Am I the Only Person on Earth Who Believes Genesis 2:17?

[Base12]

For at least a decade now, I have been searching for anyone who believes Genesis 2:17...

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."

So far, I have not found a single person. I seem to be the only human being who has ever existed who believes the verse. I feel like I should win some sort of prize or something.

Most folks I talk to about this are astonished to hear this. The reason is because they 'think' they believe until questioned about it.

The reality is that every person on the planet, i.e., both Christians and non-Christians alike, have been conditioned, perhaps even brainwashed, to alter the text of the verse to say/mean something it does not. The bizarre part is that no one seems to realize that they are doing it. Most people get very angry and offended when confronted about it which usually ends up with me being called names, banned, censored, mocked, ridiculed treated like garbage, etc. In other words, I experience the full wrath of typical "Christian" behavior instead of hearing the truth from them.

Anyhow, Scripture is clear that we are not to take away and/or add to it, yet this is precisely what is happening.

The way in which folks alter the verse is usually narrowed down into three categories:

1. Change the word 'day' into something non-literal (e.g., a thousand years)
2. Change the phrase 'surely die' into something non-literal (e.g., they began to die, separation from God, spiritual death, etc.)
3. Declare that God lied or changed his mind

Of course, basic exegesis forbids any of the above, yet no one cares. Even the so called 'scholars' break the rules. Every single one of them.

Because of this gross abuse of standard interpretation practice, many non-believers are quick to point out the immediate contradiction this imposes on the rest of the Bible, specifically with regards to Genesis 3:4...

Genesis 3:4
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

They will claim that God lied, and the Serpent told the truth, thus making the Serpent the good guy and God the bad guy. This is a terrible tragedy that has occurred, but again, no one cares. The lies continue to this very day.

Dan McClellan is someone who came really close to solving the riddle, but unfortunately fell short...

He recognizes that the verse is absolutely literal and that one must follow the rules of translation/interpretation. The part where he messed up was in his conclusion that God lied or changed his mind. This is why folks should not blindly follow and agree with a researcher, just because they call themselves a "scholar" and throw a bunch of technical buzzwords around.

Anyhow, the bottom line is that Adam and the Woman experienced exactly what God warned them would happen (and then some). The Serpent is the one who lied, as well as everyone else who has ever taught the Genesis account.

 

[Thomas]

For at least a decade now, I have been searching for anyone who believes Genesis 2:17...

OK. I think you mean 'believes in Genesis 2:17 as I do?

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."

The way in which folks alter the verse is usually narrowed down into three categories:

• Change the word 'day' into something non-literal (e.g., a thousand years)

It's not a 'change'. The English word 'day' can literally mean anything from the daylight hours, to a longer period of time, as in the expression, 'in my day'. So even in English the term is variable, and the same applies to Hebrew.
There is no sufficient reason that "in the day that thou" must definitely and definitively mean "within the next few hours".

Genesis 5:4 "And the day (yom) of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years" – that's a long period of time ...

Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, and words can carry multiple meanings.

The term yom is variously translated as: "time" (Gen 4:3, Is. 30:8); "year" (I Kings 1:1, 2 Chronicles 21:19, Amos 4:4); "age" (Gen 18:11, 24:1 and 47:28; Joshua 23:1 and 23:2); "always" (Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24 and 14:23, and in 2 Chronicles 18:7); "season" (Genesis 40:4, Joshua 24:7, 2 Chronicles 15:3); epoch or 24-hour day (Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31).

Yom relates to the concept of time. Yom is not just for day, days, but for time in general.

The word Yom is used in the name of various Jewish feast days; as, Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement; Yom teruah (lit., day of shouting) the Feast of Trumpets (i.e. Rosh Hashannah).

Most Bibles translate yom to read 'in the day', note the 'in', rather than 'on' – a few use 'on', but the point here is that the Hebrew does not say 'in' or 'on', the translators have extracted a phrase from the term. And the usual use of the word 'in' suggests a period of time.

• Change the phrase 'surely die' into something non-literal (e.g., they began to die, separation from God, spiritual death, etc.)

Well even here, 'surely die' and 'they begin to die' is the same. 'Surely die' does not necessarily mean they'll drop dead on the spot. As for 'separation from God' or 'spiritual death' – again you have given no grounds to exclude it, so it can mean that.

