posted
Seems to me that the story of the fall contains a challenge to Biblical literalism.
Literally speaking, God told Adam and Eve they would die if they ate from a specific tree in the Garden. That was not literally true, but it was/is FIGURATIVELY true.
Even if one were to try to force it and say that what God meant was that disobedience by Adam and Eve would cause God to then remove them from the Garden, thus making them no longer immortal...there's a problem. The reason God removed them from the Garden was, in part, that there was a chance that they might then eat from the tree of life and GAIN immortality. So they WEREN'T immortal, and their immortality wasn't assured. They would've "died" physically anyway if they never ate from either tree mentioned in the story.
So, there is no literal sense in which God's direct statement was true.
There is ONLY the metaphorical sense in which a deeper truth is found.
So...
If something so simple as this is to be taken as providing a true story from God, a paradox is established for those who wish to take the Bible literally, is it not?
Surely this is too simplistic an analysis.
Surely there must be compelling reasons for those who DO take Scripture to be LITERALLY true.
If the explanation God offered for the very first command from God to man was not meant literally, why, pray tell, should we expect ANY of God's statements to be literally true?
Since the story of the fall has an obvious deeper meaning than the physical death of the body, and that IS the first story about man's relationship with God as it exists today (i.e., after the fall), would it not be more useful and "scriptural" to look for the deeper (and probably figurative) meaning?
Also, and perhaps more importantly, how is one supposed to decide WHEN God is speaking literally and when God is speaking figuratively? If a threat of death doesn't mean what we think it does (literally) how can we know when we're interpreting correctly no matter what we do (go for literal interpretation or search for meaning)?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even if one were to try to force it and say that what God meant was that disobedience by Adam and Eve would cause God to then remove them from the Garden, thus making them no longer immortal...there's a problem. The reason God removed them from the Garden was, in part, that there was a chance that they might then eat from the tree of life and GAIN immortality. So they WEREN'T immortal, and their immortality wasn't assured. They would've "died" physically anyway if they never ate from either tree mentioned in the story.
I don't disagree with the figurative sense, but I wanted to answer this part. God didn't keep them from eating from the tree of life until after they had "eaten of the forbidden fruit" and were cast out of the Garden of Eden. Then they were mortal and able to sin, and God didn't want them to then partake of the tree of life and become immortal again without being free of sin.
However, I agree that this story in particular employs plenty of metaphors that shouldn't be read literally.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found the early bits of Genesis to be extremely tough both in meaning in in linguistic style to really make literal sense. The definite article when stating it was "day the sixth" and all others were "day one", "day second", "day third", "day fourth" and "day fifth" (I'm keeping syntax inact, and literally translating) baffles me.
Adam and Eve baffle me; the difference between "Nachash" (snake?) and "Tannin" (crocodile?) baffles me; Kain and Able baffle me. What really baffles me is Genesis 4:8, and the punctuation (cantillation) makes it no easier. Genesis 4:1 makes little sense with why Kain was named the way he was, and it's also a linguistic carbuncle the way I see it. Hanoch's disappearence in 5:24 is no easier a topic to understand.
Many things are very complicated and I'm unable to properly comprehend them. Some of them are abrasive to the religious education I was brought up with (and that's on of the reasons I despise it so much), some of them simply make no sense and some of them are very well-structured phrases that are hard to crack into coherent, flowing read.
For that reason I take the approach that much of Parashat/Seder Bereshit (which is from the beginning until 6:8) is just metaphorical and never happened. I think it's the RaMBaM who said that, but I'm not sure.
I decided to take the approach that it's a story told to teach us lessons, or to reason creatively why we are here. For that reason I believe that Christianity is overly hooked up with Adam's sin (I can't remember the term used for it), but that's just my approach, and I am in no way an expert.
It took me nine years of education and an explicit statement of a teacher for me to understand why the Egyptians enslaved the Jews. Many things wirk like that for me. But I can't reason much, so I just ignore it all until I'm ready to face the problems (Job 37:1-6, and the way God seems to appear in it as a selfish deity - finally solved by my Bible teacher). With Genesis I took the mystical approach, as you might call it, that it's basically a metaphor that teaches us lessons or explains to us stuff.
It's now 0100 hours, I didn't eat, drink or sleep from 1650 yesterday till 1800 today. I barely breathed and spent half the day standing and singing out loudly all sorts of prayers.
