til the next time.
I have to sleep.

i understand you my friend, but what i'm asking is about "in that >>DAY<<" you shall surely die [that day]""yowm"" 24 hr period.

Well I always assumed that you felt that nothing pre-dated Genesis Eljay. You felt that ALL radiocarbon dating was inaccurate and it was all a bunch of agenda driven scientists making this up? Am I wrong or do you legitimately have an interest now? Aren't you afraid that by merely looking at some of this archeological evidence you will be presumed to endorse it by your church or whoever else? If you want me to show it to you, I will. You can take it or leave it of course. I dont know where you stand on that exactly.

I agree that when you use the term 'surely' it gives the impression that dieing is a probability, not a certainty.

Surely you jest!

For some reason the word 'surely' introduces doubt. Cancer will surely kill you. But in truth, some people, in fact most people survive cancer. Surely not! It is considered a fatal disease by most, yet many people survive it.

The word 'surely' tells me that the person making the statement isn't really 100% sure. And yet it was supposed to be God making that statement. How can God not be sure?

I think it is just a plagiarized myth written by men, hence the inconsistencies and flaws.

JB

Okay then. If you dont like that one. I have an entire litany of reasons why the Jews dont back Jesus as Messiah. The "virgin" birth misinterpretation is only the first though one of my favorites. I can keep going. I dont really see the point though. What are we arguing about here?

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:

1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.

2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.

3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.

4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation.

Tribo,

You misunderstood what I was saying.

"God was telling Adam that if he ate the fruit, he would start dying (the process of approaching death) that very day"

This answers your question, I believe. Adam STARTED dying the day he ate the forbidden fruit.

I'm just curious about documentation that predates Genesis - not archeological evidence that has been dated before that time. I know what is going on there. For instance - we know the Koran is an ancient document, the writings of Confuscious - etc. I'm curious about what the oldest document is that discusses some of the ancient mythologies (Zeus, Diane, Athena, etc)
and their relation to the dating of Genesis.

And when we do, we are returned to whole understanding of and ability to wholly see the garden.

i understand you quite clearly S, but you donot answer my question - is a day here the same as the other creation days? if so then it does mean what you say if its meant to be a 24 day that he will surely die then how can it mean an eventual 900 years death either a day is a day or if not then explain how it could be otherwise when the same word reffers to all days before?

I also think there is a good argument for the case of "spiritual death" - for it can be seen all through scripture that sin separates one from God, and that it was intended that they have eternal lif - but no longer do. (Thus the guarding of the tree of life.)

Well here is one very strange one I found the other morning.


Date Genesis was completed

1513 BCE

Date of the height of the Minoan culture and Snake Goddess representation in Crete

1600 BCE

Whoa....

I can keep going however. Did you want me to show you the actual earlier myths that The Tree of Knowledge story stole snippets from? The similarities? I mentioned another on this thread if you scroll up a little. Before I started speaking with TLW back and forth.

the LXX [greek] says - you shall "die by death" not that it is to be "eventual"!

that's the pooint i'm trying to make eljay - we have discussed this before , it has nothing to do with a physical death - thnx.

so it would not seem that conventional teachings would agree, but then if all are as born, then tasting of the tree, and become as "gods" by doing so, as now one has "points of reference" for the knowing of "good" that once was before birth, then would not this mean that for each to be BORN MORTAL is to be as SAVED, as this now gives one perspective, as what is the FREE GIFT other than LIFE, as who decide when one is BORN, or when one DIES......

please, great scholars that love to make others feel as "not saved" loved the fearful interpretations, but truly even this "motive was created" after one such as these turned over a new leaf, and decided the things once did made not happy, and these put great effort into achieving now "eternal life", and as such, any that appears to not have put forth the same effort, are as despised, which seems to mimic the story of the brother of the prodical son as written within text, that despised the "brother and father" for not condeming the prodical son, as the "father" was not worried why the son was away, and said nothing of all the "bad" **** he had done in the eyes of his "righteouss brother" and the prodical had spent all his "inheritance" of MORTAL LIFE on all the things of MORTAL LIFE, lol.......

of course, this opposes the teachings of many religions, but then how have these "religions" ever been able to find a "peaceful" interpretation of text, lol......

it is of essence to know the mind can prove anything as true, and likewise prove anyting as untrue, so if this be as true, then is it not the "challenge" of the peaceful to find thew "peaceful" interpreation as given by a "peaceful" father of all truth.......

is not "god" of peace, of love, of unity, of wisdom.....

even to those that believe in all text, it was said that "he would return and all would WEEP, for the appearing....

is this any more than weeping for the condemnation of all others the righteouss said were of satan, and of hells fires, and how can such thinking not ALWAYS create divide amoungst man.......

