I think God made a mistake or he's insane

[coldblood]

Dayage >>

I reread the Babylonian Myth, since it had been a while. It is called the Enuma Elish. It is very unlike the Genesis account. There is no one snake in the story:

You are right. I meant to make the point that snakes were symbolic of supernatural beings at the time of the writing of Genesis. Perhaps I should have said Sumerian, or better yet Mesopotamian; that should cover every creation myth that arose between the Tigris and Euphrates. But you are definitely correct; it is not mentioned in the Enuma Elish story. That particular story, however, other than its differences, does share an interesting core of creation events:

First, the world was in darkness; then came light (although, in Job, God says he laid the foundations for the earth one morning while the stars were shining); and both Enuma Elish and Genesis say the firmament was created after light, (The firmament is a rigid dome over the earth separating the earth and heaven; do you know where that is? No one else does.); next came dry land; then the sun, moon, and stars; then the creation of men and women; and finally, in the Enuma Elish version, the “Gods” rested and celebrated.

This is nothing like the serpent in Genesis.

Snakes were a popular representation of the supernatural in many ancient civilizations such as Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, Scandinavia, Greece, and even Pre-Columbian America. And insofar as they are symbolic, they are exactly as “you claim” the serpent to be in Genesis. I reached for an extracurricular source only in a charitable attempt to support your claim; an effort probably not worth repeating.

The Bible speaks of many different kinds of death, but does not list them as physical, spiritual, etc. The context determines which one it is. They became separated from God as soon as Adam ate. They felt shame, hid from God and denied responsibility for their sin. This is spiritual death. Paul makes this distinction in Romans 5 he talks about the spiritual death that came through Adam and in 1 Cor. 15:20-22 he talks about the physical death which came through Adam. The spiritual death he connects with Adam's sinning, but the physical death he does not.

Well, by using your method the serpent did not lie. By context we can see that the serpent was talking about physical death; obviously not the kind of death of which God was speaking. By your reasoning poor Eve was confused and the serpent only helped her out by telling her it would not be a physical death. In fact, if God had explained things well enough to Eve in the beginning, there would have been no need for her to accept the serpent's explanation.

Does it work as well for you when scripture is twisted the way you do NOT want it to go?

I already knew who Jung was. I was being rhetorical.

I had a hunch as much, which is why you received the answer I gave.

Literal, means the point that the author was trying to make. This is determined by context, among other things. That is why I do not believe the serpent could be an animal and must be a personal being.

I would guess that is the majority belief in present-day Christianity. I have attempted to keep my beliefs out of the dialog, but point out only what is written in Genesis.

Either your leaning towards it being a supernatural being, or your hinting at UFO's/alien technologies. Biblically, it either has to be an animal or a supernatural being. It could be an animal possessed by a supernatural being, but I believe it to be a supernatural being in disguise.

It does open up a lot of possibilities. Perhaps the entire passage is metaphor; which is not to say it could not be an accurate representation for religious purposes. If it is true and literal, then Eve did see something. Any answer you give, including yours, is very intriguing.

Can you show me some ancient Jewish sources to back that up.

Well, you might try using your own Bible; such as asking yourself why you need to go to the New Testament to explain Genesis. Or you may try reading something like: “The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil's Biblical Roots” — by T. J. Wray. This includes Mesopotamian, Canaanite, and Egyptian influences on Satan as well as the Persian; and it is online. "The History of the Devil" by G. Messandé, may offer a better timeline. I am sure there are others. And while I cannot vouch that any of them are written by theologians, neither can I deny it.

[dayage]

coldblood,

I'll deal with the creation "parallels" in my next post. This one is about Satan.

Well, by using your method the serpent did not lie. By context we can see that the serpent was talking about physical death; obviously not the kind of death of which God was speaking. By your reasoning poor Eve was confused and the serpent only helped her out by telling her it would not be a physical death. In fact, if God had explained things well enough to Eve in the beginning, there would have been no need for her to accept the serpent's explanation.

I do not believe that I said that God had explained to Adam, which type of death He was referring to. So, yes the Serpent did lie. He said death (without specification) would not occur. God did not need to specify, because His test was for their obedience and trust. If as you think, Adam and Eve assumed physical death, they still failed the test. They disobeyed God and trusted the Serpent more.