Genesis 3:9 "And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?"
Are we to assume that God does not know where Adam is?
Genesis 3:11 "Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"
Following on, God asks whether Adam has eaten of the tree – so we may assume death is not instantaneous.

• Declare that God lied or changed his mind

Well, of course, there are instances in the Hebrew Scripture where God does appear to change His mind – Abraham gets God to change His mind in Genesis 18.

Of course, basic exegesis forbids any of the above...

Actually, I'd say the opposite is the case.

Basic exegesis does not say we should assert an overtly literal reading of the English translation, when even the English allows for a variety of meanings.

Well, six seconds in Dan McClellan's asserts that 'on that very day' – which is not what the text says at all, so his soundbite bubble pops before he's even taken a breath. Also 'literally and physically' – that is not mentioned, that's his modern reading.

Also, his brief mention of 'paranomastic infinitive' is OK, but the emphasis is 'he will die', not 'on this very day', so that's a bit of a sleight-of-hand there. Naughty Dan.

Anyhow, the bottom line is that Adam and the Woman experienced exactly what God warned them would happen ...

Well there you go ... Adam and Eve both 'literally and physically', to quote Dan, died. But not on that day, that is, not within the sunset-to-sunset period... so where does that leave you?

PS, if McClellan is right, then God is wrong, he should toss the Bible in the bin because none of it is trustworthy, and go get another job ...

 

[wil]

Why do you post this in Christianity instead of Abrahamic? I would think you would be interested in hearing Jewish voices on the topic as well?

But beyond that. Can you tell me how this belief of yours which no one else believes affects you today?

Which fruit is it you avoid so you can stay alive and escape G!ds wrath?

 

[Base12]

OK. I think you mean 'believes in Genesis 2:17 as I do?

No. I am referring to a plain reading of the text and literal interpretation.

It's not a 'change'.

Prove it using proper translation rules.

The English word 'day' can literally mean anything from the daylight hours, to a longer period of time, as in the expression, 'in my day'. So even in English the term is variable, and the same applies to Hebrew.

Again, you need to prove that 'day' is not literal in Genesis 2:17, which you have not. No one has.

There is no sufficient reason that "in the day that thou" must definitely and definitively mean "within the next few hours".

I never claimed it did. What is your point?

Genesis 5:4 "And the day (yom) of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years" – that's a long period of time ...

My translation (KJV) says 'days'...

Genesis 5:4
"And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:"

Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, and words can carry multiple meanings.

Stick to Genesis 2:17. The experts have no issue translating it literally.

Well even here, 'surely die' and 'they begin to die' is the same.

Prove it.

'Surely die' does not necessarily mean they'll drop dead on the spot.

Actually, it does. You have not done your homework. Have you even watched the video? Dan is not the only one to prove this.

Or you can simply do a search for the phrase 'surely die' in the Bible and see for yourself what it means. The meaning is consistent and never changes.

As for 'separation from God' or 'spiritual death' – again you have given no grounds to exclude it, so it can mean that.

Of course I have. I can post proof all day long, you cannot.

Genesis 3:9 "And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?"
Are we to assume that God does not know where Adam is?

Irrelevant.

Genesis 3:11 "Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"
Following on, God asks whether Adam has eaten of the tree – so we may assume death is not instantaneous.

Why assume that God lied?

Well, of course, there are instances in the Hebrew Scripture where God does appear to change His mind – Abraham gets God to change His mind in Genesis 18.

That is a different context and has nothing to do with Genesis 2:17.

Well there you go ... Adam and Eve both 'literally and physically', to quote Dan, died. But not on that day, that is, not within the sunset-to-sunset period...

You still have not proven that, and you never will.

so where does that leave you?

You go ahead and believe what you want. I will trust the simple, literal reading without changing it. I can also rest assured that the experts I have found over the years, who agree to follow proper exegesis, have done their proper research.

Here is one of many examples...

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

When I was a district pastor, one of the more interesting elements in my work was fielding questions about a word or phrase from the original biblical languages. Like first year Hebrew students, members have unparalleled access to Internet and software resources that enable them to know enough...

www.ministrymagazine.org

I would highly suggest you study what is written in the link above.

Just an FYI...