seems simple proof it cannot be all the truth, asd it is as a war interpretation, so the lovers of WAR will find this one, and as such follow it, and as such, create what it will create by believing it........

to create as satan, as ignorance, divide amoungst man, lol...........

how is man to believe that if there is "EXISTENCE" of greater self, that this entity is as a manipulative, devisive, and a controlling thing, as a dictator, when any man such as this, would be run out of town, and would be a depiction as many movies show, of the guy we all love to hate, lol.......

if text is or has any meaning, than certainally it must not break the truth that "god" see as thru unconditional love, and what that must "cleanse" itself can EVER not be in fear of it's creator, lol......

will not such interpretations cause each to as panic driving down the road, causing all to look about, fearful of evil, and believe it's neighbor evil, as parenoid fearful creatures, and create a devisive self seeking desire to SAVE ONESELF, which is no different than one that is on a boat, that is doomed to sink, and fights the others on the boat for a spot on the life raft, lol....

if "salvation" was as called a "saving of ones soul", then this seems it can only be to be AS BORN MORTAL, or there is divisivness first created amoung all man within himself......

it holds NO WATER, lol........

all such teachings make and inpsire "fakery" trying to accomplish GOOD WORKS, that of which is as a ghost, and not possible, as even many acts of "jesus" go against what is taught by the church", lol......

ones that commit the most haneous crimes, were first exposed to a "mindset of thinking" that produced the desire to committ such acts, that came first by a belief that one was NOT OF GOD, as the "church" has described to all, which create a "no belief in oneself" and keep one as not seeing they are only hurting oneself most, as self is taught to be as evil, so of course a "hatred for self" is produced from such teachings, which makes many, many, many say "**** it" i'm going to hell anyways......

please, if there is a god, which is any greater truth, than certainally what "teachings will create" within one as motive and agenda, has to be the indicator of what is of a greater peacful truth........peace

Tribo,

You aren't reading my posts or understanding what I'm saying, re-read my posts and then post any questions. I can't be any more clear about what the text says IN HEBREW (not Greek, Genesis in Greek would be a translation from Hebrew).

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.]

"thou shalt surely die" is actually "dying die". The best translation to English would be "dying you shall die".

The word DYING indicates that death is beginning, it is in the infinitive sense. In other words, the death is on-going.

The word DIE is imperfect tense. In other words, the death will be at some future date.

DAY MEANS DAY in this verse.

You have been confused about what I'm saying and I'm trying to explain it. YOU HAVE NOT YET UNDERSTOOD MY POINT. I have read your responses and can assure you that your questions reveal that you haven't gotten what I'm trying to convey yet. The caps are for emphasis, not yelling. Please be mature about this, okay?

I accept my part for my posts not being clear, but I think that if you slow down and stop assuming you know what I'm saying and instead focus on my actual words, you will understand this.

I believed that interpretation of Genesis 2:17 until I did a word study to find what it actually means. The literal meaning is what I have posted. I believe that spiritual death is an underlying theme in Genesis 2:17, but the obvious message is about physical death.

That wasn't my point at all.

Surely was added in the translation into English, it's not in the original texts.

There is no inconsistency here, if you believe that there is, then I assure you that you haven't understood my post. Probably my fault, because I was rushed.

If a word can imply or change the meaning of original texts so much then why is the word added? Every time I interpret a verse in the Bible as it is written in English, some so-called "Bible expert" such as yourself start talking about the "original texts" and how this was different in the "original text."

Not my fault.

I don't read the "original texts" so I can only interpret what I read in English, and I am going to expect that the interpretation is an accurate one. If it is not, like so many times I have heard this lame excuse, then you may as well just throw out the entire English versions and all other translations of the Bible because they are inaccurate, and wrong... they can't be trusted.

Why? Because that is not how it was written in the "original text."

For Bible experts, be prepared to discuss the English version and stop making that lame excuse about flaws in the translations because you only make your Bible appear untrustworthy an flawed.

JB

Tribo when speaking of that day you shall surely die.. This was the meaning of the curse. Death was not spoken of before then. Satan tells them that it was not true they would not die. What if what you are saying would be true the fruit killed them. The fruit is for all healings along with its leaves. It was not a death fruit or Rev 22 would not speak of it as it does.

The death was you would not live forever. The sins of the fathers. This sin was not so much Eves as it was Adams responcibility to stop eve. The Man covers the Wife and is responcible for her. (not always but that is another topic) The curse being lifted is death in Rev 22 and in Gen the curse was given. The tree of Life. Just what does that mean? Blessings...Miles

Here here! I agree JB. Its annoying also. All this exegesis nonsense. I kind of felt that way during the now infamous "Leviticus Debate." If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and craps like a duck, dont sit there and try to tell me they meant something else.