I also have to wake up tomorrow, on my FREE DAY, and at 0730.
So good night. Send me e-mails if you want.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a Christian, but only because I appreciate the Bible's philosophical insight (which is why I also consider myself a Buddhist). For me, it's a collection of men's subjective interpretations of God, so much of it I don't take literally. To some that means I'm not a true Christian... but I figure everyone interprets the Bible differently, some are just more liberal about it.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Literally speaking, God told Adam and Eve they would die if they ate from a specific tree in the Garden. That was not literally true, but it was/is FIGURATIVELY true.
Even if one were to try to force it and say that what God meant was that disobedience by Adam and Eve would cause God to then remove them from the Garden, thus making them no longer immortal...
You're introducing an extra step here. Adam and Eve's banishment from the Garden isn't what kept them from being immortal; their having eaten the fruit is what did that. Up until then, they literally couldn't die, not because they were safe in the garden, or because they could be replentished by the fruit of life, but because it simply wasn't in their nature. Part of the punishment for eating the forbidden fruit was that the very nature of humanity was altered to make us die. It may've taken Adam almost a thousand years, but it's peanuts compared to eternal life.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The reason God removed them from the Garden was, in part, that there was a chance that they might then eat from the tree of life and GAIN immortality. So they WEREN'T immortal, and their immortality wasn't assured. They would've "died" physically anyway if they never ate from either tree mentioned in the story.
I think you're assuming they needed the tree of life before they ate the fruit to be immortal. I'm not at all sure that's true.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. There's nothing in the text I've read that would imply Adam and Eve were immortal before eating the fruit of the tree at the center of the garden. The only time "live forever" is mentioned is in God's considering that it was important after that to make sure they DIDN'T eat of the fruit of the tree of life. It doesn't say they'd been eating it all along, or that they would've been immortal without it. It just says that both fruits, in combination, would make humans too much like God.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. So how do you know if they would have died had they not eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
Isn't your objection that they weren't immortal before they ate the fruit of knowledge? Maybe I'm not understanding you.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought I just posted here! I wonder what happened.
I'll try again. Nobody's really a literalist. When Jesus says He is the Vine and we are the branches, no one looks to see if any leaves are sprouting. We use common sense (ours and others') to determine what's literal and what isn't, and it usually works.
quote:Right. So how do you know if they would have died had they not eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
Isn't your objection that they weren't immortal before they ate the fruit of knowledge? Maybe I'm not understanding you.
You're correct. It isn't completely indeterminate, though. If anything, the implication is that they would have become immortal, not that they were immortal and God took that away from them and then had to bar them from getting it back.
The language isn't entirely precise, but it's not entirely indeterminate. There's at least the implication that they were not immortal already. The possibility exists that they were previously immortal, but that interpretation is not really supported by the text.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
[aside] By the way, I deleted the double post. I had posted and then came back and saw that Hatrack was just sitting there "spinning" instead of going on to the new thread page. Weird. Anyway, it sat like that for a good 10 minutes so I hit the post thread button again. [/aside]
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: What really baffles me is Genesis 4:8, and the punctuation (cantillation) makes it no easier.
Why? What's confusing about it? Personally, I always found the similarities between Genesis 4:7 and the last part of Genesis 3:16 to be striking.
And what about etz ha-da'at tov v'ra in Genesis 2:17? How do you handle the grammar there? How would you translate it? Because the usual translation of "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" clearly doesn't fit the words.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Genesis 4:1 makes little sense with why Kain was named the way he was, and it's also a linguistic carbuncle the way I see it.
How so? Just curious.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not a literalist, but on thinking about this literally, it occurs to me that if the forbidden tree were the only tree forbidden in the Garden to begin with, and it seems as though it was, then the Tree of Life would not have been forbidden originally. Does anyone else read it like that? Could they have been eating of the tree of life all along, but once they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they had to stop?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must say, this is the first time I have ever heard an interpretation of Adam and Eve where they WEREN'T originally immortal. Almost all Christian theology of the fall (and possibly Jewish as well) contains the necessity that they were originally immortal and lost that when they ate the Forbidden Fruit.