You are so bent on not exploring the possibilities introduced in the OP that you have now painted yourself into a corner that you cannot escape from. Do you really believe that the only issue here is with Genesis 2:17? More and more scholars have concluded that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are filled with mistakes and are contradictory to one another. It makes Jews and Christians look stupid. Your poor exegesis is the reason why. You may be content with making fools out of all of us, but not me.

If you were to do a proper, honest, verse by verse interpretation of Genesis one through three, you would find that your theory falls apart quickly.

 

[Base12]

Why do you post this in Christianity instead of Abrahamic? I would think you would be interested in hearing Jewish voices on the topic as well?

Because I am a Christian and the moderators delete my posts and accuse me of 'promoting my religion' if I post elsewhere.

But beyond that. Can you tell me how this belief of yours which no one else believes affects you today?

Pass.

Which fruit is it you avoid so you can stay alive and escape G!ds wrath?

Pass.

 

[wil]

Hmmm just like questioning sunday school teachers.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

No. I am referring to a plain reading of the text and literal interpretation.

Again, you need to prove that 'day' is not literal in Genesis 2:17, which you have not. No one has.

You would have to prove it is only literal, as tge Bible supports greater meanings for "Day", such as,

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night

Literal Interpretation will always prove problematic, verses suchas this indicate why.

Revelation 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.

This obviously and logically is not literal.

Regards Tony

 

[wil]

Always an honor to know the only person on earth who knows how to interpret scripture.

 

[Craz]

I know this in no way answers the OP, but may be of interest.
Below is Genesis 3 2-4 with the commentary by Rashi.

Rashi says that the woman lied to the serpent by adding to the words God spoke , i.e. and you shall not touch it,
He then says that the serpent made her touch the tree and she didn't die, so eating would be ok too.

So she added to God's words(i.e changed God's words, a sin) and the serpent used her lie to make here eat the fruit.

2And the woman said to the serpent, "Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat.		בוַתֹּ֥אמֶר הָֽאִשָּׁ֖ה אֶל־הַנָּחָ֑שׁ מִפְּרִ֥י עֵֽץ־הַגָּ֖ן נֹאכֵֽל:
3But of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God said, "You shall not eat of it, and you shall not touch it, lest you die.'"		גוּמִפְּרִ֣י הָעֵץ֘ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּתֽוֹךְ־הַגָּן֒ אָמַ֣ר אֱלֹהִ֗ים לֹ֤א תֹֽאכְלוּ֙ מִמֶּ֔נּוּ וְלֹ֥א תִגְּע֖וּ בּ֑וֹ פֶּן־תְּמֻתֽוּן:
and you shall not touch it. She added to the command; therefore, she came to diminish it. That is what is stated (Prov. 30:6): “Do not add to His words.” - [from Sanh. 29a]		וְלֹא תִגְּעוּ בּוֹ. הוֹסִיפָה עַל הַצִּוּוּי, לְפִיכָךְ בָּאָה לִידֵי גֵרָעוֹן, הוּא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אַל תּוֹסְףְּ עַל דְּבָרָיו (משלי ל'):
4And the serpent said to the woman, "You will surely not die.		דוַיֹּ֥אמֶר הַנָּחָ֖שׁ אֶל־הָֽאִשָּׁ֑ה לֹא־מ֖וֹת תְּמֻתֽוּן:
You will surely not die. He pushed her until she touched it. He said to her, “Just as there is no death in touching, so is there no death in eating” (Gen. Rabbah 19:3).

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8167/showrashi/true

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Always an honor to know the only person on earth who knows how to interpret scripture.

It is a gift and an definitely an honour to embrace the Giver and interpreter's of Scriptures, who are the Prophets, Messengers or Manifestations of God.

Regards Tony

 

[Thomas]

No. I am referring to a plain reading of the text and literal interpretation.

But the text is not a literal translation.

No Biblical translation is literal – every translation is interpretive. The skill of the translator is as much an art as it is a science.

Prove it using proper translation rules.

Treating the English as only the literal meaning is not a rule of translation.

The English translation can be read to assume 'in that day' means 'on that day' (it does not).

The demonstrative pronoun 'that' is not in the Hebrew text. The Hebrew has beyôm (בְּיוֹם), the Hebrew preposition 'ב' usually being translated as 'in'. The English phrase “in the day that” involves inserting words to make the English read smoothly:
"for in day you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Only sometimes – not always – does beyôm refer to a literal day, in which case the context makes it clear.

