Genesis 3:16

[Cerebrum123]

I'm not the one ruling it out

Not saying you did, just letting you, and everyone in the thread know.

[robrecht]

Trust me, as someone who lives with great pain on a daily basis, increased pain is a curse.

No doubt! But be glad at least that God did not carry out his original threat to kill the human on that very day that he eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of all knowledge, even the experience of pain.

[robrecht]

I agree that curses can be lifted, but as before I'm not certain whether a curse is implied by the text or not.

One can never be certain about what may be merely implied by a text; better to acknowledge one's own role in making inferences about what we believe is implied.

[Cerebrum123]

No doubt! But be glad at least that God did not carry out his original threat to kill the human on that very day that he eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of all knowledge, even the experience of pain.

Um, if that were true then God is a liar. You didn't think this one through did you? From what I understand the Hebrew literally translated says "dying you shall die" which not only conveys certainty, but also a process of dying. Not instantaneous death as with Ananias and Sapphira. Then there's the fact that they did spiritually die that very day.

[robrecht]

Um, if that were true then God is a liar. You didn't think this one through did you? From what I understand the Hebrew literally translated says "dying you shall die" which not only conveys certainty, but also a process of dying. Not instantaneous death as with Ananias and Sapphira. Then there's the fact that they did spiritually die that very day.

Of course I thought it through, but I don't agree with your interpretation of the Hebrew. God is free to be merciful, is he not? Is it a lie for him to reconsider something he said previously in favor of mercy? Is that not a greater truth? Don't get too caught up in anthropomorphic elements of a poetic narrative.

[Cerebrum123]

Of course I thought it through, but I don't agree with your interpretation of the Hebrew.

This is what the words mean when taken word for word from the Hebrew, and translated into English.

God is free to be merciful, is he not?

But He is also just, and must punish sin. He specifically said what would happen, and it did happen. Both spiritual and physical death came to mankind because of Adam's sin.

Is it a lie for him to reconsider something he said previously in favor of mercy?

Not when there is no repentance. Also, the action and it's consequences were known in advance, there was no excuse for Adam or Eve. They weren't repentant either, Adam thrust the blame back onto God("it was because of the woman you gave me"). For God to do other than what He said would indeed be a lie, which means the serpent would have been telling the truth. Do you really think that Satan tells the truth*?

Is that not a greater truth?

No, it's a flat out lie, and your argument is a cop out.

Don't get too caught up in anthropomorphic elements of a poetic narrative.

But this isn't a poetic narrative, but a historical narrative. Hebrew poetry is filled with parallelisms, Genesis 1-11 have very little parallelisms, and have a lot of waw consecutives, which are indicative of historical narratives. That combined with the non-poetic usage by the rest of the Biblical writers, as well as the fact that typology is dependent on history(by definition antitypes can't be mythological), you have an airtight Biblical and linguistic case for historicity.

*With the evidence from other Biblical works it's clear that Satan is the serpent.

[robrecht]

This is what the words mean when taken word for word from the Hebrew, and translated into English.

Take a look at a few translations, and you will find that most translators do not agree with you. Do you know Hebrew, by the way?

But He is also just, and must punish sin. He specifically said what would happen, and it did happen. Both spiritual and physical death came to mankind because of Adam's sin.

Not when there is no repentance. Also, the action and it's consequences were known in advance, there was no excuse for Adam or Eve. They weren't repentant either, Adam thrust the blame back onto God("it was because of the woman you gave me"). For God to do other than what He said would indeed be a lie, which means the serpent would have been telling the truth. Do you really think that Satan tells the truth*?

*With the evidence from other Biblical works it's clear that Satan is the serpent.

I do not have a great deal of in-depth knowledge about Satan, but I would suspect that someone as crafty as the serpent could use the truth for nefarious purposes.

No, it's a flat out lie, and your argument is a cop out.

You have not even heard an argument here, nor is it yet clear how well you understand Hebrew, so I suspect that you are just guessing.

But this isn't a poetic narrative, but a historical narrative. Hebrew poetry is filled with parallelisms, Genesis 1-11 have very little parallelisms, and have a lot of waw consecutives, which are indicative of historical narratives. That combined with the non-poetic usage by the rest of the Biblical writers, as well as the fact that typology is dependent on history(by definition antitypes can't be mythological), you have an airtight Biblical and linguistic case for historicity.

You are confusing poetry with poetic narrative. I addressed this earlier in the thread. Take a look at my earlier posts and let me know if you still have questions.

[Cerebrum123]

Take a look at a few translations, and you will find that most translators do not agree with you. Do you know Hebrew, by the way?