God was probably not the one to explain the rules to Eve. God gave all of the instructions to Adam and Adam, as the head of the family, was the one that explained it to Eve. You can see that she didn't get the instructions correct (Gen. 3:3). Why would Eve be confused anyway? She understood that death (of some kind) would occur. Then she was told that no death (of any kind) would occur. She chose to believe the Serpent.

Does it work as well for you when scripture is twisted the way you do NOT want it to go?

I'm glad to see you confess.

Or you may try reading something like: “The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil's Biblical Roots” — by T. J. Wray. This includes Mesopotamian, Canaanite, and Egyptian influences on Satan as well as the Persian; and it is online.

I am reading it, did you? This guy does not seem to know much about the Bible. He compares Satan to other evil gods. Satan is an angel, not a god. He says Satan, like these others, rules the underworld. No he doesn't. The "underworld" will one day be his prison, but he is not there now. He compares the depiction of having horns and a tail. Satan doesn't have these. Wray compares Enki, "artfully adept at circumventing the divine will," with Satan. Satan can only follow the will of God. He can not act without God allowing it. Wray does not even seem to know that there is a difference between Sheol and Gehenna. Sheol is the equivalent of Hades in the New Testament. This is the holding cell for the dead. It use to have two compartments, one for the righteous and one for the unrighteous (see Luke 16:20-26). Now that Jesus has paid our dept, the righteous go straight to Heaven. Gehenna is the same as The Lake of Fire. Both of these names are from the New Testament. The Old Test. name for Gehenna was Tophet (Isaiah 30:33). If fact both words refer to the Valley of Hinnom. Hades/Sheol will be cast into The Lake of Fire/Gehenna (Revelation 20:13-15). Sheol/Hades is just the county jail. After sentencing you go to the federal penitentiary. Both are bad but one is worse.

He makes a lot of his comparisons between these other ancient stories and popular myths about Satan. He apparently can not find what he needs in the Bible. Another thing is that the Bible does not teach dualism, Satan is a created being and not equal to God.

In fact, I can wrap up Wray's evidence like this, "there is a possibility that these other stories could have influenced the Biblical descriptions of Satan, so let us just assume they did."He has no proof and in fact his examples show the opposite. They show that it is unlikely the Jews barrowed these ideas.

[CeT-To]

coldblood,

I'll deal with the creation "parallels" in my next post. This one is about Satan.

Well, by using your method the serpent did not lie. By context we can see that the serpent was talking about physical death; obviously not the kind of death of which God was speaking. By your reasoning poor Eve was confused and the serpent only helped her out by telling her it would not be a physical death. In fact, if God had explained things well enough to Eve in the beginning, there would have been no need for her to accept the serpent's explanation.

I do not believe that I said that God had explained to Adam, which type of death He was referring to. So, yes the Serpent did lie. He said death (without specification) would not occur. God did not need to specify, because His test was for their obedience and trust. If as you think, Adam and Eve assumed physical death, they still failed the test. They disobeyed God and trusted the Serpent more.

God was probably not the one to explain the rules to Eve. God gave all of the instructions to Adam and Adam, as the head of the family, was the one that explained it to Eve. You can see that she didn't get the instructions correct (Gen. 3:3). Why would Eve be confused anyway? She understood that death (of some kind) would occur. Then she was told that no death (of any kind) would occur. She chose to believe the Serpent.

Does it work as well for you when scripture is twisted the way you do NOT want it to go?

I'm glad to see you confess.

Or you may try reading something like: “The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil's Biblical Roots” — by T. J. Wray. This includes Mesopotamian, Canaanite, and Egyptian influences on Satan as well as the Persian; and it is online.

I am reading it, did you? This guy does not seem to know much about the Bible. He compares Satan to other evil gods. Satan is an angel, not a god. He says Satan, like these others, rules the underworld. No he doesn't. The "underworld" will one day be his prison, but he is not there now. He compares the depiction of having horns and a tail. Satan doesn't have these. Wray compares Enki, "artfully adept at circumventing the divine will," with Satan. Satan can only follow the will of God. He can not act without God allowing it. Wray does not even seem to know that there is a difference between Sheol and Gehenna. Sheol is the equivalent of Hades in the New Testament. This is the holding cell for the dead. It use to have two compartments, one for the righteous and one for the unrighteous (see Luke 16:20-26). Now that Jesus has paid our dept, the righteous go straight to Heaven. Gehenna is the same as The Lake of Fire. Both of these names are from the New Testament. The Old Test. name for Gehenna was Tophet (Isaiah 30:33). If fact both words refer to the Valley of Hinnom. Hades/Sheol will be cast into The Lake of Fire/Gehenna (Revelation 20:13-15). Sheol/Hades is just the county jail. After sentencing you go to the federal penitentiary. Both are bad but one is worse.