I think that is because you are reading the text completely wrong and without careful scrutiny of the words. Perhaps, to go with your own interpretation, the words of God were literal and the Garden itself had no fundimental traits for or against immortality. Again, as has been said, they were kicked out to prevent them from eating a particular tree that would have made them immortal that was not forbidden before.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are animals like humans before the fall? They are totally innocent, and they have no concept of good and evil, but they still do harm, they just don't realize it. Before the fall (I'm thinking metaphorically here) was the only difference that we humans didn't realize some things are evil and we have a choice and therefore it's incumbent upon us to choose well? Before the fall did Adam and Eve run around causing harm unwittingly, like children? Perhaps did God just fix everything they broke then? Or limit their ability to get into mischief the way we do for toddlers? And then when they gained that knowledge of good and evil was it mostly that they suddenly for the first time felt shame?
What would we be like and the world be like if Adam and Eve had never fallen?
Are we like children who got kicked out of their parents' house because we wouldn't abide by the rules of the place?
Are we like prisoners who are living in an unpleasant place with other like-minded prisoners so that we can come to see the logical results of our selfish everyone-for-himself mindset and find a change of heart?
Are we like beloved pets who turned vicious and instead of being put down like we deserved, we've been given this additional chance called mortality to not only lose our viciousness (if we choose) but even to grow up and become masters instead of pets?
If every instant of our lives and every detail of our selves is preserved perfectly in some off-site backup, then would that count as immortality? If we could someday learn to build ourselves perfectly functioning bodies, and to access this archive, and if we then made perfect bodies for everyone who had ever lived and downloaded their archived selves into those bodies, would that be the resurrection?
Once that happens, would we then want to go over the entire record of our lives, and with the knowlege that had been gained in the meantime wouldn't we judge our former (now) selves' every action and feel shame and sorrow for the harm we did?
This thread sort of sent me off into speculation about what it all means. I'm curious what other people think about it, about the Fall.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would have to agree that no one is completely a Literalist for the reasons already covered her.. Parts of the Bible are figurative and other literal, but they all reveal God's Truth.
I think most of the people who get called Literalist fall into the category of believers who feel the Bible is 100% inspired by God. The written word of God. This would make us fundamentalist, but not literalist, We don't believe that everything must be interpreted literally. (The Bible is full of symbolism and figurative stories.) If there are people who believe this they would represent a very small minority of Christians, the snake handlers and such.
As for the story of the fall. Adam and Eve are condemned to death after eating the fruit, but it is their souls that are condemned, not their physical bodies. When Christ offers eternal life He is not offering Life for the body, but the soul.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think most of the people who get called Literalist fall into the category of believers who feel the Bible is 100% inspired by God. The written word of God. This would make us fundamentalist, but not literalist,
This alone does NOT make you fundamentalist.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow....... I go to a fundamental church and I think if you'd ask us if we take the bible literally they'd say yes. But we of course know there are places that are meant to be parables and symbolism. But this never interferes with us taking things literally. Interesting. I guess it’s just what you’re used to.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think most of the people who get called Literalist fall into the category of believers who feel the Bible is 100% inspired by God. The written word of God. This would make us fundamentalist, but not literalist,
quote:Are animals like humans before the fall? They are totally innocent, and they have no concept of good and evil, but they still do harm, they just don't realize it.
I don't really think that all animals are innocent. Those with higher levels of cognitive functioning, such as dolphins and chimps, strike me as knowing what they're doing. For that matter, I've known one extraordinarily intelligent dog that seemed to know what he was doing also. I realize that this isn't somenthing provable, but I thought that I'd interejct it anyway.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry my first statement wasn't accurate. Fundamentalist believe this, along with other things, like the divinity of Christ, the depravity of man, ect. So it is possible to believe the Bible is 100% inspired by God without being a fundamentalist, but you can't be a fundamentalist without believing it.
I think fundamentalist get a bad name because of the extremist who make the headlines.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This line of thought always takes me into metaphysical speculation about a world without entropy.
When I was a fundamentalist (and 6 day creationist) I would have said that animals didn't die before the fall either, that the carnivores ate some kind of plant prior to the fall. Insects get a bit gnatty though. Would they not have died either?
So, if you aren't a 6-day literal creationist, do you still believe that Adam and Eve were immortal prior to the fall, even if life and death process of evolution, led up to the advent of humans when God decided to insert the soul?
I really don't know. It doesn't make sense either way.
posted
I don't know that I would say they were immortal prior to the fall, but that they were capable of living forever (or however long they were in harmony with God) as long as they chose to take of the Tree of Life, and chose to not disobey and take of the tree that was forbidden.
