Genesis 3:3-4

some people say that Adam and eve did not die when they eat the fruit ,but they did die , not in a 24 hour day butwithin the thousand year day of Jehovah.

when Jehovah in his Word speaks of a "day" or "days," we should not conclude that he always means days of twenty-four hours. He may be referring to such and he may not

The word day can refer to a longer period of time. At 2 Peter 3:8 we are told: "One day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. and did not Adam die within the thiusand year day,he was 930 when he died so he died within the day

Through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned."—Romans 5:12

illness, old age, and death befell them—conditions not found in Paradise, where man was to have lived

Interestingly, modern scientists know that the human body continually renews itself by replacing its cells. And they say that, under the right conditions, it is capable of living forever. A Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Linus Pauling, explained that man’s bodily tissues replace themselves and, theoretically, should continue to do so forever. Biochemist William Beck also observed: "I can see no reason why death, in the nature of things, need be inevitable." Yet, in spite of being so made, men continue to grow old and die. Why? God’s Word the Bible gives us the satisfying answer.

 
Could "day" also mean 14 lunar months? How about .121685 nanoseconds?

What would be the purpose of writing a scripture using words that have a different meaning to everyone but the author without ever explaining the meaning you intend by the terms?
 
Abogado del Diablo said:
Could "day" also mean 14 lunar months? How about .121685 nanoseconds?

What would be the purpose of writing a scripture using words that have a different meaning to everyone but the author without ever explaining the meaning you intend by the terms?
maybe he has explained it , do not the scriptures explain themselves such as 2 peter about the day of 1000 years
 
mee said:
maybe he has explained it , do not the scriptures explain themselves such as 2 peter about the day of 1000 years

That has nothing to do with the days of creation. To apply that way is nonsense, unless you substitute 1000 years for every use of "day" in scripture.

Moreover, the line in 2 Peter is a simile. Notice the word "like" in there. It's not superfluous.

In any case, did Jesus rise on the Sunday immediately after the crucifixtion or sometime more than 2000 years after the crucifixtion?
 
I enjoyed reading this thread. There is a lot of insight on these boards. Here is my view. It's not meant to be argumentative, but merely a sharing of what I see. Please be patient with me.

When I read these verses I'm struck by the simplicity of it. This simple story encapsulates so many different angles of man's predicament on earth. It symbolizes the very struggle of a spiritually aware existence. On the one hand, living in complete obedience to God would put us in a somewhat blissfully ignorant state. Some claim that angels and certain spiritual beings exist in this manner, and that this is why they do not experience salvation the way man does.

On the other hand, becoming acquainted with our nature (which man apparently must) is painful. Enter, the Garden of Eden...

I think the story works beautifully as a confirmation of our spiritual state without throwing in the idea that God is punishing US for what THEY did. As I see it, God doesn't have to punish anybody (past or present) for their actions. I interpret consequences as just that. It's as though God was saying: "If you jump off that cliff, you will fall and die" not "If you jump off that cliff I'm going to make you fall and die." God's laws are active, eternal, and inescapable like the laws of nature. So God then explains what effect the couple's disobedience will have on the future. He doesn't have to cast a curse on anybody -- He's just expressing the way things are. We are not required to interpret these consequences as a punitive act (IMHO).

I agree that God knew what would happen. When God says Gen 3:22 "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil...", He is confirming/acknowledging this part of the plan. It is more ceremonial than accusatory. It's also not surprise: "Oh no, look what happened! I didn't see that coming, did you?" Instead, it is the beginning of "The plan for developing man's spirituality."

If it should have been done differently, God would have done it differently. Therefore, the situation is always joyous, never desperate. The process set in motion has been created for great eternal benefits, as we all know. (I am unsupportive of an original sin doctrine.)

To me, this story encapsulates how & why man, in his struggles to become like God, must continually fail -- discover the consequences -- and then work at picking himself back up. "Wow, shame, fear, and toil really stink!" By discovering the ungodly parts of the self and rejecting their consequences we grow in our conviction to embrace godly qualities. With our growing conviction, we become more like God -- which has to have been the point in the first place.