He makes a lot of his comparisons between these other ancient stories and popular myths about Satan. He apparently can not find what he needs in the Bible. Another thing is that the Bible does not teach dualism, Satan is a created being and not equal to God.

In fact, I can wrap up Wray's evidence like this, "there is a possibility that these other stories could have influenced the Biblical descriptions of Satan, so let us just assume they did."He has no proof and in fact his examples show the opposite. They show that it is unlikely the Jews barrowed these ideas.

Excellent post dayage, i agree with everything you said and especially about death/sheol/lake of fire, heheh you know your stuff

[coldblood]

dayage >>

"there is a possibility that these other stories could have influenced the Biblical descriptions of Satan, so let us just assume they did."

No, let us assume they did not. Assume the concept of Satan was fully developed at the writing of Genesis. Now, all you need do is show from writings of that time that the serpent was Satan. The important role that Satan played in the history of humankind, particularly in Judaism, is probably reflected by the number of times he is referred to by name in, say, the first five Books of the Bible. Can you imagine the gospels being written with no mention of Jesus? Or that Jesus would be referred to in them only by metaphor? Yet, as regards Satan, this is exactly what happened in Genesis and the remainder of the Pentateuch.

Genesis says it was a serpent; it does not mention Satan by name. I have stated repeatedly that is all I intended to point out in my post.

All this dancing around is supposedly to help you find a way to say that it means something else. And I am not saying your understanding is wrong, because I do not have those answers. But you can dig, stretch, and quote texts written centuries later all you wish; nonetheless, in the end, Genesis is still going to say it was a serpent.

. . . the Serpent did lie. He said death (without specification) would not occur. God did not need to specify, because . . .

There would have been no need for specification had God not said, “in the very day.” However, since Eve and Adam did not die that very day, you have the sudden need to claim that God was not specific; or rather, God actually was very specific about the time, just a bit nebulous about the how. And you of course can explain, specifically, what God “really” meant. And then you go on to claim that God meant a “spiritual death” when they could not have died a spiritual death, or else they would have had no consciousness of right and wrong.

About the best you can say about Eve and Adam, strictly spiritually speaking, is that they gave up innocence and eternal life in the Garden; which is not to say they could never again be pure and have eternal life with God.

Were anyone to tell you, “Eat this specific item and you will be dead before the sun sets,” spiritual death is probably not the first thing that would pop into your mind.

I have no doubt that had the serpent told them they would die that day, and had God told them they would not die, you would be using that example to show how the serpent lied.

- - -

In my humble opinion and from my meager experience, I think we should accept the Bible as it is and allow for ambiguity. Trust the Bible and do not feel threatened if (sometimes) it is mysterious. It is when we try to force the Bible to fit into what we prefer to believe that we begin this tangled web.

Today there exist certain religious denominations who claim their beliefs come solely from the Bible; yet they have disagreement among themselves regarding what the Bible says. Further, it is not uncommon for some of these same denominations with opposing views to each claim it is their interpretation that is clearly supported by the Bible. Discussions among these groups are typically futile as each side lobs Bible texts back and forth, and no one ever changes their mind. I am not interested in participating in that kind of exercise.

I would opt to fault you for using logic that you, yourself, would not accept were it in a different context and from someone else. But then, in fairness I would have to point out my own faults and flaws; and since you have hinted at a certain rigidity in exchanging ideas, I will forgo that.


My post stated: Genesis says it was a serpent. You will have to live with that. I cannot change Genesis for you.

If you would like to say by the time the Bible reaches Revelation it is understood that it was Satan who tempted Eve; I can accept that.

If you would like to say that nearly all Christians believe it was Satan who tempted Eve; I can accept that.

If you would like to say that Satan was ideologically complete, or incomplete, at the writing of Genesis; that is fine (because either way raises equal questions about why Genesis claimed it to be a serpent).

However, should you ever sign a contract with me, promising to pay me on a certain day, and when that day comes you tell me it was only a spiritual promise; that would not be acceptable.