Just because God told them they would die if they took of the forbidden fruit, that didn't mean they would die "that moment" like poison. It means they choose death (separation from God) and that they would eventually died (physically and spiritually) apart from God.
It is possible that the Tree of Life may or may not have had properties that would have allowed their bodies to continue to rejuvenate forever -- this is not known one way or the other. What is known is that they made the choice to disobey, and so God barred them from the Tree of Life, which would have kept them in harmony with Him. (until Christ's sacrifice made it possible for us to re-establish the relationship with God).
posted
Bob:"God told Adam and Eve they would die if they ate from a specific tree in the Garden. That was not literally true, but it was/is FIGURATIVELY true."
A whole lot of people believe it was indeed literally true. For example, I believe that the statement expressed the literally true notion that, if Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, they would become subject to death, which they were not before. The statement is only barred from literal truth if you assume that God referred to instantaneous death, rather than a passage from immortality to mortality.
BS:"The reason God removed them from the Garden was, in part, that there was a chance that they might then eat from the tree of life and GAIN immortality."
This is not the only possibility. I believe that the reason Adam and Eve were removed from the Garden was as a consequence ("punishment") for their transgression. In addition, they entered into their period of mortal probation upon choosing to eat the forbidden fruit, and the tests of that probation could not be carried out in the Garden. The reason God prevented Adam and Eve from returning to the Garden, or at least to the immediate vicinity of the Tree of Life, by placing cherubim to guard it, was to prevent them from regaining their lost immortality while still in a state of sin. This would have been disastrous for Adam and Eve. They needed the time in mortality to learn, grow, and repent. At such time as they do regain their immortality (as resurrected beings), they will be ready, which they were not immediately following the Fall.
None of the above is a defense of the idea of Biblical literalism, which I will refrain from ridiculing at this time. I do not believe the Bible to be literally true in all, or even almost all, instances. However, I don't think the objection(s) you have raised are good examples of problems with reading the Bible literally.
Bob:"Also, and perhaps more importantly, how is one supposed to decide WHEN God is speaking literally and when God is speaking figuratively?"
Now, this really IS an important question, and not one that can be answered quickly or easily. I think (though I am not 100% certain) that if the distinction is really important, it will be made clear. However, I also think that, in most cases, the distinction really doesn't matter, in practical effect.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Genesis 2:15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden, to dress it, and to keep it. 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt surely die.
<emphasis added>
If taken literally, I would take this to mean that God told Adam he would die that day, not "eventually" or that he would no longer "be immortal."
In fact, I haven't been able to find anywhere in Genesis where God created man (or any of the animals or plants) to be immortal right from the start.
I think that's a bit of doctrine, not actually "literally" in the text.
Just like "original sin." The word "sin" does not appear in the account of Adam and Eve eating of the forbidden fruit.
The only time I found immortality mentioned is when God is musing about how bad it would be, now that humans have "knowledge" for them to become immortal by eating the fruit of the tree of life.
It doesn't say that they had already been eating that fruit (from the tree of life). We can assume it wasn't forbidden to them (since the only forbidden fruit at the beginning was from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (or whatever translation would be more accurate).
In short, from a PURELY literal perspective:
1) The doctrine of Man's original immortality is not directly supported in the text (or at least I couldn't find it).
2) God's decision to keep the humans away from the tree of life was reportedly because if they WERE to become immortal, they'd be too much LIKE GOD, not because man would be SINFUL and IMMORTAL. (again, the word "sin" doesn't show up.)
Occassional:
quote: I think that is because you are reading the text completely wrong and without careful scrutiny of the words
Besides also being less abusive in your language, could you please show me where a careful scrutiny of the words would change the literal meaning?
I understand that our Christian theology teaches differently. In fact, I accept this as a story and not the literal truth and as such it tells us a lot about human nature. My original point was only that a literalist tradition wouldn't reach a valid conclusion about the story.
I think the whole "created immortal" thing is definitely an interpretation inserted into doctrine. I'm not sure what it matters, really. The story of "the fall" is about mankind's free will and our disobedient nature.
God tells Adam he'll return to the dust. Presumably people have taken that to mean that if he'd stayed obedient in the Garden, he wouldn't have died. But really, all it strictly implies is that he wouldn't have returned to the dust. Since it is possible to die and NOT return to the dust, this could mean nothing more than that God was condemning mankind to a tough life and an ignoble end versus a wonderful life and a noble end.
posted
If you take the bible- the entire thing and use other pieces to support another piece then please read on- or if you're just curious.
