The Theology of Genesis

[shernren]

Actually I don't think that's exactly what they're saying. Basically the IDM states that the particular type of complexity we see in life forms has only been known to come from intelligent designers, such as humans. They do not speak to the fact of whether this intelligence is natural or not. Scientifically speaking, if these life forms did arise naturally, they did so via some kind of natural intelligence.

From there one can then decide if this a reasonable conclusion, or if science perhaps is not yielding a correct conclusion. From there one can move to other non scientific ways of seeking the truth in this matter. This is a good example of how science can be useful in this debate.

What I've seen in IDM is basically one long argument from incredulity where "designed" is a euphemism for "not evolved, since we can't imagine how it could have evolved". But maybe you're right. I'll take some time to look into it. My plate (figurative. ) is rather full now and I don't want to say too many things I'll regret saying later.

oldwiseguy - the phraseology does imply death at a future indeterminate time, not from the word "you shall die" itself but from the phrase "in the day that ... ". It does not signify that on that day itself the person would die, but that on the day itself the person has "sealed his death sentence", to be poetic - has set in motion an irreversible course of events which will ultimately lead to death, and so he is "as good as dead" that day itself even though the actual moment of death may not coincide with the sin. (The actual phrase "in the day" is used similarly elsewhere in the OT. Go search and learn yourself, I'm too busy looking at how God compares Himself to a lion. )

It is ironic that this is normally a YEC argument against TEs who are saying that the "death" promised by God was a spiritual death, and thus that they would have died a physical death anyway whether or not they had eaten the fruit of knowledge, since if it was a physical death why didn't Adam and Eve drop dead on the spot? This reversal of arguments just goes to show how "bizarre" your ideas truly are.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No he didn't. He said essentially "Obey me".

I really don't see how you can get this from Genesis 3, there is no indication of anthing valiant in Adam's actions or motives. All we have is an attempt at self-preservation. He tries to blame Eve, and indirectly, God.
They were both hiding because they both knew they were naked, ie. they were both ashamed of what they had done and knew that God would not be happy when he found out.
The only part of that which is accurate is the bit I bolded, the rest is nowhere to be found in the text Where are you getting it from?
I can't see where you get this from the text either. Adam and Eve were not led into the wilderness, they wwere expelled. And the role played by an angel was not to lead, but to prohibit them from entering into the garden ever again.

The whole bible is needed to really understand many parts of it.

Isaiah 28:

9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

The pattern of atonement was established with sin of Adam and Eve. You can see it in the (feast of) Atonement ritual.

Leviticus 16:


7 And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.

9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering.

10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:

22And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

The goat (lamb) for the lord was killed. Adam and Eve were the (e)scaped goats, spared (immediate) death by the other goats sacrificial death, but carrying their guilt and punishment with them into the wilderness: out of (the presence of God) Eden.

The two parts of the sacrifice also prefigure the dual nature of Christ's sacrifice; the sin and atonement offering satisfied by one death (and resurrection). The communion of bread and wine reflects this as well.

Also notice that the scapegoat was for atonement, while the goat for the Lord was killed, as a sin offering. Adam and Eve were not as 'good as dead' in God's mind; they were as good as raised from the dead. Sparing their lives prefigured Christ's resurrection. A dead person cannot make atonement. His death only fulfills the punitive part the law for his offense. Atonement means healing the breach, repairing the damage, paying the fine, making restitution.

The greatness of Christs sacrifice is that he died to pay the punitive part, and then was resurrected and fulfilled the atonement part as well.

Bounce this off your minister, I'm sure he will be familiar with it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

oldwiseguy - the phraseology does imply death at a future indeterminate time, not from the word "you shall die" itself but from the phrase "in the day that ... ". It does not signify that on that day itself the person would die, but that on the day itself the person has "sealed his death sentence", to be poetic - has set in motion an irreversible course of events which will ultimately lead to death, and so he is "as good as dead" that day itself even though the actual moment of death may not coincide with the sin. (The actual phrase "in the day" is used similarly elsewhere in the OT. Go search and learn yourself, I'm too busy looking at how God compares Himself to a lion. )

**************************************************************
Here is the actual discourse that, if read correctly, demonstrates that it meant immediate death.

Gen3:

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

God said: "Ye shall die."

Satan (and you) said: "Ye shall not surely die."

Satan knew this, but Adam and Eve didn't, and had no reason to think otherwise. We know otherwise because we know the past history of Gods plan.

What I am inferring is that if you had been in the garden you would have told Eve the same thing that Satan told her: that she would not immediately die.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Note the conflation in the previous post between "surely" and "immediately".

 

[ebia]

Note the conflation in the previous post between "surely" and "immediately".

Thanks for that - I thought I was missing something.

 

[shernren]

Here is the actual discourse that, if read correctly, demonstrates that it meant immediate death.

Gen3:

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

God said: "Ye shall die."

Satan (and you) said: "Ye shall not surely die."

Satan knew this, but Adam and Eve didn't, and had no reason to think otherwise. We know otherwise because we know the past history of Gods plan.

What I am inferring is that if you had been in the garden you would have told Eve the same thing that Satan told her: that she would not immediately die.

What a wonderful thing to insinuate of a Christian brother.