The same beyôm is used in Genesis 2:4 and does not refer to a specific 24-hour day but to the whole Creation of six days.

Numbers 7 verses 10 and 84 beyôm refers to a 12-day period of sacrifice. In verses which describe the sacrifices of each of those days (12, 18, 24, et seq), bayyôm (בַּיּוֹם) is used, where the 'a' – the vowel mark under the first Hebrew letter on the right, and the dot (dagesh) under the second letter on the right (yod) indicate the definite article 'the'.

The phrase beyôm is therefore sometimes rightly translated as “when,” referring to a period longer than a day, and the New International Version and the New English Translation reads:
"but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Again, you need to prove that 'day' is not literal in Genesis 2:17, which you have not. No one has.

I have proven it need not be read literally. You cannot prove it must or should be read literally.

Actually, it does. You have not done your homework. Have you even watched the video? Dan is not the only one to prove this.

1: Actually it doesn't. Dan's argument rests on the final phrase, a paranomastic infinitive, which in this case asserts that whoever eats the fruit will surely die. The day is not emphasised, so there is no way of telling whether it is 'on that day' or, as most translations have it, 'in that day' – and the English preposition 'in' allows for a broader conceptual meaning, whereas had the translator meant by the end of that very day, the preposition 'on' would be the better term.

2: I have watched the video, I have looked up 'paranomastic infinitive' which was a term unknown to me, and I have gone over the text (Gen 2:17).

3: The Hebrew מוֹת תָּמוּת literally means 'thou shalt die surely thou shalt die'
Explanation (shortened for brevity here)
"The infinitive absolute intensifies the meaning of the imperfect verb. hence "you shall surely die".

This construction is quite common in the Old Testament. Scholarly reference work by Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Conner, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, gives many Biblical examples of this, and they say that “the precise nuance of intensification must be discovered from the broader context.” (my emphasis).

Clearly, Adam and Eve did not literally and physically die in that moment or on that day. Later, in Genesis 3, God asks Adam whether or not he had eaten of the tree ... so a literal reading would have us believe God walks and talks in the Garden, and does not know what's happening unless, like us, He sees it with His own eyes, and when Adam and Eve hide, He has no idea where they are ...

So either, as a Abrahamic:

• This God is not the God of Abraham and Moses and Judaism, nor of Jesus, Paul, the Jews of Jesus' day and Christianity, nor the God of Muhammed (pbuh) and Islam, nor, indeed, of the Baha'i.
• This is the same One True God, but the language is figurative.
• This is a mythology that contains within it revealed transcendent truths in an accessible form ...

4: I have watched the video more than half a dozen times now, paying careful attention to what Dan is saying.

5: Anyone using Dan's argument is making the same logical error he makes – which I have pointed out.

Further, his argument about death – it must and can only mean 'literally, physically', is very weak and is not proven from the text.

McClellan's whole argument rests on a false dichotomy, a false either/or argument, in that he argues that the text can only either mean this, or that, whereas the is a range of possible readings, which have to be reasoned accordingly.

Furthermore, while he says most scholars say God did not literally carry through with the threat in Genesis 2:17, he does not say how the scholars actually interpret the text ...

Generally, scholars agree that:
The 'death' was brought about by direct disobedience which resulted in an immediate severance of unity with the Divine. This is obvious from the text because as a direct result of the eating of the tree, they saw themselves in a different sense, and saw themselves as 'naked' (3:7) which they perceived to be a bad thing, they made aprons to conceal their nakedness, they 'hid' from God (v8) and felt fear (v10) – they felt guilt and shame about their own condition.

The Death of Innocence.
They lost the communion with God – The Spiritual Death
They lost their place in the Garden because they could no longer be trusted because of their Loss of Faith
Having given way to Sin (direct disobedience) they reap its fruit: Death.
In modern parlance, from the moment of eating from the tree they were as 'a dead person walking'.

+++

Or you can simply do a search for the phrase 'surely die' in the Bible and see for yourself what it means. The meaning is consistent and never changes.

Scholars say otherwise. The meaning is contextual.

Of course I have. I can post proof all day long, you cannot.

You haven't posted any proof so far.

Irrelevant.

Nonsense. It's part of the text. You can't base an argument on half a verse and ignore the entire context, that's not any kind of scholarship.

