he ate the fruit; many biblical passages have the words self-same (at least in the KJV) to indicate that the events described happened on those very same days. If God really meant that Adam would die on the very day that he ate the fruit, how come he didn't say that Adam was going to die on that self-same day?
2. The fact that Adam didn't die on that self-same day can only mean that Adam will die on one of the anniversaries of the day that he ate the fruit; after all, God did say that Adam will die on that day.

 

[Vance]

First, you would need to do a word study of the Hebrew to find out the meanings of the words translated as "very" and "self-same" and not rely on the English translations.

Second, the fact that he did not die physically could mean that physical death was not meant, but spiritual death, so your "only" is not accurate.

And, the idea of spiritual death fits much better with the role of Jesus' sacrifice, so that seems more likely to be the proper interpretation.

 

[Vance]

I have a number of translations on my Palm and here are the various way it is translated: "when", "on the day", "the moment", "in the day". I think you would have to provide some pretty strong hermenuetics to establish that it meant on a later anniversary.

 

[tqpix]

First, you would need to do a word study of the Hebrew to find out the meanings of the words translated as "very" and "self-same" and not rely on the English translations.

You're right.

Second, the fact that he did not die physically could mean that physical death was not meant, but spiritual death, so your "only" is not accurate.

Unless the scripture tells me so, I don't tend to believe anything outside the scriptures. That's why I believe that it was meant to be a physical death, because the scripture didn't tell us that Adam was going to die a spiritual death. Personally, I think God created people to be immortal, but since Adam and Eve committed sin, God punished people by removing their immortality.

And, the idea of spiritual death fits much better with the role of Jesus' sacrifice, so that seems more likely to be the proper interpretation.

I only agree partly with this. I don't think it's more likely to be the proper interpretation.

 

[Vance]

But where does it say it would be a physical death and not a spiritual death?

It seems if you are willing to read "in the very day" as meaning an anniversary later on, it would be no problem at all to accept that the death referred to was spiritual. Much less of a leap if you ask me.

 

[GenemZ]

I have a number of translations on my Palm and here are the various way it is translated: "when", "on the day", "the moment", "in the day". I think you would have to provide some pretty strong hermenuetics to establish that it meant on a later anniversary.

Noooo! You are missing it!

He forgot one year it was their anniversary, and did not get Eve a present. That's the day he died!


Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

But where does it say it would be a physical death and not a spiritual death?

Where does it say it was a spiritual death and not a physical death?

That very day, Adam was removed physically and spiritually from the presence of God. Both of these are a death of relationship, and both are ultimately fatal.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Noooo! You are missing it!

He forgot one year it was their anniversary, and did not get Eve a present. That's the day he died!


Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Vance]

Where does it say it was a spiritual death and not a physical death?

That very day, Adam was removed physically and spiritually from the presence of God. Both of these are a death of relationship, and both are ultimately fatal.

I asked first.

My point is that it just says death, but does not specify what kind of death. Why assume both? To me the spiritual alone fits all the later theological implications just fine. In fact, I don't see how the physical death CAN be part of it.

Jesus came to redeem mankind from the death that resulted from the Fall. I think we would all agree upon this. We would also agree that Jesus' sacrifice was not futile, that it accomplished its purpose. So, what exactly does Jesus' sacrifice accomplish? Does it reinstate physical life or spiritual life? Does the acceptance of the gift of the redemption result in the gaining of spiritual life or physical life? The answer to both questions is spiritual, and not physical. So, the death referred at the time of the Fall and from which Jesus redeemed us must have been only spiritual.

If it involved physical death, then we would have to conclude that Jesus' sacrifice had NOT accomplished its purpose, and this can not be true. People still die, but the saved and unsaved. And yet both the saved and unsaved will experience eternal life, one in Heaven and one in Hell. So, Jesus' redemptive gift has no effect on whether we suffer physical death OR whether we will experience eternal life.

What was experienced "in the very day" of the Fall? A loss of direct communion with God, which is spiritual death. Not physical death. What is gained by the acceptance of Jesus' redemptive gift? A reconnection of our direct communion with God. Not physical life. What will we gain for eternity? Eternal spiritual life = direct and glorious communion with God. Not eternal physical life since this will be experienced by all, whether in spiritual life or in spiritual death.

So, the only thing I can see the Fall referring to is spiritual death.

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

One thing to consider, is that Jesus' death on the cross has not redeemed us from the results of the Adamic curse (or Adam's fall). I hear you cry heresy but think about this.
1. Do we still need to toil the soil for our sustenance post salvation. Yes.
2. Do women still travail in childbirth, post salvation? Yes.
3. Do women still have a propensity to despise snakes? Yes.
4. Do snakes still crawl on their bellies? Yes.

From this we can see that the Adamic curse is still in full operation. What Jesus redeemed us from is the curse of the Law. The Mosaic Law.

Only when we have run our race, and still stand, and obtain our promotion to glory, will the Adamic curse have been dealt with.
In Heaven, we will return to the relationship that existed in the Garden.
1. We will no longer toil for food.
2. Women will not suffer in childbirth
3. Women will not despise snakes. What snakes.
4. What snakes? No belly crawlers around.