Oddly enough, the word “type” itself is often used in this context - “the bridegroom in the Song of Solomon is a type of Christ.”
I am told that the word for “knowledge” in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil refers to “experiental” knowledge. I.e. Adam and Eve would experience for themselves what good and evil were. So there is no quite as much as an implication that Adam and Eve were like animals before the Fall, having no idea what good and evil were. Rather, they knew theoretically what they were, but had no first-hand data.
And their first reaction upon experiencing evil was to be ashamed of themselves.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m unfamiliar with the Hebrew, but I’ve also heard that a fair translation of the warning is that “on the day you eat it, you will surely begin to die.” With the implication that pre-fall, Adam and Eve were immortal, but eating of the tree condemned them to physical (but not spiritual) mortality.
Is that a stretch or is it a plausible interpretation of the Hebrew text?
I would definitely call that one a stretch. Can you find a cite that justifies that interpretation?
nm
I think, perhaps, the warning that the person would die and then God changes his mind and sends them out into exile instead is a way of indicating God’s care for humanity. God, in this story, is far more ‘human-like’ than in later stories in the Bible. Perhaps the point is that Adam & Eve likely deserved death for their sin, but God was gracious and let them live a while longer.
I believe that is the case. God is worthy of obedience not because He is good, but because He is the Creator. (of course there is the idea that good is defined by God while evil is doing what is anti-God)
The “begin to die” works for me, especially if you consider that the tree with the fruits of eternal life was also in the garden. It may be (mythologically) that when Adam and Eve left the garden, and so were unable to eat of the fruit of that tree, they began to die.
But can it “begin to die” phrase be justified via translation?
I’ll have to check my reference works tonight and get back to you on the Hebrew. Unless cmkeller or Dexter Haven happen to know.
Professor Pepperwinkle:
Ask and ye shall receive.
The text definitely translates as “On the day you eat from it, you shall surely die.”
That still doesn’t necessarily MEAN that they will die within 24 hours, it could mean that on the day they eat of the tree, they will become immediately become subject to death. There are places in scripture where one who is condemned to die is referred to as “dead.” There are also places in scripture where it equates various life conditions to death, including blindness and poverty, the latter of which could definitely be said to apply to a post-Eden Adam and Eve. And of course, there’s the “G-d’s day = 1000 human years” interpretation that you yourself brought up earlier.
There are cites that suggest that this day is Yom, which can mean (in a literal sense) “an indefinite period of time”. A similar argument is made for the 7 days of creation, which uses the same word. I’m not convinced, personally. Day fits poetically, in both cases.
I’m more of the opinion that “die” is being used in a spiritual sense. Innocence means you have spiritual life, but once you gain the knowledge of good and evil, innocence is lost and spiritual death becomes real.
It is also worth noting that in creationist/fundamentalist circles, there is a position that before the fall there was no death, even of animals (and maybe plants, too). All animals were vegetarians. Death entered with the fall, but animals did not become carnivores until after the flood when Noah was given freedom to eat animals. This glosses over the animal sacrifice of Abel (the firstborn of his flock and the fat thereof, implying slaughter). Also, Adam named the animals, and some carnivores have names implying violence (lion is one, and several birds of prey) - odd if they ate plants. The narrative (Gen 1:24) suggests beasts (carnivorous animals) and cattle (herbivores) were created on the sixth day, along with man. But it does explain how Noah kept all those animals in the ark without the carnivores eating the herbivores.
Sorry, after the prior message, I can’t keep myself from posting this link:
Hah - funny.
I find the position really pernicious - in that world view, if there was death before the fall (and by extension, the earth was not created ~10000 years ago), then there can be no redemption in Christ (Rom 5:12 and following - by one man (Adam) death entered the world, so by one man (Christ) we can be redeemed from death). So in this theology, the world must be a young earth. But the corollary (which they don’t seem to get) is that if you cannot accept the young earth position, then there is no hope of redemption (because death didn’t enter through Adam, so Christ cannot save us from death). So you get these young people raised (dare I say indoctrinated) with this theology, at some point they run into the scientific evidence for an old earth, and their theology suddenly gives them no room to manoeuvre.
I personally reconciled my position with regard to matters of fact and faith long ago (maybe not well, but still), but I wasn’t placed in a position as a young adult of being forced to choose the two - this particular brand of theology does.
I checked out the Greek of the Septuagint when I got home: no change there, still “die” and not “begin to die”.
Wait, are you saying that animals can talk to each other now? None of the curses God laid on the earth or animals said anything about revoking that skill.
And are you saying that if some other animal had eaten the fruit, it would have acquired knowledge of good and evil?
Please read the OP. You seem to be under a misunderstanding what these threads are about.
I’m not trying to argue with him; I’m trying to understand what he’s saying.
I freely admit that I don’t believe in the Bible, but I don’t believe in the Iliad, either. That doesn’t mean that I don’t want to understand the intentions and beliefs of the authors.
No, the idea (stated in numerous places in the Talmud, etc.) was that in the original paradisial state where humans and animals all lived together peaceably and that all creatures were vegetarian, all of the creatures understood each other. No one is taking this as science fact.
Thank you. Does the Talmud talk about other worldwide changes like that, other than those explicitly mentioned in the Bible, like pain in childbirth and thistles in the gardens?