Some people won't "get it" as we know, will continually jump off the cliff and hit the ground and then look for the next cliff to jump off. But my belief is that they are not being punished for disobedience as much as they are simply suffering the consequences of their actions, and falling from a cliff that they chose to jump off. In the end, the final chasm they jump into winds up being REALLY deep.
 
The Judeac/Christian concept of God is nothing simplistic. It requires a man to think, ponder, then act. That in and of itself is a complex set of issues.

And it isn't a matter of what one does to be "saved". It is a matter of what one does while here. Perhaps that is for another thread...

v/r

Q
 
I read somewhere once, that knowledge was the enemy of faith.

I guess I view the original sin in a different light.

To me, to make a decision based on the absence of knowledge is true free will. When you have knowledge, your decisions are then based on what you know.. how is that free will, with the bias of knowledge affecting your decision.

Maybe I am interpreting the term free will in the wrong manner. I always observe that people (including myself) choose the path that best suits them at the time.. based off a variety of historical, social, emotional and spirtual factors. Pride, greed, guilt etc..

~~~~
If Eve did have to feed Adam a piece of fruit from the tree knowledge, why couldn't she of made it a larger piece. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Ratanya said:
I read somewhere once, that knowledge was the enemy of faith.

I guess I view the original sin in a different light.

To me, to make a decision based on the absence of knowledge is true free will. When you have knowledge, your decisions are then based on what you know.. how is that free will, with the bias of knowledge affecting your decision.

Maybe I am interpreting the term free will in the wrong manner. I always observe that people (including myself) choose the path that best suits them at the time.. based off a variety of historical, social, emotional and spirtual factors. Pride, greed, guilt etc..

~~~~
If Eve did have to feed Adam a piece of fruit from the tree knowledge, why couldn't she of made it a larger piece. :cool:

Indeed, why did Adam choose Eve over God? Was it free will? Or did he know what was going to happen, yet chose it anyway...

v/r

Q
 
Quahom1 said:
Indeed, why did Adam choose Eve over God? Was it free will? Or did he know what was going to happen, yet chose it anyway...

v/r

Q

That's funny . . . I always though Eve chose Adam . . . ;)
 
Beautiful! Beautiful!!

I appreciate ghufranakahmad for taking this thread in the direction I hoped it would go.

MattWolf said:
When I read these verses I'm struck by the simplicity of it. This simple story encapsulates so many different angles of man's predicament on earth. It symbolizes the very struggle of a spiritually aware existence. On the one hand, living in complete obedience to God would put us in a somewhat blissfully ignorant state. Some claim that angels and certain spiritual beings exist in this manner, and that this is why they do not experience salvation the way man does.
I agree.
On the other hand, becoming acquainted with our nature (which man apparently must) is painful. Enter, the Garden of Eden...

I think the story works beautifully as a confirmation of our spiritual state without throwing in the idea that God is punishing US for what THEY did. As I see it, God doesn't have to punish anybody (past or present) for their actions. I interpret consequences as just that. It's as though God was saying: "If you jump off that cliff, you will fall and die" not "If you jump off that cliff I'm going to make you fall and die." God's laws are active, eternal, and inescapable like the laws of nature. So God then explains what effect the couple's disobedience will have on the future. He doesn't have to cast a curse on anybody -- He's just expressing the way things are. We are not required to interpret these consequences as a punitive act (IMHO).
Your HO sits well with me. I tend to view the Commandments in that way as well.
I agree that God knew what would happen. When God says Gen 3:22 "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil...", He is confirming/acknowledging this part of the plan. It is more ceremonial than accusatory. It's also not surprise: "Oh no, look what happened! I didn't see that coming, did you?" Instead, it is the beginning of "The plan for developing man's spirituality."
Beautiful. This makes sense to me because to think that God would set Man up for failure is contrast to my understanding of a Merciful, All-Knowing God who doesn't change.
If it should have been done differently, God would have done it differently. Therefore, the situation is always joyous, never desperate. The process set in motion has been created for great eternal benefits, as we all know. (I am unsupportive of an original sin doctrine.)