You seem to be missing the point entirely. I said a direct literal translation of the Hebrew words in that part of Genesis are "dying you shall die". Here. And here.

Source: Young's [I

Literal[/I] Translation] Young's Literal Translation
2:17 and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.

© Copyright Original Source

I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but I can check what Hebrew words mean, and check what Hebrew scholars have to say about it. From before the crash John Reece had a thread on Genesis in Hebrew, and it pointed out that "dying you shall die" meant that certainty of death was in view, not immediacy. Sadly that thread and everything in it was lost in the crash(except for what John Reece referenced, but they are obviously from different sources than TWeb).

I do not have a great deal of in-depth knowledge about Satan, but I would suspect that someone as crafty as the serpent could use the truth for nefarious purposes.

Not the whole truth as you are claiming. He's a liar from the beginning, and truth is not in him.

Source: John 8:44

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

© Copyright Original Source

Remember, this is Jesus speaking here too.

You have not even heard an argument here, nor is it yet clear how well you understand Hebrew, so I suspect that you are just guessing.

Perhaps I should have put quote around "argument" because, technically you are right, I'm not getting an argument, just vague assertions.

Again, I don't have to be a Hebrew scholar to look at what they are saying, and to look at the whole Biblical context to see how it matches up. Or are you one of those who thinks a person who isn't an expert isn't allowed to come to conclusions on a subject?

You are confusing poetry with poetic narrative. I addressed this earlier in the thread. Take a look at my earlier posts and let me know if you still have questions.

Again, Genesis is neither. It has all the hallmarks of historical narrative, that combined with the references from other Biblical works, how typology itself works, and a host of other things, a "poetic" or "allegorical" understanding are not warranted. In fact, all of those things militate against such an idea.

[John Reece]

I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but I can check what Hebrew words mean, and check what Hebrew scholars have to say about it. From before the crash John Reece had a thread on Genesis in Hebrew, and it pointed out that "dying you shall die" meant that certainty of death was in view, not immediacy. Sadly that thread and everything in it was lost in the crash (except for what John Reece referenced, but they are obviously from different sources than TWeb).

I am not interested in debating the subject; but as my name has been referenced re commentary on the phrase in question in Genesis 2:17, I am happy to provide the respective commentary texts thereof.

From Gordon J. Wenham's Word Biblical Commentary via Accordance:

17. but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil never eat, for on the day you do, you will certainly die.”

17 The restriction is blunt and firm. “Never eat,” literally, “you shall not eat,” resembles in its form the ten commandments: לא “not” followed by the imperfect is used for long-standing prohibitions; cf. “Do not steal, murder,” etc. (Exod 20:3–17). To it is appended a motive clause: “for on the day you do (eat), you will certainly die” (cf. Exod 20:5, 7, 11), a characteristic feature of Hebrew law (cf. B. Gemser, “Motive Clause in Old Testament Law,” VTSup 1 [1953] 50–66). It is not, as Westermann (1:225) maintains, the characteristic formulation for the death sentence in legal texts. They use infinitive plus hophal [יומת] “he shall be put to death,” whereas here we have infinitive plus qal [תמות] “you will die.” This is the form characteristic of divine or royal threats in narrative and prophetic texts (e.g., 20:7, 1 Sam 14:39, 44; 22:16; 1 Kgs 2:37, 42; 2 Kgs 1:4, 6; Ezek 33:8, 14). These parallels show that the fruit of the tree was not poisonous, as occasionally suggested. The death sentence demonstrates God’s seriousness in prohibiting access to the tree. The parallels also show that Speiser (cf. Cassuto) is unjustified in retranslating “you will certainly die” by “you shall be doomed to die”. The text is a straightforward warning that death will follow eating. Nor can the contradiction between this warning, the snake’s remarks (3:4), and the conclusion of the story be resolved by retranslating “on the day” as “when.” Though this phrase can mean vaguely “when” (cf. 2:4; 5:1), it tends to emphasize promptness of action (e.g., Num 30:6, 8, 9, etc.), especially in the closely similar passage (1 Kgs 2:37, 42).