I personally think that it is all literally- that mankind was immortal before the fall, and death (physical and spiritual) came from the original sin. Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned"
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob:"If taken literally, I would take this to mean that God told Adam he would die that day"
I agree that this seems like the most natural meaning of the statement, but others work, too. For instance, what does God mean when he uses the word "day"? What does he mean when he uses the word "surely"? These are not merely questions of literal/figurative reading.
Bob:"In fact, I haven't been able to find anywhere in Genesis where God created man (or any of the animals or plants) to be immortal right from the start"
Neither can I. However, as has been postulated already by others, the fact that Adam and Eve were given free access to the Tree of Life before their Fall, and that such access was only cut off after their transgression, is highly suggestive. They were at least potentially immortal, because they had access to the Tree of Life.
The effect of the fruit of Life was to make one "live forever." Gen. 3:22. Adam and Eve were at liberty to eat this fruit before the Fall, and there is no reason to think they did not. I think it likely they did. However, after their disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit, they must have lost any benefit previously received from eating the fruit of Life, else what would be the point of preventing them from eating it again?
But of course you already pointed this out. I guess my point is that I think the textual evidence for their pre-Fall immortality is more compelling than you think it is.
Bob:"God's decision to keep the humans away from the tree of life was reportedly because if they WERE to become immortal, they'd be too much LIKE GOD"
I don't see that at all. In Gen. 3:22, God recognizes that man has ALREADY become like a god, because of his "knowledge" of good and evil. He goes on to propose the prohibition of the Tree of Life, but does not directly say why. Any explanation must necessarily be assumed or guessed at. My assumption is informed by extra-Biblical sources, but your explanation is equally an assumption.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am always amused when someone insists that one must take a translation word-for-word literally. For instance, having looked up the Hebrew of 2:17, I would translate the bolded bit above as "for on the day you eat of it, it becomes sure that you will die." Now, my translation is informed by Rashi (and I'm just going to mention again that all these explanations were handed down orally at the same time as the Pentateuch was handed down in written form), but it is primarily drawn from the grammatical structure of mos tamus which is indeed "you will surely die," but in the indefinite future.
Oh, and that makes two Fridays in a row. Could y'all please work on your timing? Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the best evidence that Adam and Eve were immortal before the fall comes from Corinthians.
quote:For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
But even this reference does not say "Because of the fall we all die", it says that we all die "as in Adam". Which could mean that we all die because of Adam's choice or because of Adam's nature (ie because he was created to die).
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In many respects, arguing about whether Adam was or was not immortal before he ate the fruit, is a diversion from Bob's question.
I would ask, Is the story of the fall more significant and meaningful viewed literally or symbolically?
Biblical literalists always seem to argue that reading the Bible, or at least some parts of the Bible, as symbolic rather than literal makes them less powerful. I disagree. I think that many stories in the Bible are most powerful when they are understood symbolically rather than literally. The creations story and the story of the fall are two examples of that. If I understand the creation story as solely a literal, scientific like explanation for the existence of the the earth, it means almost nothing to me. If I try to understand it as a symbolic story, then it provides much meat for contemplation. To me, the story is far more powerful when I strive to understand it at a symbolic level rather than a literal level.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit, thanks for that. I am not a literalist, of course, so I don't really understand how the justification for literalism can involve the use of figurative logic (like saying God "meant" that Adam and Eve would die "spiritually" or that the important point is no longer being immortal.
It seems pretty clear that this story is about Man's nature and our current relationship to God. What the antecedents were really like is somewhat less important than making the point that we have always exercised our free will in ways that ultimately bring us harm, or that we act in ways that are disobedient.
Anyway, it seems that is the relevant point for people today, not that we were or were not originally immortal.
btw, rivka, thanks for the translation. I'll have to look to see if any of the English translations I have mention that future tense or the possible other/additional shades of meaning.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Several English translations do, but the only one I found online was NIV, which isn't a great translation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ge 2:17 17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.’
NIV:
quote:Genesis 2:17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
NASV:
quote:Genesis 2:17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
NLT:
quote:Genesis 2:17 except fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat of its fruit, you will surely die."
KJV:
quote: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.