To me, this story encapsulates how & why man, in his struggles to become like God, must continually fail -- discover the consequences -- and then work at picking himself back up. "Wow, shame, fear, and toil really stink!" By discovering the ungodly parts of the self and rejecting their consequences we grow in our conviction to embrace godly qualities. With our growing conviction, we become more like God -- which has to have been the point in the first place.
 
Ratanya said:
I read somewhere once, that knowledge was the enemy of faith.

I guess I view the original sin in a different light.

To me, to make a decision based on the absence of knowledge is true free will. When you have knowledge, your decisions are then based on what you know.. how is that free will, with the bias of knowledge affecting your decision.

Maybe I am interpreting the term free will in the wrong manner. I always observe that people (including myself) choose the path that best suits them at the time.. based off a variety of historical, social, emotional and spirtual factors. Pride, greed, guilt etc..
Knowledge is there. We can overlook it, or choose to pick it up and stick it in our pockets. If we choose to keep it, then we choose what to do with it. To take a leap of faith is free will, but if you aren't in communion with God, it is still the free will to fall - perhaps blissfully ignorant.
If we choose to know nothing (can we choose to know nothing outside of culture?), do you think that we can be one with God without the suffering?
If Eve did have to feed Adam a piece of fruit from the tree knowledge, why couldn't she of made it a larger piece. :cool:
Maybe that is the original sin :D
 
To all you guys who take the Old Testament as the literal word of God I would like to ask you a couple of questions.

1) Did Lots wife deserve to be turned into a pile of salt just because she looked back on the city she lived in while it was burning to smitherines?

2) Did the man who let his semen spill on the ground while having sex deserve that? I mean surely God had enough to do at that time destroying the whole world in a flood?

3) Did the man in The book of Numbers deserve to be stoned to death for gathering sticks for a fire on the sabbath?

I've got plenty more questions but lets start with those, I would like to know if these are the actions of a loving God?
 
To all you guys who take the Old Testament as the literal word of God I would like to ask you a couple of questions.

1) Did Lots wife deserve to be turned into a pile of salt just because she looked back on the city she lived in while it was burning to smitherines?

2) Did the man who let his semen spill on the ground while having sex deserve that? I mean surely God had enough to do at that time destroying the whole world in a flood?

3) Did the man in The book of Numbers deserve to be stoned to death for gathering sticks for a fire on the sabbath?

I've got plenty more questions but lets start with those, I would like to know if these are the actions of a loving God?

Well we don't know what really happens after death (when our spirit leaves this realm), however, God did give specific instructions to the individuals in question above, under pain of death if they refused to obey them...yet they chose to disobey Him anyway...seems to me that God has to be a being of His word, or else the rest of mankind would not take Him seriously...

In the grander scale of things, God simply might have been saying "Hey, I told you not to do that or I would take you out of the sand box...now since you didn't listen, you can't play in the sand box; you have to stay here with me, while everyone else gets to play..."
4_12_1.gif
4_12_10.gif


v/r

Q
 
Actually I see it more logically, that this "god" is not a great loving being at all, but a tyrant. Much more simple.
 
Kindest Regards, Mindfreak!
Actually I see it more logically, that this "god" is not a great loving being at all, but a tyrant. Much more simple.
This demonstrates the danger of wielding Ockham's Razor inappropriately. While this may seem logical and simple to you (by your own admission not well versed in Christian texts), the conclusion is incorrect. Without a deeper understanding, or even a more thorough cursory understanding, your conclusion is incorrect. So much for the limitations of logic. The mind isn't everything after all... ;)

