Why Do Christians Lie About What God Said in Genesis 2:17?

[Qubit]

One of the biggest lies that is told by many Christians is that Genesis 2:17 is 'not literal'...

Genesis 2:17
"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."

They will either change the word 'day', or they will change the phrase 'surely die' to mean something they do not (e.g., day = thousand years, spiritual death, began to die, etc.).

According to Scholars who understand how to properly translate and interpret the text, both 'day' and 'surely die' are to be understood as being literal.

Many resources may be found on the internet that go into great detail on this topic.

Example 1:

Finally, to interpret Genesis 2:17 as announcing natural consequences instead of a juridical penalty ignores the overwhelming biblical evidence of how authors used the phrase in question throughout the Old Testament. As such, the natural consequences interpretation seems to establish human arbiters as higher authorities than the text to determine its truthfulness and relevance. Scripture no longer interprets Scripture.

Dying You Shall Die: The meaning of Genesis 2:17

Example 2:

Here is another Bible Scholar that also agrees that 'day' and 'surely die' are literal...

Note that Dan McClellan in the above videos believes that God lied.

Although I agree with the above research that Genesis 2:17 is literal, I do not believe God lied.

So, why do so many Christians lie and claim that Genesis 2:17 is not literal? Is there an agenda here? Are they just ignorant?

 

[HTacianas]

One of the biggest lies that is told by many Christians is that Genesis 2:17 is 'not literal'...

Genesis 2:17
"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."

They will either change the word 'day', or they will change the phrase 'surely die' to mean something they do not (e.g., day = thousand years, spiritual death, began to die, etc.).

According to Scholars who understand how to properly translate and interpret the text, both 'day' and 'surely die' are to be understood as being literal.

Many resources may be found on the internet that go into great detail on this topic.

Example 1:

Finally, to interpret Genesis 2:17 as announcing natural consequences instead of a juridical penalty ignores the overwhelming biblical evidence of how authors used the phrase in question throughout the Old Testament. As such, the natural consequences interpretation seems to establish human arbiters as higher authorities than the text to determine its truthfulness and relevance. Scripture no longer interprets Scripture.

Dying You Shall Die: The meaning of Genesis 2:17

Example 2:

Here is another Bible Scholar that also agrees that 'day' and 'surely die' are literal...

Note that Dan McClellan in the above videos believes that God lied.

Although I agree with the above research that Genesis 2:17 is literal, I do not believe God lied.

So, why do so many Christians lie and claim that Genesis 2:17 is not literal? Is there an agenda here? Are they just ignorant?

Well, it leaves us with two options.

1. It is not literal
2. The writer didn't have the attention span of longer than one verse

The writer says "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die", then goes on to say that they lived long afterwards. If we are to allow "scripture to interpret scripture" we resolve that the writer meant something else.

 

[Qubit]

Well, it leaves us with two options.

1. It is not literal
2. The writer didn't have the attention span of longer than one verse

The writer says "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die", then goes on to say that they lived long afterwards. If we are to allow "scripture to interpret scripture" we resolve that the writer meant something else.

Hi @HTacianas . Thanks for the list. I believe there is a third option we can add.

3. They physically died, and God resurrected them.

Obviously, the view is controversial, so I do not expect many to agree.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

One of the biggest lies that is told by many Christians is that Genesis 2:17 is 'not literal'...

Genesis 2:17
"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."

They will either change the word 'day', or they will change the phrase 'surely die' to mean something they do not (e.g., day = thousand years, spiritual death, began to die, etc.).

According to Scholars who understand how to properly translate and interpret the text, both 'day' and 'surely die' are to be understood as being literal.

Many resources may be found on the internet that go into great detail on this topic.

Example 1:

Finally, to interpret Genesis 2:17 as announcing natural consequences instead of a juridical penalty ignores the overwhelming biblical evidence of how authors used the phrase in question throughout the Old Testament. As such, the natural consequences interpretation seems to establish human arbiters as higher authorities than the text to determine its truthfulness and relevance. Scripture no longer interprets Scripture.

Dying You Shall Die: The meaning of Genesis 2:17

Example 2:

Here is another Bible Scholar that also agrees that 'day' and 'surely die' are literal...

Note that Dan McClellan in the above videos believes that God lied.

Although I agree with the above research that Genesis 2:17 is literal, I do not believe God lied.