[dayage]

coldblood,

I want to continue our debate, but first some quotes from you and a question. I believe there may be a fundamental difference between us.

I have no argument with anyone who wishes to do that. Over the centuries mainstream religious developments have evolved to the belief that it was, indeed, Satan tempting Eve in the guise of the serpent.

There are Babylonian creation stories, which parallel the Biblical creation stories in many aspects; which probably means they were drawn from the same source or that one was adapted from the other.

The idea of Satan, as the Totally Evil Rascal that he is, evolved over the centuries and appears to have entered Judaism from the Zoroastrian religion somewhere around 300 BC; and, eventually, from there into Christianity and Islam.

Well, you might try using your own Bible; such as asking yourself why you need to go to the New Testament to explain Genesis. Or you may try reading something like: “The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil's Biblical Roots” — by T. J. Wray. This includes Mesopotamian, Canaanite, and Egyptian influences on Satan as well as the Persian; and it is online. "The History of the Devil" by G. Messandé, may offer a better timeline.

Based on these quotes from you, I have to ask; Do you believe the Bible to be God inspired or not? I do want your opinion.

[coldblood]

dayage >>

I believe there may be a fundamental difference between us . . . Do you believe the Bible to be God inspired or not? I do want your opinion.

I am willing to try but “opinion” is all it is, because the answer at the heart of the real question is something no one can know.

I realize certain men have declared the entire Bible to be the word of God and much more; claiming for it such qualities as inerrancy and other claims, such as claiming that each inspired Bible writer was closer to God than anything you or I normally experience every day. And although unerring men chose the canon, deciding what would be included or excluded, still, even today, no single version is universally accepted. So, do all versions of the Bible count? Or, is it only a few that you or others have selected?

Your preferred versions may well be the result of writers, clergy, and scholars who all (collectively) made perfect decisions, and I would not be a bit surprised if you believed every one of them. I may have believed them too, but I didn't know them and I have not met anyone in this life who could give me all the answers. All I have to go by is what is written and the tiny speck of brains God gave me to decide for myself. I doubt you have much respect for that, and that is okay. Most people cling to an organized denomination, but I do not, so I do not have an interpretatively biased data base to fall back on. I find searching the Bible for what is actually in it infinitely more rewarding than selecting texts only to reinforce what someone else taught me to believe.

I would love to say “yes” to your question; but I cannot, simply because that answer holds such a wide range of meanings for different people. For example, yours could be the very narrowest of views; perhaps even so narrow that you thought you were asking a simple yes/no question. And if that were the case then a single word answer could mean acceptance or rejection of your entire ideology, thus a FUNDALMENTAL DIFFERENCE. BTW — However far apart our thinking may be, it is fine with me as long as it does not pose a problem for you.

I was not looking for a “debate” between satans (“adversaries” — hint: joke!) as that carries the implication of competing. Exchanging ideas on a “take it or leave it” basis is fine; that's a win/win. And while I am not big on patently silly stretches that assault common sense, I do have total respect for your right to believe what you prefer to believe. And, too, I have every expectation that, if you are ever in a charitable mood, there will be a lot I can learn from you.

As far as the Bible is concerned, I guess I play it as it lays; trying my best not to impose someone else's preconceived notions upon it. Do I find my religion through it? Yes.

-

I will be traveling for the next couple of weeks, so I am not sure when will be my next opportunity to drop in and visit.

.

[coldblood]

Kurieuo >>

No "man" made the Bible canonical.

Was that, “No man made . . . ,” or did you mean, “No, man made . . . ”

Never mind, neither way makes sense. Surely you understand that 99.9+% of the Bible was NOT handed down from Sinai.

Please enlighten us with who if you think otherwise.

With who what, no man? Woody Allen would know how to answer this one: What's up tiger lily? (Feel enlightened now, do you?)

I see no issue with taking each book and trying to understand the original meaning as the authors intended. Christian belief need not be built upon the presupposition that all Scripture is true, but rather a open examination of Christ and claims surrounding Him.

OK, this makes sense and it is very well worded. Thank you for sharing your viewpoint with me.

[osirisravanz]

kanuckster1127 i never said in my original statement this example you gave! kanuckster1127 said For example, in your original statements you're assuming mankind and you personally, have both the perspective and the scope of knowlege to determine what is good and what is evil. kannuck i never said that in my original statement, where do you people get this stuff from out of thin air?

[Kurieuo]

Kurieuo >>

No "man" made the Bible canonical.