Why assume that God lied?

I'm not. McClellan seems to think He got it wrong – which is a staggering statement for a scholar to make.

That is a different context and has nothing to do with Genesis 2:17.

It's to do with God apparently changing His mind. I would have thought God saying 'you will die' and then someone arguing they didn't implies just that, or that God got it wrong.

You still have not proven that, and you never will.

LOL, I can't prove they ever lived!

You go ahead and believe what you want. I will trust the simple, literal reading without changing it.

"You go ahead and believe the evidence, I choose not to". Suit yourself.

I can also rest assured that the experts I have found over the years, who agree to follow proper exegesis, have done their proper research.

Are they 'expert' because they agree with you?

Here is one of many examples...

OK ... I have intercut with my comments.
Finally, to interpret Genesis 2:17 as announcing natural consequences instead of a juridical penalty ...
It's not 'instead of'. It's a consequence as a direct result of juridical penalty. False argument – it's not either/or. Were Adam and Eve immortal? No, they were created and their life would have a span, and they would die. But the command of Genesis 2:17 is a commandment and they broke the contract and thus suffered a juridical penalty.

ignores the overwhelming biblical evidence of how authors used the phrase in question throughout the Old Testament.
Rather, it takes into context Genesis 2-3 entirely, as well as similar literary constructions elsewhere in Scripture.

Scripture no longer interprets Scripture.
That's a whole other debate.

I would highly suggest you study what is written in the link above.

I have. And I have pointed out the flaw.

You are so bent on not exploring the possibilities introduced in the OP that you have now painted yourself into a corner that you cannot escape from.

LOL, it's you who is 'not exploring possibilities.

More and more scholars have concluded that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are filled with mistakes and are contradictory to one another.

Then their scholarship is wanting.

I'd say more and more online scholars – and I use the term loosely – find a ready audience for sensational claims that rest on dubious arguments. It's all soundbite stuff. People are just ready to lap it up, and why that is so is, again, a whole other discussion.

It makes Jews and Christians look stupid. Your poor exegesis is the reason why. You may be content with making fools out of all of us, but not me.

If you were to do a proper, honest, verse by verse interpretation of Genesis one through three, you would find that your theory falls apart quickly.

Actually I have and it doesn't.

 

[Thomas]

Question for @Base12:

Matthew 18:6-9
"... it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea... And if thy hand, or thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee... And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee having one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire"
So do you suggest we read this literally – that Jesus is proposing and thus validating self-mutilation and suicide?

or this Matthew 5:39-42
"But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him. And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two, Give to him that asketh of thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away."
So we should scrap the legal system and most of our social moral codes?

 

[Thomas]

And what do you actually believe of Genesis 2:17?

 

[wil]

And what do you actually believe of Genesis 2:17?

Good luck... I got a

Pass

 

[Base12]

Hmmm just like questioning sunday school teachers.

I am not trying to be rude; It is just that I am tired of posting and having it all disappear over and over again.

One of my most popular videos was taken down because it had the word 'vaccine' in it. The censorship is out of control.

There is a Spirit at work that does not want this information to reach the masses.

 

[Base12]

You would have to prove it is only literal

Dan is only one of many that have proven it over and over again. I simply do not have the time to spend on these forums to convince people. I am barely scratching the surface here. Christians need to overcome their Cognitive Dissonance.

What the folks here are not understanding is that by changing just one word, it breaks dozens of others. It is like a software programmer changing a line of code that breaks the whole operating system.

I will post some examples later.

, as tge Bible supports greater meanings for "Day", such as,

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night

Grabbing an arbitrary verse and plugging it into Genesis 2:17 just to make someone's false theory work is just plain wrong. Everyone knows that this is bad practice. There are thousands of instances of the word 'day', but for some reason Genesis 2:17 is the one that has to be non-literal? That is rubbish.

By the way...

Did you even bother to look at the context of the verses you referenced? Did you catch the profound meaning of what the thousand years vs. day relationship is related to? It is not about Genesis 2:17, that is for sure.

Here is what God is trying to teach you...

Psalms 90:3-5
"Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men. For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up."

Do you see it?

Look again...

2 Peter 3:5-8
"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

It is about the Flood of Noah. That is what the thousand years vs. day is all about. And guess what? If we go ahead with everyone's logic here and plug this into the Ark story, look what happens...