So, why do so many Christians lie and claim that Genesis 2:17 is not literal? Is there an agenda here? Are they just ignorant?

Scripture teaches us about the relationship between the Creator and His Creation. That relationship was lost by Adam and restored by Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The question is.....is this relationship only through the flesh or does it begin with the flesh and end with everlasting life with Him through His Spirit? Adam once "walked with God" then it ended. We know that Adam and Eve's physical lives did not end on that day, as they lived 900+ years after they ate of the tree, but what did end was their relationship with God. So what exactly had changed? What changed is God, through His Holy Spirit , no longer dwelt in them. Also known as the "second death", they were no longer in the Spirit they were only in the flesh. Jesus Christ of Nazareth restored the "indwelling" of His Holy Spirit which is only obtained through regeneration , the "new man". Unless one presents the complete picture of "this relationship" interpretations, such as this one, will cause error.
Blessings.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Although I agree with the above research that Genesis 2:17 is literal, I do not believe God lied.

Adam and Eve died spiritually the moment they sinned. They no longer had connection to the living God = they were dead. Paul talks about it in Ephesians 4 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.

The natural man, like Adam hiding in the garden, is isolated from God. When we are born again, the spiritual death is reversed. Before salvation, we are dead (spiritually), but Jesus gives us life. “And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,”

Adam and Eve also began to die physically, but God here is talking about spiritual death, because God is life, and without Him we are nothing.

 

[Clare73]

One of the biggest lies that is told by many Christians is that Genesis 2:17 is 'not literal'...
Genesis 2:17
"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."
They will either change the word 'day', or they will change the phrase 'surely die' to mean something they do not (e.g., day = thousand years, spiritual death, began to die, etc.)

According to Scholars who understand how to properly translate and interpret the text, both 'day' and 'surely die' are to be understood as being literal.
Many resources may be found on the internet that go into great detail on this topic.
Example 1:
Finally, to interpret Genesis 2:17 as announcing natural consequences instead of a juridical penalty ignores the overwhelming biblical evidence of how authors used the phrase in question throughout the Old Testament. As such, the natural consequences interpretation seems to establish human arbiters as higher authorities than the text to determine its truthfulness and relevance. Scripture no longer interprets Scripture.

Dying You Shall Die: The meaning of Genesis 2:17

Is that not what happened?

Dying (on the day they ate of it, they died spiritually; i.e., lost eternal life), you shall die (they later died physically).

 

[Qubit]

We know that Adam and Eve's physical lives did not end on that day

Your statement is incorrect.

All you did was post the false dogma talked about in the videos and links I provided.

Please understand the OP before posting. Thanks.

 

[Qubit]

Adam and Eve died spiritually the moment they sinned.

Nope. That is not what the verse teaches.

Adam and Eve also began to die physically...

Please understand the OP. Thanks.

 

[Qubit]

Is that not what happened?

Dying (on the day they ate of it, they died spiritually; i.e., lost eternal life), you shall die (they later died physically).

This is the proper interpretation:

"Dying the first death, you shall die the Second Death."

Since God said it would happen on that day, then we know it happened within a twenty-four-hour period.

If we were to take your interpretation and apply it to the rest of Scripture, we would immediately see that it does not work.

For example, this verse...

1 Samuel 22:16
"And the king said, Thou shalt surely die, Ahimelech, thou, and all thy father’s house."

...becomes this verse...

1 Samuel 22:16
"And the king said, Thou shalt [die spiritually and begin the aging process until you finally die many years later], Ahimelech, thou, and all thy father’s house."

The same goes for every use of the phrase 'surely die'. It means physical death with the allusion of the Second Death after. It is always used on someone who was disobedient. In other words, it is a phrase reserved for the wicked...

Ezekiel 33:8
"When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand."

Not just physically die, but also die in his iniquity (i.e., he is unredeemable and bound for Hell). Scripture interprets Scripture.

 

[Qubit]

3. They physically died, and God resurrected them.

This is the only option that agrees with Scripture.

 

[Clare73]

This is the proper interpretation:

"Dying the first death, you shall die the Second Death."

Is that the wording of the Hebrew?

Since God said it would happen on that day, then we know it happened within a twenty-four-hour period.

The first death being spiritual when he ate the fruit, and the second death being his physical death?

 

[Vambram]

This is the only option that agrees with Scripture.