NKJV:
quote:Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
posted
I also went through and looked up STRONG'S numbers and tried to put the Hebrew dictionary entries into the text (strongs numbers are listed, and the definition follows. Some additional references are added if there was more info under a 2nd Strong's number or the "Blue Letter Bible" had some additional info.
But of the Tree 06086: 6086 `ets ates from 6095; a tree (from its firmness); hence, wood (plural sticks):--+ carpenter, gallows, helve, + pine, plank, staff, stalk, stick, stock, timber, tree, wood. see HEBREW for 06095 06095: 6095 `atsah aw-tsaw' a primitive root; properly, to fasten (or make firm), i.e. to close (the eyes):--shut. Of the knowledge 01847: 1847 da`ath dah'-ath from 3045; knowledge:--cunning, (ig-)norantly, know(-ledge), (un-)awares (wittingly). see HEBREW for 03045 03045: 3045 yada` yaw-dah' a primitive root; to know (properly, to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially (including observation, care, recognition; and causatively, instruction, designation, punishment, etc.) (as follow):-- Of Good 02896: 2896 towb tobe from 2895; good (as an adjective) in the widest sense; used likewise as a noun, both in the masculine and the feminine, the singular and the plural (good, a good or good thing, a good man or woman; the good, goods or good things, good men or women), also as an adverb (well):--beautiful, best, better, bountiful, cheerful, at ease, X fair (word), (be in) favour, fine, glad, good (deed, -lier, -liest, -ly, -ness, -s), graciously, joyful, kindly, kindness, liketh (best), loving, merry, X most, pleasant, + pleaseth, pleasure, precious, prosperity, ready, sweet, wealth, welfare, (be) well ((-favoured)). see HEBREW for 02895 02895: 2895 towb tobe a primitive root, to be (transitively, do or make) good (or well) in the widest sense:--be (do) better, cheer, be (do, seem) good, (make) goodly, X please, (be, do, go, play) well. And evil 07451: 7451 ra` rah from 7489; bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral):-- adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease(-ure), distress, evil((- favouredness), man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief(-vous), harm, heavy, hurt(-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief(-vous), misery, naught(-ty), noisome, + not please, sad(-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked(-ly, -ness, one), worse(-st), wretchedness, wrong. (Incl. feminine raaah; as adjective or noun.). see HEBREW for 07489 07489: 7489 ra`a` raw-ah' a primitive root; properly, to spoil (literally, by breaking to pieces); figuratively, to make (or be) good for nothing, i.e. bad (physically, socially or morally):--afflict, associate selves (by mistake for 7462), break (down, in pieces), + displease, (be, bring, do) evil (doer, entreat, man), show self friendly (by mistake for 7462), do harm, (do) hurt, (behave self, deal) ill, X indeed, do mischief, punish, still, vex, (do) wicked (doer, -ly), be (deal, do) worse. see HEBREW for 07462 see HEBREW for 07462
Thou shalt not Eat 00398: 398 'akal aw-kal' a primitive root; to eat (literally or figuratively):--X at all, burn up, consume, devour(-er, up), dine, eat(-er, up), feed (with), food, X freely, X in...wise(-deed, plenty), (lay) meat, X quite. imperfect Of it for in the Day 03117: 3117 yowm yome from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverb):--age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ((birth-), each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger. 1) day, time, year a) day (as opposed to night) b) day (24 hour period) 1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1 2) as a division of time a) a working day, a day's journey c) days, lifetime (pl.) d) time, period (general) e) year f) temporal references 1) today 2) yesterday 3) tomorrow
That thou Eatest 00398: 398 'akal aw-kal' a primitive root; to eat (literally or figuratively):--X at all, burn up, consume, devour(-er, up), dine, eat(-er, up), feed (with), food, X freely, X in...wise(-deed, plenty), (lay) meat, X quite. infinitive
Thou shalt surely 04191: 4191 muwth mooth a primitive root: to die (literally or figuratively); causatively, to kill:--X at all, X crying, (be) dead (body, man, one), (put to, worthy of) death, destroy(-er), (cause to, be like to, must) die, kill, necro(-mancer), X must needs, slay, X surely, X very suddenly, X in (no) wise. Infinitive
1) to die, kill, have one executed a) (Qal) 1) to die 2) to die (as penalty), be put to death 3) to die, perish (of a nation) 4) to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct) b) (Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch c) (Hiphil) to kill, put to death d) (Hophal) 1) to be killed, be put to death a) to die prematurely
Die 04191: 4191 muwth mooth a primitive root: to die (literally or figuratively); causatively, to kill:--X at all, X crying, (be) dead (body, man, one), (put to, worthy of) death, destroy(-er), (cause to, be like to, must) die, kill, necro(-mancer), X must needs, slay, X surely, X very suddenly, X in (no) wise. Imperfect tense (see above under "surely" for additional senses of the word "muwth")
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka, when you are able, could you answer a question for me (see the bottom of this post). I was trying to find out more about Rashi (since I really know nothing). One site said that he was active 1040 to 1105. It also mentions the midrash and the TaNaCH. Then it points to a translation of Genesis called the Bereshit. So I went there figuring it'd show the proper tenses of the two uses of the word for "die".