Was that, “No man made . . . ,” or did you mean, “No, man made . . . ”

Never mind, neither way makes sense. Surely you understand that 99.9+% of the Bible was NOT handed down from Sinai.

Interesting. Surely you do not dismiss the the writings which comprise the Bible of no historical interest purely because it has religious Christian meaning.

Please enlighten us with who if you think otherwise.

With who what, no man? Woody Allen would know how to answer this one: What's up tiger lily? (Feel enlightened now, do you?)

Nice red herring you got there.

I see no issue with taking each book and trying to understand the original meaning as the authors intended. Christian belief need not be built upon the presupposition that all Scripture is true, but rather a open examination of Christ and claims surrounding Him.

OK, this makes sense and it is very well worded. Thank you for sharing your viewpoint with me.

Well, I'm glad you appreciated something I wrote. I'm here to please.

[Canuckster1127]

kanuckster1127 i never said in my original statement this example you gave! kanuckster1127 said For example, in your original statements you're assuming mankind and you personally, have both the perspective and the scope of knowlege to determine what is good and what is evil. kannuck i never said that in my original statement, where do you people get this stuff from out of thin air?

Osiris, your original statement establshes premises that then draw a conclusion that God either made a mistake or He's insane. How can you come to that conclusion without establishing something other than God Himself as the source of judgment? It's implicit in your original statement and inescapable. By definition, making a judgment of God assumes the one making such a judgment has sufficient information and the perspective to make it. You can't judge God without assuming the seat of judgment and sitting upon it yourself. It doesn't have to be stated overtly for it to be true. It's inescapable.

Sorry if that is frustrating.

I'm simply seeking to interact with what you've said.

blessings,

bart

[dayage]

Coldblood said

The serpent actually was a liar. The serpent said they would not die; yet, perhaps 900 or so years later, they just up and died. Now, God had told them that they would die the very day they ate of the tree. And, of course, God spoke the truth.

I replied: Your right, God did tell the truth. They died spiritually that day. They only died physically because God removed them from the Tree of Life, so that Jesus could one day die in their place.

coldblood said

However, should you ever sign a contract with me, promising to pay me on a certain day, and when that day comes you tell me it was only a spiritual promise; that would not be acceptable.

I made a mistake. Thank you, coldblood, for making me realize that I had so focused on Adam and Eve's spiritual death that I mistakenly insisted on that being what God was warning about. You were correct, God and the serpent referred to physical death. Support for this comes from Genesis 3:22 and Genesis 5 where we see the phrase "and he died" repeated for each individual (except Enoch). The point may have been to show that no matter how long someone lives, they will eventually die.

Coldblood pointed out something else that seems to be a problem. Coldblood stated, "God had told them that they would die the very day they ate of the tree." Had God said "the very day" I would agree that there may be a problem, but that is not what God said. The phrase comes from a Hebrew idiom beyom. This is usually used when speaking of a period of time. It is used in Genesis 2:4 to refer to all of the days, regardless of how long they were. There is a variation of this phrase that is used for a specific day, bayom. The "a" stands for the Hebrew definite article ha. Numbers 7:10-84 demonstrates the difference. In verses 10 and 84 the phrase beyom is used to refer to all of the days, while each individual day is signified by bayom. So, the phrase "in the day" beyom does not mean on the very day. God immediately removed them from the tree of life, which guaranteed their physical death.

Very similar instructions are given in 1 Kings 2:37 and 2:42 (beyom). Shimei's journey took at least 2 days and probably more like 3 or 4. Gath was at least 30 miles away and a day's journey was about 20-30 miles, plus he had to find his servents.

In both cases the meaning was something like "once you do this, you can be sure that you will die." The phrase referred to the certainty of the result, not its timing.

So, God was true and the serpent a lier.

Thanks again coldblood.

P.S. They did die spiritually, which means to be relationally estranged from God by sin. But, you were right, that was not the point God or the serpent were making.

[coldblood]

dayage >>

Had God said "the very day" I would agree that there may be a problem, but that is not what God said. The phrase comes from a Hebrew idiom beyom. This is usually used when speaking of a period of time.

I appreciate very much your bringing this to my attention, and although the written Hebrew language could not have come into existence until many centuries after the story took place, I will take your word for “bayom.” [We, too, have a phrase in our own language, “back in the day,” which does not refer to a particular day, but to an era.]