Where is the passage of Scripture stating that Adam & Eve physically died in the Garden of Eden and were then resurrected there?

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Nope. That is not what the verse teaches

And what does it mean? Spiritual deadnes (separation for God) is seen throughout the Scripture. However, nowhere in the Scripture we read that Adam and Eve died and God ressuracted them, as you wrote in one of your posts.

Please understand the OP. Thanks.

You need to have a look at the Hebrew text. The Hebrew for “surely die” here is, literally, “die-die” (muwth-muwth) with two different verb tenses (dying and die), which can be translated as “surely die” or “dying you shall die.” The Hebrew phrase translated in English is:
“Tree knowledge good evil eat day eat die (dying) die.”

To understand this better, we need to know that Bible translators typically use two main ways to translate a text: formal equivalence (meaning “word for word”) and dynamic equivalence (more like “thought for thought”).

Now, if Genesis 2:17 was translated word for word, it would be “dying die” or “die die,” which would be difficult for English readers to understand (as repetition of a word doesn’t typically change the emphasis or meaning in English). And this is why most translations rightly use more dynamic equivalence and say “surely die.”

So, if God had meant Adam and Eve were to physically die right then, the text should have simply used muwth (which means “dead, died, or die”) only once, and not “beginning to die” or “surely die” (as is used in the Hebrew). (Source: Did Adam Only Die a Spiritual Death?)

In short, the fall resulted in immediate spiritual death and a later physical death

 

[Qubit]

Is that the wording of the Hebrew?

Here is what surely die in Genesis 2:17 looks like in Hebrew...

The Scholars will tell you that the above always means physical death. There is nothing 'spiritual' about it.

See how Strong's 4191 (Muth) is there twice? This is where some will translate it as 'dying you shall die'.

Since the phrase is not teaching 'begin to die and then die', the only other option is that they will 'die, die' i.e., they will die twice.

They will be 'twice dead'...

Jude 1:12
"These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots."

Twice dead means that they are already judged and condemned to the Lake of Fire.

The first death being spiritual when he ate the fruit, and the second death being his physical death?

According to the Scholars, there is nothing 'spiritual' about it. The first death is physical (return to dust). The Second Death is the Lake of Fire.

"dying you shall die".

What I am showing folks is that God either lied, changed his mind, or Adam and the Woman experienced a physical death right then and there after partaking of the Forbidden Fruit. I believe they experienced physical death first. They then experienced Hell until their 'eyes were opened' when God resurrected them here...

Genesis 3:7
"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."

It happened that fast in the story. Now they know what Good and Evil is because they experienced what it was like to die and go to Hell. That is what the 'knowledge' was all about. It was about experiencing what happens to those that do evil. How else would they truly know unless they went through it first-hand?

After God judged them, they were cast out...

Genesis 3:24
"So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

The above verse is a picture of the Second Death. That is where the 'separation' happened. The Tree of Life is no longer accessible.

 

[Qubit]

Where is the passage of Scripture stating that Adam & Eve physically died in the Garden of Eden and were then resurrected there?

Again, Genesis 2:17 is when God warned that Adam would physically die on that very day. There is no changing this.

Here is where Adam and the Woman physically died...

Genesis 3:6
"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."

We know that they died physically because God does not lie. Surely die means physical death. Day means within a twenty-four-hour period. We can safely assume that the worst had happened because that is what God said would happen. To read anything else into the text (e.g. spiritual death) is adding something that is simply not there.

Notice I keep saying 'Woman' instead of Eve? Go back and re-read the story. You will notice that there is no Eve until *after* the Fall. There was another being that was created first. Her name was Ishshah or Woman. That was her name...

Genesis 2:23
"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

Does it say, "She shall be called Eve?" Nope. Therefore, it was not Eve. Everyone ignores these and other crucial details in the story.

It was Ishshah that died. She was then resurrected here as Eve...

Genesis 3:7
"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."

Since Ishshah was recreated as a new being, she needed a new name, hence...

Genesis 3:20
"And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living."

Obviously, these are two different women. Eve was not named twice.

 

[Vambram]

Again, Genesis 2:17 is when God warned that Adam would physically die on that very day. There is no changing this.

Here is where Adam and the Woman physically died...

Genesis 3:6
"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."