From Victor P. Hamilton's NICNT commentary on Genesis via Accordance:

The last part of v. 17 reads literally “in the day of your eating from it dying you shall die,” understanding the infinitive absolute before the verb to strengthen the verbal idea. We have already encountered the phrase bᵉyôm (lit., “in the day”) followed by the infinitive construct in 2:4 “When Yahweh God made.…” Here in 2:17 we have translated it as as surely as on the basis of its occasional use as an idiom meaning “for certain,” as in 1 K. 2:37, 42, where Shimei is threatened with death “on the day you go forth and cross the brook Kidron.” As the next few verses indicate, Shimei could not possibly have been executed “on the day” he exited his house. The verse is underscoring the certainty of death, not its chronology. Again, Pharaoh’s words to Moses, “in the day you see my face you will die” (Exod. 10:28), mean that if he values his life he ought not to seek a further conference with Pharaoh, or else Moses will be no more.

The traditional translation could be retained, however, by taking the phrase môṯ tāmûṯ (infinitive absolute followed by a finite form of the verb) to mean you are doomed to die, that is, a deferred penalty. The verse is concerned not with immediate execution but with ultimate death. The problem with this interpretation is that “doomed to die” forces on môṯ tāmûṯ a meaning that is not patently observable. Obviously Adam and Eve did not die when they ate of the tree. Thus, in what we consider a poor reading of the text, D. R. G. Beattie wonders why Satan is punished for telling the truth [Gen 1-17, p. 173] (they did become like God) and exposing God’s lie (they did not die)! Others have suggested that God does not carry out his death penalty against Adam and Eve but rather withholds it as an indication of his grace. Yet another alternative is that 2:17 means “on the day you eat of it you will become mortal.” This approach assumes that God created man immortal, a fact that is not explicitly stated in Genesis and seems contrary to 1 Tim. 6:16, which states that deity alone has immortality. Indeed, in no OT passage does the phrase môṯ tāmûṯ mean “to become mortal.”

Perhaps reexamination of this phrase will shed some light on the problem. First, we need to note the distinction in sections of the OT between “he/you shall die” (yāmûṯ/tāmûṯ), which is the Qal form of the verb, and “he/you shall be put to death” (yûmaṯ/tûmaṯ), which is the Hophal form of the verb. In the former, the executioner is God; thus the sense is: “he shall die (at God’s hands).” In the latter, the executioner is man, and the sense is: “he shall be put to death (by man).” Two Genesis passages illustrate this difference. In 20:7 God says to Abimelech, who is on the verge of adultery with Sarah, “restore the man’s wife … but if you do not … know that you shall surely die [môṯ tāmûṯ, as in 2:17].” God himself will directly intervene and strike down Abimelech. In 26:11 Abimelech says to anybody tempted to take advantage of vulnerable Isaac and Rebekah: “Whoever touches this man or his wife shall be put to death [môṯ yûmāṯ].” That is, Abimelech himself will mete out punishment against the aggressor. Clearly then, the sanction that is held out before Adam in 2:17 is one that carries a divine implementation.

Second, we need to examine the uses of môṯ tāmûṯ in Scripture. In addition to its appearance in 2:17 and 3:4, it appears twelve other times in the OT (Gen. 20:7; 1 Sam. 14:44; 22:16; 1 K. 2:37, 42; 2 K. 1:4, 6, 16; Jer. 26:8; Ezek. 3:18; 33:8, 14).8 All of these passages deal with either a punishment for sins or an untimely death that is the result of punishment. In two of these passages we observe that the threatened execution is not carried out. Thus in Jer. 26:8 a sentence of death is pronounced against Jeremiah: “You shall die!” Yet the death penalty is not exacted, for he is released on the basis of a century-old precedent set by Micah in the days of Hezekiah. In 1 Sam. 14:44 Saul says to Jonathan, who has just eaten the honey in ignorance of his father’s ultimatum, “you shall surely die, Jonathan.” Yet Jonathan does not die, but rather gains a reprieve.9 Perhaps then in 1 Sam. 14:44 môṯ tāmûṯ means “you deserve to die.”
\
Furthermore, note that the three passages from Ezekiel (3:18); 33:8, 14) hold out the possibility that repentance may avert death. This, then, could be another difference between môṯ yāmûṯ and môṯ yûmaṯ: the former allows for the possibility of pardon, whereas the latter does not. Of course, môṯ yāmûṯ by itself does not convey any idea of possible pardon or exemption from punishment. Additional information is necessary for that to be the case, as Jer. 26:8; 1 Sam. 14:44, and the three passages from Ezekiel make clear. All that môṯ yāmûṯ clearly conveys is the announcement of a death sentence by divine or royal decree.

From Bruce K. Waltke's Zondervan commentary on Genesis:

Surely die. The verdict for disobedience is the death penalty (see 20:7; Ex. 31:14; Lev. 24:16). Although the statement may refer to physical death, primarily in view is spiritual death, which entails loss of relationship with God and with one another. When the man and woman eat from the tree, they immediately damage their relationship with God and with one another (see 3:7-13). Physical death, an additional judgement, is an indirect blessing, ending life's pain and opening the prospect for life apart from sin and death.