So perhaps it was in the sense you suggest that God told Adam, in essence: In the day you eat of this tree your *body will become mortal and, in time (bayom), it will die.

This meaning is slightly awkward to fit into context and I found no Bible translation that chose to emphasize this connotation (of bayom). However, I can accept it as you have explained; but mainly because I find it inconceivable that a Biblical author would deliberately link two verses so closely together with the intention of showing God to be in error.

Nonetheless, Eve seems to have been a bit confused about what would happen if she ate of the tree; which implies that she may have not understood the full gist of God's warning, either.


*I say “body” only because some people have a concept of “immortal soul,” and I do not know if that includes you. [If there were such a thing as an immortal soul then the serpent could be accused, at most, of telling only a half-truth.]

P.S. They did die spiritually, which means to be relationally estranged from God by sin. But, you were right, that was not the point God or the serpent were making[/color]

.
IMO, if we are trying to preserve God's integrity via Genesis, we might should stick only to the physical death explanation, rather than calling it a spiritual death. True enough, we can say that Eve's relationship with God was altered, but hardly killed. Although dead is about as estranged as one can get, estranged still does not quite mean dead.

One could say that Eve's innocence was ended; or, if you like, killed. Yet, some people presume that Eve was not innocent; that she already knew right from wrong; that she knew exactly how wrong it was to disobey God -- before she ate of the tree. [After all, God would never punish the act of an innocent.]

But what Eve may have known beforehand is not the point. That she knew “afterwards” would seem to be enough to say that her spirituality had not been killed.

[dayage]

Hey coldblood,

I appreciate very much your bringing this to my attention, and although the written Hebrew language could not have come into existence until many centuries after the story took place, I will take your word for “bayom.” [We, too, have a phrase in our own language, “back in the day,” which does not refer to a particular day, but to an era.]

I believe that God made sure that an accurate account was transmitted, so that the wording reflects the proper phrasing. God may have directly given the account.

So perhaps it was in the sense you suggest that God told Adam, in essence: In the day you eat of this tree your *body will become mortal and, in time (bayom), it will die.

This meaning is slightly awkward to fit into context and I found no Bible translation that chose to emphasize this connotation (of bayom). However, I can accept it as you have explained; but mainly because I find it inconceivable that a Biblical author would deliberately link two verses so closely together with the intention of showing God to be in error.

The way it reads in Hebrew (transliterated) is:
beyom (in the day) acholcha (you eat) mimenu (from it) mot (die) tamut (you die)

The back-to-back uses of mut (die) emphasize the certainty of the result. That is why most translations translate the two words as "surely die." The more I have looked at the sentence, the more I believe it was referring to when the outcome would become certain, not when the outcome would take place. "In the day you eat from it your dying shall be certain." In Genesis 3:4 the Serpent does not argue about the timing, he just denies the result. Also, God brings up the fact that Adam would not die immediately (Genesis 3:17), but that his dying was certain (Genesis 3:19). We see how God made Adam's dying certain (Genesis 4:22-24) and this was done immediately.

As I mentioned before, this is very similar to what we see in 1 Kings 2:37, 42:
beyom (in the day) [you leave Jerusalem] yadoa (know) teda (you know) ki (that) mot (die) tamut (you die). "In the day [you leave Jerusalem] you will know for sure that your dying is certain." Since Shimei went to Gath, which was at least a day's journey away, we know he was gone for at least 2-3 days. Like Genesis 2:17, we can see in its surrounding text that the warning was about the certainty of the outcome, not the timing of it.

I hold the view that Adam and Eve were mortal from the start, so there was always a possibility of dying, but it was not a certainty. If they had eaten from the tree of life they would have become physically immortal (Gen. 4:22). This reminds me of the place where God told the nation of Israel:
17 "But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them,
18 I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You shall not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it.
19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,
20 by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them." (Deut. 30:17-20)

Once they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil they were certain to die, because after sinning, man had to be removed from the Tree of Life so that salvation could come through Jesus' death. Otherwise, man would live forever in a condition of spiritual separation from God. This would lead to rampant evil, even worse than before the flood (Genesis 6:5, 11-13).