Genesis 7:17
"And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth."

Forty days become forty thousand years! If Noah was in the Ark for say 360 days, that means 360,000 years passed on Earth. Oh, but that is crazy to do that right? Is there a double standard exegesis happening here?

Interestingly, it turns out that Modern Man is around 300,000 years old...

"...anatomically modern humans emerged in Africa approximately 300,000 years ago."

Human evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Imagine that. Scripture supporting Evolution.

Revelation 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.

This obviously and logically is not literal.

Regards Tony

Really? It is a Parallel Universe that John travelled to and came back from. I have no issue with that. God can make infinite universes if he wants.

 

[Base12]

Always an honor to know the only person on earth who knows how to interpret scripture.

What do I win?

 

[Base12]

Rashi says that the woman lied to the serpent by adding to the words God spoke , i.e. and you shall not touch it,
He then says that the serpent made her touch the tree and she didn't die, so eating would be ok too.

I have often wondered about that. For what it is worth, I will add some detail. This is for later discussion though as it is too advanced without context.

Basically, it could be that Ishshah may have been told by the Serpent that by partaking of the Forbidden Fruit, she would be given reproductive organs and be a creator of life. I feel like she would have been tempted by this concept more than anything.

 

[Base12]

I have proven it need not be read literally. You cannot prove it must or should be read literally.

Yes, I can. Like I mentioned before, by altering the text you have broken dozens of others. You never went back to double check your work. Just take your favorite translation/interpretation and plug it into the rest of the verses that use the same phrase, and you will see it does not work at all.

Here are some examples using the 'begin the aging process and eventually die' interpretation:

Genesis 20:7
"Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die [begin the aging process and eventually die], thou, and all that are thine."

That obviously does not work. Strike one. Let us try another...

1 Samuel 20:31
"For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die [begin the aging process and eventually die]."

That makes no sense. Strike two.

One more...

2 Kings 1:4
"Now therefore thus saith the LORD, Thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die [begin the aging process and eventually die]. And Elijah departed."

Strike three, you are out.

What about 'day = 1,000 years'?

1 Kings 2:37
"For it shall be, that on the day [on the thousand years] thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die: thy blood shall be upon thine own head."

That sounds absurd.

Again...

1 Kings 2:42
"And the king sent and called for Shimei, and said unto him, Did I not make thee to swear by the LORD, and protested unto thee, saying, Know for a certain, on the day [on the thousand years] thou goest out, and walkest abroad any whither, that thou shalt surely die? and thou saidst unto me, The word that I have heard is good."

See? It just does not work.

If you wish to play games with the Hebrew, then that is your choice. Just realize that whatever you come up with needs to match with the same phrase used elsewhere, otherwise there is no reason to take your research seriously.

 

[Base12]

Clearly, Adam and Eve did not literally and physically die in that moment or on that day.

Clearly? That is confirmation bias. Someone told you that the First Adam and the Woman did not physically die on that day, and you believed it and never bothered to double check if you were given the correct information.

From there, you began changing word after word, phrase after phrase all over Genesis to make everything fit that false teaching.

Look what you did here...

Genesis 2:4
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens"

You changed the literal 'in the day' to something else. What did you change it to? 'Back in the day'? 'In the six days'? You obviously altered it because if you did not, you would have seen that there was a First Adam who was created on that literal day...

Genesis 2:5 (New Living Translation)
Neither wild plants nor grains were growing on the earth. For the LORD God had not yet sent rain to water the earth, and there were no people to cultivate the soil.

Looks like Scripture is adding some fine print beginning with the Third Day, *before* plants, people or any form of life existed.

What was the first form of life that was created on the Third Day @Thomas ? Do you know?

Look...

Genesis 2:7
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Oops! Looks like Man was the first form of life! Created on the Third Day even. Jesus rose on the Third Day as well. Wow, we have a match.

It was the First Adam that died after partaking of the Forbidden Fruit. He had to be recreated on the Sixth Day. Same with Ishshah. She died and had to be recreated.

You and everyone else blew it big time. You took away and added to the Word of God to make it say something it does not and now your whole Creation Account is completely FUBAR. Now the "Scholars" say Genesis 1 and 2 are filled with mistakes and full of contradictions because of what you have done.

I am trying to clean up your mess. What thanks do I get? None.