[robrecht]

You seem to be missing the point entirely. I said a direct literal translation of the Hebrew words in that part of Genesis are "dying you shall die". Here. And here.

Source: Young's [I

Literal[/I] Translation] Young's Literal Translation
2:17 and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.

© Copyright Original Source

I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but I can check what Hebrew words mean, and check what Hebrew scholars have to say about it. From before the crash John Reece had a thread on Genesis in Hebrew, and it pointed out that "dying you shall die" meant that certainty of death was in view, not immediacy. Sadly that thread and everything in it was lost in the crash(except for what John Reece referenced, but they are obviously from different sources than TWeb).

Young's literal translation says exactly what I am saying, as does your other link. You seem to be imagining that I am thinking that the infinitive absolute in Hebrew denotes immediacy instead of certainty, but I have said no such thing, and that is certainly not what I think.

Not the whole truth as you are claiming. He's a liar from the beginning, and truth is not in him.

Source: John 8:44

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

© Copyright Original Source

Remember, this is Jesus speaking here too.

Perhaps I should have put quote around "argument" because, technically you are right, I'm not getting an argument, just vague assertions.

No, not vague assertions; rather questions designed to get you to think.

Again, I don't have to be a Hebrew scholar to look at what they are saying, and to look at the whole Biblical context to see how it matches up. Or are you one of those who thinks a person who isn't an expert isn't allowed to come to conclusions on a subject?

Again, I have not said or implied anything like this. I am merely trying to guage your knowledge of Hebrew so that I can try to best help you in a manner that you can follow.

Again, Genesis is neither. It has all the hallmarks of historical narrative, that combined with the references from other Biblical works, how typology itself works, and a host of other things, a "poetic" or "allegorical" understanding are not warranted. In fact, all of those things militate against such an idea.

I'm still not sure if you understand what is meant by a poetic narrative. Did you go back and read my earlier post? It is not at all the same thing as allegory. Everything you have pointed to so far merely points to a narrative, not necessarily an historical narrative.

[Cerebrum123]

Young's literal translation says exactly what I am saying, as does your other link.

Um, no. You're the one saying that God didn't carry out His original "threat" on Adam and Eve, and the cited translations don't support you on that in the least. What you are saying, whether you understand it or not, is that God is both a liar and unjust. When there is no repentance, there is no mercy. Although, perhaps you are also one who doesn't understand what Biblical "mercy" actually is.

Source: Tektonics.org

Pilch and Malina note that in an ancient context, "mercy" is better rendered as "gratitude" or "steadfast love." One example of the expression of mercy would be "the debt of interpersonal obligations for unrepayable favors received." For a case like this, to say, "Lord, have mercy!" (Matt. 20:31) means, "Lord, pay up your debt of interpersonal obligation to us!" Not a plea of the hapless, it is in this case a request to pay back previously earned favor (as a loyal subject of the Davidic/Messianic dynasty).

© Copyright Original Source

Source.

Doesn't fit with your question earlier at all when you look at it like that does it?

You seem to be imagining that I am thinking that the infinitive absolute in Hebrew denotes immediacy instead of certainty, but I have said no such thing, and that is certainly not what I think.

Then what are you saying? That's the only meaning I've seen from people who say God didn't carry out His punishment, which He did. He did so in two ways, #1 cutting Adam and Eve off from the tree of life, which took away their source of immortality, and #2 by cutting off the relationship He had with them an instant spiritual death happened.

No, not vague assertions; rather questions designed to get you to think.

How can questions apparently devoid of thought get a person to think? Every single one of your questions show that you didn't think this through. #1 Biblical mercy isn't what you think it is, #2 God, being omniscient doesn't change His mind, you are caught up in anthropomorphisms , and #3 Satan can't tell the truth as truth is not in him.

Again, I have not said or implied anything like this. I am merely trying to guage your knowledge of Hebrew so that I can try to best help you in a manner that you can follow.

You didn't say it, but it certainly did seem to be implied. Although that may have to do more with my past experience in conversations more than anything.

I'm still not sure if you understand what is meant by a poetic narrative. Did you go back and read my earlier post? It is not at all the same thing as allegory. Everything you have pointed to so far merely points to a narrative, not necessarily an historical narrative.

