Yes, that’s my point. God told them they’d die the day they ate from the tree, but he didn’t follow through with the threat. If you go on, they survived it and lived a long time afterwards. As for the second, that second part is the existing condition, “you return to the ground since from it you were taken, for dust you are and to dust you will return.” is the condition man finds himself in…he was made from dust and will become dust. The punishment is the first part…“By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food.” In other words, “You’ll have to work to get food until you die.”
That’s not what it meant. God told them they will surely die. Being immortal as they were (they were created in God’s image) they would not suffer death, just as God will not suffer death. The death that God pronounced on them is one that came from their becoming mortal. That mortality lead to their eventual death. The assumption that death was instantaneous with eating is incorrect. God even explains it in the other verse quoted - “By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground,” (Gen 3:19). Here he states that the time of death is in the future - as indicated by the fact that Adam will have to toil for the food he eats from this point on.
Again, that’s an interpretation of the text. Why do you assume that interpretation is right and not “God was making a threat he didn’t intend to carry out” or “God decided to be merciful”?
They were only around after Adam had named the animals. In genesis 3 it goes straight to the snake story. I’m sure most Christians would get the impression that hardly any time had passed.
BTW they still hadn’t eaten from the tree of life and that implies they hadn’t had enough time to get bored
Scriptural interpretation should not be based on “getting an impression.” I will ask a friend who is studying for the ministry; I’ll get back with an answer (if I receive one.) The actual text doesn’t give any clue to time (other than, as noted, less than 130 years.)
When I’m asking the pastors the tough questions what matters is their interpretations, not the “correct” ones.
For which denomination is he studying?
So, now you’re speaking for “most” Christians? Interesting.
Because God did carry out that threat. You keep confusing God’s statement that they will die incorrectly. Man brought sin intl the world, hence, man suffers physical death in fulfillment of God’s curse on Adam.
Ironic, but in The Legend of The Jews, Satan realized that God might change his mind and forgive them their tresspasses. In fact, both Adam and Eve attempt to gain forgiveness by spending time standing in rivers, one in the Jordan, the other in the Tigris. While in the river Adam noticed the days growing shorter, and feared his sin had caused this and began an 8 day fast to avoid having the world cast into darkness.
Not-canonical but interesting reading and it provides an insight into mans thinking at the time.
In Genesis 1:26, the first creation story, who or what was God talking about when He said He made man in ‘our’ (other Gods?) image and later (Gen 3:22) complains that the creations want to be ‘like us’. Who is “us?”
Was this first creation two people (it does say “them”) or was this person a hermaphrodite?
In the second creation story, Gen 2:20, woman didn’t show up for a bit. So that is clearly a second being.
Also, did God lie about the tree(s) and what would happen if the fruit were eaten, because he said the would ‘die’ which they didn’t and would not have if they ate from the other tree.
Also, why would Abraham bed to save strangers in Sodom but so happily be willing to kill his own son so easily. I find his actions here inconsistent.
Ans why was Lot turned to salt? For looking back? Looking at God (others had done so and not suffered the salt fate). What does looking or salt that have to do with anything?
Lot’s wife. Not Lot himself.
Still, it was a Lot of salt.
Well you can try the methodological angle for those who insist upon a non-spiritual interpretation of the Holy Bible. The germ theory of disease wasn’t arrived at through superficial extrapolation of scripture. No, scientists applied careful observation of the world and hard work, as the Lord intended. The antithesis of pride and sloth.
As for micro-evolution, it occurs at far higher rates than observed in nature. To defend their prideful nonspiritual interpretation of the story of the Ark of Noah, fundamentalist theoreticians posit some 2000 to 50,000 species on board. The remaining millions of species come about via micro-evolution over 6000 years according to this non-spiritual interpretation.
I say the good Lord created 6,000,000 species of beatles for a reason. It was to remind us of the virtue of humility and to underline the majesty of natural selection. Some may argue that they were all created by Satan: that’s heresy. I understand that there are a mere 30 species of cockroach associated with human habitat.
I don’t actually know. She’s a nice lady, so it has to be a denom liberal enough to allow women ministers. Otherwise, all I know is that she follows a mix of literal and figurative interpretation. She accepts evolution…but she also has been taught that there are no contradictions in the Bible. Interesting pair of viewpoints. She flirts a little with universalism, because the whole “punished forever in hell” thing doesn’t feel right to her.
Well most people I know are one, I go to church quite a bit and I used to be a Christian.
Actually that shows that the idea of the trinity has some support in the Old Testament.
In Truth No one knows anything about any God, they are taking the word of some other human. All comes from another human if it be written , told or thought.
Can God create a Beatle bigger than Himself?
Why ask Christians to explain something they didn’t write? If you have problems with Hebrew Scriptures go ask a Rabbi. And then ask another for a different answer.