Look carefully at the text. Examine it interlinearly if possible.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 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."
(Genesis 2:16-17 ESV)

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
(Genesis 3:1-5 ESV)

What did God say? " 'In the day' (yowm) that you eat, you shall surely die (moth tamuth)." The "surely die" is translated from a repetition of the hebrew for "die", "muwth", and when God said "You shall surely die" He did not mean an immediate cessation of life, as is clear from the ensuing events. Rather, He meant the beginning of the cessation of life: "From that very moment you shall start dying." Some theologians translate it as "dying, you shall die" or "a death you shall die" (Barnes). Furthermore, God's "in the day" construction cannot be construed as a temporal indication of when they would die, since this very same construction is used here: These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. (Genesis 2:4 ESV) - we do not say from here that God literally made the earth and the heavens "in one day"!

What did the serpent then say? "You will not surely die." The original has more force, with a literal translation: "The serpent told the woman, 'Not surely die!' " - the "you will" is added for clarity of language in English forms; the original has just the word "no / not" followed by God's exact words "moth tamuth" - "surely die". We can see that what the serpent actually contradicted was the assertion that they would die at all. The serpent did not say "You shall not die today, you shall die a few hundred years later"; he simply said "Die? No!"

To recap: the word "surely" stands in for a repetition of the Hebrew for death, "muwth", in the original, and thus denotes the severity and finality of the death they would suffer, rather than its immediacy.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What a wonderful thing to insinuate of a Christian brother.

Look carefully at the text. Examine it interlinearly if possible.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 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."
(Genesis 2:16-17 ESV)

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
(Genesis 3:1-5 ESV)

What did God say? " 'In the day' (yowm) that you eat, you shall surely die (moth tamuth)." The "surely die" is translated from a repetition of the hebrew for "die", "muwth", and when God said "You shall surely die" He did not mean an immediate cessation of life, as is clear from the ensuing events. Rather, He meant the beginning of the cessation of life: "From that very moment you shall start dying." Some theologians translate it as "dying, you shall die" or "a death you shall die" (Barnes). Furthermore, God's "in the day" construction cannot be construed as a temporal indication of when they would die, since this very same construction is used here: These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. (Genesis 2:4 ESV) - we do not say from here that God literally made the earth and the heavens "in one day"!

What did the serpent then say? "You will not surely die." The original has more force, with a literal translation: "The serpent told the woman, 'Not surely die!' " - the "you will" is added for clarity of language in English forms; the original has just the word "no / not" followed by God's exact words "moth tamuth" - "surely die". We can see that what the serpent actually contradicted was the assertion that they would die at all. The serpent did not say "You shall not die today, you shall die a few hundred years later"; he simply said "Die? No!"

To recap: the word "surely" stands in for a repetition of the Hebrew for death, "muwth", in the original, and thus denotes the severity and finality of the death they would suffer, rather than its immediacy.

You're still making my case for me. You and I understand this after the fact; as you said "from the ensuing events". But Eve didn't, and thought she would be literally put to death, executed, immediately. Satan had to explain to her that this would not happen. This implies that God was quite clear in his warning to her, and wanted her to believe just that. Else why would she believe it?

Also, if you isolate the literal/textual account from the rest of bible history i.e. the ensuing events, you will reach the same conclusion. What you and I understand now is not what Eve understood then.

 

[theFijian]

The greatness of Christs sacrifice is that he died to pay the punitive part, and then was resurrected and fulfilled the atonement part as well.

Umm...yeah I'm aware of all that atoning sacrifice stuff. What you don't see is the idea that Adam was trying to protect Eve when he tried to blame her for his own sin.

Bounce this off your minister, I'm sure he will be familiar with it.

hmmm....genuine advice or snide sarcasm....hard to decide.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Umm...yeah I'm aware of all that atoning sacrifice stuff. What you don't see is the idea that Adam was trying to protect Eve when he tried to blame her for his own sin.
hmmm....genuine advice or snide sarcasm....hard to decide.

The dialogue reveals that God is conducting an interrogation. Each is turn tells the truth, and God metes out the punishment.

12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.


13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Adam couldn't lie to God. He had to 'blame' Eve, as she was guilty.


I'm serious about your minister. Ministers know much more than they reveal in sermons, simply because some stuff is too difficult for many lay members to grasp.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Adam couldn't lie to God. He had to 'blame' Eve, as she was guilty.

Which means he certainly wasn't protecting Eve.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Which means he certainly wasn't protecting Eve.

Adam, Eve, and Satan, were pieces on a gameboard that God moved around at will.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Adam, Eve, and Satan, were pieces on a gameboard that God moved around at will.

which obliterates any notion of free will.

 

[ebia]

Is this a spoof - because it looks more and more like you are making it up as you go along?

 

[shernren]

Unfortunately not.

What difference does the immediacy, or not, of Eve's death make to the ultimate efficacy of Eve's death?

 

[theFijian]

which obliterates any notion of free will.

...or rather, I think he concedes the point that Adam was protecting Eve, which he clearly wasn't.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

which obliterates any notion of free will.

God allows all men complete free will, except his chosen.

 

[Willtor]

God allows all men complete free will, except his chosen.

I don't even know where to begin disagreeing with this. Suffice to say, I'm pretty sure you won't find this in any creed or Church Father of good standing.

Are you really being serious, or are you a parody?

 

[The Lady Kate]

God allows all men complete free will, except his chosen.

So... being God's chosen means being His mindless drone?