It was basically word for word with the KJV, so I figured it must not be what I thought it was. Plus, it lacks Rashi's commentary, so I didn't get anything there that would expand on this.
In short, I kind of exhausted my online resources trying to track this down and ended up back where I started.
Anyway, I'd be interested in finding more resources that pass on the oral traditions that went along with the original text. Do you know of any that you would consider particular good (faithful to the original?) and yet would be in easily understood English?
Thanks for anything you can point me to.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway, it seems that (the nature of man and his relationship with God) is the relevant point for people today, not that we were or were not originally immortal.
Not so. I would say that, at least the religion I belong to and those Christians outside my religion, find BOTH very relavant. Even among people who are not fundimentalists in their beliefs. I don't know how to put this delicately, and since I was never one to believe that delicacy was a virtue in expressing personal opinions, I think you have no idea what you are talking about. So far I have found your conclusions, especially about what others think or feel about a particular subject dealing with the Bible, blinded by your ideology and lacking reality.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, is your first sentence meant to assert that LDS and non-LDS Christians all agree with your statement? Or am I misreading?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My first statement is that MOST (I would venture almost all) Christians see the relationship of man to God AND the immortality of Adam and Eve as relavant today. Now, what that relavance means to each denomination is arguably different.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure where I've done what you accuse me of. Could you point to an example or two and tell me where I've drawn a conclusion about what others think or feel?
Also, could you show me a spot where you think my personal ideology has intruded in an untoward way into the discussion?
Finally, I assume your rudeness is a reaction to what you perceive as rudeness on my part. If that's the case, I'll start out by apologizing for whatever it is I did to make you feel this kind of nasty tone was needed. I assure you that I'm not trying to be abrasive at all. I WAS trying to discuss something that interests me.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My first statement is that MOST (I would venture almost all) Christians see the relationship of man to God AND the immortality of Adam and Eve as relavant today.
I'm not sure how the doctrine of Adam and Eve's immortality affects people's daily lives. That is the sense in which I used the word "relevant."
quote: Now, what that relavance means to each denomination is arguably different.
Granted, but I get the sense that if all I did was reword my earlier post to say that man's relationship to God is the MORE relevant aspect of the story, you'd still be angry with me. I'm not exactly sure why, though.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My first statement is that MOST (I would venture almost all) Christians see the relationship of man to God AND the immortality of Adam and Eve as relavant today.
Okay, then I disagree. I venture that to MANY, maybe even most, contemporary Christians, whether or not Adam and Eve were originally immortal is almost completely irrelevant. Except as a topic of occaisionally interesting speculation.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, BS you would be wrong how I would react. And, of course, that is an example of "Could you point to an example or two and tell me where I've drawn a conclusion about what others think or feel?" I would actually agree with you on that statement of the relative hiearchy of priority.
"If something so simple as this is to be taken as providing a true story from God, a paradox is established for those who wish to take the Bible literally, is it not?" (You were doing pretty good until "for those who wish" statement. You equate literalism with simplisticality, even if indirectly).
I think that is the crux of my "anger" over you. I am not as literalist as many literalists, but you are completely wrong on how literalists think. Your ideology in the whole question is that a literalist position is a niave and simplistic, even childish, position. Well, I disagree with most literalists myself; but, I know they are not JUST literalists. That is a label placed on them and not the way they would describe themselves. If anything they would call themselves "purists," or "traditionalists" when it comes to the Bible. They may see things as "literal," but they are not without seeing the literal as figurative.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