The Serpent was correct about the knowledge that would come, but there was a high price to pay. Eating from that tree meant that Adam and Eve were sinning against God's command and rejecting His wisdom to seek their own. As we know, man often distorts what is good and evil and calls evil, good and good, evil. By the way God agrees that man had become autonomous (Genesis 3:22), able to make decisions about good and evil without His input. With sin reigning within them and trying to make their own decisions, we find them thinking they can hide from God and avoid responsibility. We find their son Cain, ignoring God's wisdom and killing his brother.

Nonetheless, Eve seems to have been a bit confused about what would happen if she ate of the tree; which implies that she may have not understood the full gist of God's warning, either.

I agree. Adam must not have done a good job explaining it to her, because she thought they would die just from touching the fruit (Genesis 3:3).

*I say “body” only because some people have a concept of “immortal soul,” and I do not know if that includes you. [If there were such a thing as an immortal soul then the serpent could be accused, at most, of telling only a half-truth.]

The Bible teaches that man is body and spirit and that our spirits are immortal, whether we end up in Heaven or Hell. I can not think of a Biblical reason not to believe in the immortality of the spirit. Sheol (OT)/Hades (NT) is the holding place of the spirit after death. It had two compartments, one for the righteous (until Jesus paid for sins) and one for the lost (until the final judgement). An example is the story Jesus told about the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). The term in this story is Hades, not Hell (Gehenna). Explain the half-truth.

IMO, if we are trying to preserve God's integrity via Genesis, we might should stick only to the physical death explanation, rather than calling it a spiritual death. True enough, we can say that Eve's relationship with God was altered, but hardly killed. Although dead is about as estranged as one can get, estranged still does not quite mean dead.

One could say that Eve's innocence was ended; or, if you like, killed. Yet, some people presume that Eve was not innocent; that she already knew right from wrong; that she knew exactly how wrong it was to disobey God -- before she ate of the tree. [After all, God would never punish the act of an innocent.]

But what Eve may have known beforehand is not the point. That she knew “afterwards” would seem to be enough to say that her spirituality had not been killed.

The Bible is quite clear that sin separates us from a relationship with God. That is why Jesus had to die on the cross. Since our spirits are dead in relation to God, Jesus said we must be spiritually born (born again, John 3:3-8). The spirits of the lost are in a state of death. Paul describes the condition (Romans 5:6, 8, and 10). He then refers to this condition as dead (Romans 5:12; Ephesians 2:1, 5; Colossians 2:13). This does not mean that the spirit is non-existent or non-responsive. It does not mean we can not think or make decisions. It does mean that we are relationally separated from God, our moral outlook is distorted and that without repentance we will end up in Hell (the second death, Revelation 2:11; 20:6, 13-15; 21:8), forever separated from God.
The Old Testament gives us the same picture as Paul. Spiritual life comes from faith in God and trusting in His wisdom, and spiritual death from sinning against God and rejecting His wisdom (Proverbs 3:1, 5-7, 11-12, 21-23; 5:22-23; 8:32-36; 12:28; 23:13-14).

Here are some other O.T. descriptions of how God views the lost sinner:
They are unclean and must become clean to be in God's presence (Leviticus 16:16-19, 29-31; Isaiah 1:15-18; Exodus 30:10).

God rejects the unrepentant sinner (Genesis 4:14; Deuteronomy 23:14, 31:17-18, 32:20;
2 Chronicles 7:19-20; Jeremiah 18:15-17, 52:3-4).

[dayage]

coldblood,

both Enuma Elish and Genesis say the firmament was created after light, (The firmament is a rigid dome over the earth separating the earth and heaven; do you know where that is? No one else does.)

This is one of those things that I can not believe is still being brought up. Shermer and other skeptics use this one.

The word that the KJV translates as "firmament" (Genesis 1:6-10) is the word raqia. It comes from the verb raqa, which means to spread out or expand. In the Old Testament it is often used with reference to metal. So, I assume people have mistakenly connected the word with the substance instead of the action. The verb is also used with respect to land and clouds.

The correct translation of the noun raqia, in Genesis one, is expanse. Notice, that the expanse is also given the name shamayim (heavens). This is hardly a solid dome. The raqia is also the place where the birds fly (Genesis 1:20).

Job 37:18 is another place where skeptics try to find a solid dome, but it speaks of spreading clouds to block the heat of the sun. I'll break down the text if you would like.

[Kristoffer]

Aren't you guys just taking a myth a little to literally? I am fine with Jesus, but this garden story... come on it would be easier to accept it as a buetiful poetical story rather than a 100% fact.

Why all this arguing