We know that they died physically because God does not lie. Surely die means physical death. Day means within a twenty-four-hour period. We can safely assume that the worst had happened because that is what God said would happen. To read anything else into the text (e.g. spiritual death) is adding something that is simply not there.

Notice I keep saying 'Woman' instead of Eve? Go back and re-read the story. You will notice that there is no Eve until *after* the Fall. There was another being that was created first. Her name was Ishshah or Woman. That was her name...

Genesis 2:23
"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

Does it say, "She shall be called Eve?" Nope. Therefore, it was not Eve. Everyone ignores these and other crucial details in the story.

It was Ishshah that died. She was then resurrected here as Eve...

Genesis 3:7
"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."

Since Ishshah was recreated as a new being, she needed a new name, hence...

Genesis 3:20
"And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living."

Obviously, these are two different women. Eve was not named twice.

No doubt that this is probably the most unique interpretation of Genesis chapters 2 and 3 which I have ever seen. Obviously, I completely disagree agree with your most unique interpretation.

 

[Qubit]

And what does it mean? Spiritual deadnes (separation for God) is seen throughout the Scripture.

See, here is the thing. There is no 'spiritual deadness' in the Bible. It is made up dogma.

Even Wikipedia states this:

The phrase spiritual death is not found in Protestant scriptures, and definitions of the concept thus vary among Protestant Christians.

Spiritual death in Christianity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Definitions vary, meaning everyone just makes up what they want.

By the way, these verses are literal...

Ephesians 2:1-2
"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:"

We all were dead in a previous life. That is what is being taught. Christians are blind to the obvious. Look at that phrase 'time past'. When was that? Yesterday? A few weeks ago? When we were babies?

No.

Again, 'Time Past' means 'Past Life'. When? Here...

Ephesians 2:12
"That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world."

We were dead when God was not in the world. That was a long time ago!

However, nowhere in the Scripture we read that Adam and Eve died and God ressuracted them, as you wrote in one of your posts.

Here is where they were resurrected...

Genesis 3:7
"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."

They were 'naked' because they were not clothed with a Tabernacle Body yet...

2 Corinthians 5:4
"For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life."

They were trying to clothe themselves with a physical body. God clothed them as per Job...

Job 10:11
"Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews."

God did not 'kill an animal' or whatever. That is more make believe from the Church.

You need to have a look at the Hebrew text. The Hebrew for “surely die” here is, literally, “die-die” (muwth-muwth) with two different verb tenses (dying and die), which can be translated as “surely die” or “dying you shall die.” The Hebrew phrase translated in English is:
“Tree knowledge good evil eat day eat die (dying) die.”

Yes. I already did in the OP. Watch the videos and read the website. The studies are conclusive. They have been 'fact checked'. In other words, these are not 'opinions'.

So, if God had meant Adam and Eve were to physically die right then, the text should have simply used muwth (which means “dead, died, or die”) only once, and not “beginning to die” or “surely die” (as is used in the Hebrew). (Source: Did Adam Only Die a Spiritual Death?)

Unfortunately, your link just proves the points made by the Scholars in the OP. Your links simply state opinions and wishful thinking. Their research was not done using proper exegesis, Hebrew translation rules, criteria pertaining to usage elsewhere, etc.

 

[Qubit]

No doubt that this is probably the most unique interpretation of Genesis chapters 2 and 3 which I have ever seen. Obviously, I completely disagree agree with your most unique interpretation.

I hear you @Vambram . I appreciate you taking the time to consider the information and post your thoughts.

As a side note, I created a 'Timeline Challenge' for folks to check out if they are interested...

Genesis 1-3 Timeline Challenge: Can You Resolve the Alleged Contradictions?

I am putting forth a challenge. See if you can make the Genesis 1 through Genesis 3 timelines agree with each other and not contradict as Wikipedia (and other sources) claim. According to Wikipedia, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict one another: “The overlapping stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are...

www.christianforums.com

Basically, the conclusion amongst Scholars is that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory. I am trying to correct that false ideology.

So far, no one has been able to defeat the challenge, except me.

 

[Strong in Him]

One of the biggest lies that is told by many Christians is that Genesis 2:17 is 'not literal'...

Genesis 2:17
"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."

They did die - spiritually. They became separated from God.

 

[Strong in Him]

I believe there is a third option we can add.

3. They physically died, and God resurrected them.

Obviously, the view is controversial,

It's not Scriptural, either.