I went back and read your earlier posts(what point in discussing this is there if there is no correct interpretation, and it's all just made up?), but this last part of your response shows that you haven't been reading mine. Unless you are saying that a poetic narrative can be both historical and poetic, which doesn't seem to be what you are saying based on your first post in this thread. Typology, by definition is based in history, the later Biblical writers all took Gensis 1-11 as straightforward history, as do 1st Century Jews like Josephus.

Source: Christian Think Tank

Typology is basically a way of looking at history--a way of interpreting history, esp. the history of the interaction between God and Israel. Goppelt says it best:

"Only historical facts--persons, actions, events, and institutions--are material for typological interpretation; words and narratives can be utilized only insofar as they deal with such matters. These things are to be interpreted typologically only if they are considered to be divinely ordained representations or types of future realities that will be even grater and more complete. (GT:17-18)

© Copyright Original Source

Source.

If Adam and Eve aren't historical, than all typology based on them is invalid, including Jesus being the "Last Adam". Do you really want to be claiming that?

Then you have all the Biblical writers taking Adam and Eve as real people who lived in real history.

Source: NIV Translation: Adam References

Historical Usages.

1 Chronicles 1 New International Version (NIV)

Historical Records From Adam to Abraham
To Noah’s Sons

1 Adam, Seth, Enosh, 2 Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, 3 Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah.

4 The sons of Noah:[a]

Shem, Ham and Japheth.

Luke 3:37-38New International Version (NIV)

37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,

the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,

the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh,

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.

1 Timothy 2:12-14New International Version (NIV)

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner

Jude 1:14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones

Typological Uses.

Romans 5:12 [ Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ ] Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

© Copyright Original Source

And this is nothing compared to what happens when you bring the whole of Genesis 1-11 into the picture.

So, unless your "poetic narrative" also teaches history, it makes a lie out all these passages, and much more.

[robrecht]

... What you are saying, whether you understand it or not, is that God is both a liar and unjust. ...

Outrageous. I have said no such thing. Please stop making up false statements about me and other nonsense. If you are trying to tell me what I am saying, and supposedly not even understanding, this is just a ridiculous.

[Cerebrum123]

Outrageous. I have said no such thing. Please stop making up false statements about me and other nonsense. If you are trying to tell me what I am saying, and supposedly not even understanding, this is just a ridiculous.

Having God say something completely false means He's a liar, having Him give mercy without repentance means He's unjust. Those are the conclusions your words so far lead to. Your response proves my point entirely, you don't understand where your thinking is leading at all.

Unless words no longer have meaning, this is exactly where your train of thought as you have displayed in this thread logically leads to. Falsehoods can never lead to "greater truth", and are lies, and granting mercy without repentance is unjust. Yet those are exactly the things you accuse God of doing. Do you get it yet?

Given your posts in this thread, especially the first one, the only thing I can see is that you've steeped yourself way too deep in postmodern thought. Postmodernism eventually leads to the conclusion that truth does not exist. When there is no possibility of objective knowledge, there is no possibility of anything actually being "true".

There needs to be some major clarification on your end for me to believe anything different. If my understanding is correct about what you are actually saying(remember, those were your questions to get me to "think"), then I suggest you need to take a step back and actually look at what you are saying.

[robrecht]

Those are the conclusions your words so far lead to.

False

Your response proves my point entirely, you don't understand where your thinking is leading at all.

Nonsense.

Once again, please stop making up false statements about me.

[Cerebrum123]

False

I explained exactly what and why. Your denials without the clarification I asked for are further cementing my position, and lowering my respect for you.

Nonsense.

If that were so then you would be able to show how and where I am wrong, with the full quote. You snipped out the major substance of my response.

Once again, please stop making up false statements about me.

I really don't like being called a liar. Especially after I just went great lengths to explain exactly how your words lead to that conclusion.

It's like this, if God didn't do what He said He would do in Genesis, then He both lied, and He was unjust in showing mercy to those who were unrepentant. Not only were they unrepentant, but Adam blamed God, and Eve shifted blame onto the serpent.

Now, unless you've changed your mind about God not doing what He said He would do, then yeah, your position leads to exactly the conclusions I outlined. If you are going to accuse me of accusing you falsely, then you need to substantiate it.

Oh, and you do realize I was trying to be charitable by saying that I didn't think you understood where your claims logically lead to right? I know that many people end up taking positions that if they thought them through to their logical conclusions they wouldn't believe them. I thought that maybe that was what happened in this situation.

Clearly I don't think that you actually believe God to be a liar, only that your statements(this includes your "questions" that were designed to make me "think") so far, when taken to their conclusions mean just that. Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I'm saying? I'm trying to be charitable, but that's becoming harder with each of your posts.