*MOD HAT ON* I might add, that this is also inappropriate. You are new here, so there is a bit a leeway as you become accustomed to how we do things. What you are persisting in doing is openly challenging a specific faith on its own specific faith board. That is not considered good form. Consider, were Christians to enter the Buddhist board and trash on about the Buddha, I would imagine it would draw some ill will and hurt feelings. We try to avoid that. If you sincerely wish to hold a tit for tat discussion, there are other boards specifically for that. The Comparative board, for one. If you desire to continue this train of thought, would you please extend the courtesy of opening a new thread there? Thanks. *MOD HAT OFF*
 
Plato said:
To all you guys who take the Old Testament as the literal word of G!D I would like to ask you a couple of questions.
just because something is the literal word of G!D (whatever that means, i'd call it a Revealed Text) doesn't mean one should take everything in it literally. just so you know, the "old testament" is of course a jewish text so it might be instructive for you to hear about how we approach these questions.

1) Did Lots wife deserve to be turned into a pile of salt just because she looked back on the city she lived in while it was burning to smitherines[sic]?
the Torah ("pentateuch") is like the "lecture notes" from on top of mt. sinai. for the full content of the lecture, you need to be aware of what the accompanying oral tradition says. i notice that you say "just" - the Torah does not assume this. the midrash notes that lot's wife was punished for sins that she committed whilst in sodom and the moment she looked back, symbolically regretting the loss of a city where she had been able to do evil things, that was like relapsing into her old ways. that's a very, very basic explanation but remember, we're dealing with mythic, sacred themes here. do you think actaeon "deserved" to be torn to pieces "just because" he saw artemis bathing naked? this is meant to teach us something and the something is not about what you can expect merely by leaving a house that is on fire.

2) Did the man who let his semen spill on the ground while having sex deserve that? I mean surely G!D had enough to do at that time destroying the whole world in a flood?
firstly, the flood thing happened a lot earlier. the chap you are talking about is onan, who was the son of judah, son of jacob. his sin was to refuse to carry out the commandment of levirate marriage (if your brother dies, childless, leaving a widow and you are unmarried, you have to marry his wife - the resulting child really counts as *his* child) and thus to effectively prevent his brother from having children. again, we're in mythic, sacred time here. we wouldn't expect someone in a similar situation to be comparable. in fact there is a ceremony whereby if you do not wish to carry out a levirate marriage you can be released from this. onan, however, decided he wanted to enjoy his brother's wife without giving her what she was entitled to as well as harming his brother's inheritance and, according to mystical traditions, the future transmigrations of his soul. i'd call that sexual exploitation, myself. perhaps he deserves some punishment?

3) Did the man in The book of Numbers deserve to be stoned to death for gathering sticks for a fire on the sabbath?
there is actually a dispute about whether this was the only person ever to get the death penalty for sabbath violation. you may not know that it is nigh impossible to get a capital conviction under jewish religious law - if this chap actually ended up getting stoned, he would have had to effectively be warned not to do so, including the penalty and he would have had to have responded that he knew and didn't care and was going to do it anyway, in front of two witnesses. for the actual penalty to be carried out, he would have had to intended the fire to be used for a sacrifice to an idol. based on this, it changes from a chap striking a match to an idolater bent on desecrating the Divine Name despite all warnings to the contrary, knowing all the risks.

I would like to know if these are the actions of a loving G!D?
G!D Is All. not just "love" - that is not a jewish concept. did your mother never punish you? what sort of person would you have been if you had never been told "no", or shown the consequences of your actions?

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
Only the Gnostics knew the truth of Genesis 3:3-4 because, unlike, the posts I read here so far, the Gnostics looked at the tale without putting rose-colored glasses on that cover up some extremely disturbing concepts being delivered in the second Genesis chapter of the Tanakh, Old Testament.

Haven't any of you noticed the change of God's name and the whole tone of difference between the God of Genesis I and the god of Genesis II? Elohim vs. Yahweh is what's going on. Jesus tried to tell you and yet Christianity went on its merry way following the Jewish traditions with Paul and then Augustine expanding the idea of Original Sin to separate human beings from their Source in Elohim.

Then there's the lies..
 
Back
Top