Why Do Christians Lie About What God Said in Genesis 2:17?
- Thread starter Qubit
- Start date
Vambram
Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
- Dec 3, 2006
- 2,791
- 1,176
- 59
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Genesis 2: 17
for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die; or "in dying, die" which denotes the certainty of it, as our version expresses it; and may have regard to more deaths than one; not only a corporeal one, which in some sense immediately took place, man became at once a mortal creature, who otherwise continuing in a state of innocence, and by eating of the tree of life, he was allowed to do, would have lived an immortal life; of the eating of which tree, by sinning he was debarred, his natural life not now to be continued long, at least not for ever; he was immediately arraigned, tried, and condemned to death, was found guilty of it, and became obnoxious to it, and death at once began to work in him; sin sowed the seeds of it in his body, and a train of miseries, afflictions, and diseases, began to appear, which at length issued in death. Moreover, a spiritual or moral death immediately ensued; he lost his original righteousness, in which he was created; the image of God in him was deformed; the powers and faculties of his soul were corrupted, and he became dead in sins and trespasses; the consequence of which, had it not been for the interposition of a surety and Savior, who engaged to make satisfaction to law and justice, must have been eternal death, or an everlasting separation from God, to him and all his posterity; for the wages of sin is death, even death eternal, Romans 6:23
for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die; or "in dying, die" which denotes the certainty of it, as our version expresses it; and may have regard to more deaths than one; not only a corporeal one, which in some sense immediately took place, man became at once a mortal creature, who otherwise continuing in a state of innocence, and by eating of the tree of life, he was allowed to do, would have lived an immortal life; of the eating of which tree, by sinning he was debarred, his natural life not now to be continued long, at least not for ever; he was immediately arraigned, tried, and condemned to death, was found guilty of it, and became obnoxious to it, and death at once began to work in him; sin sowed the seeds of it in his body, and a train of miseries, afflictions, and diseases, began to appear, which at length issued in death. Moreover, a spiritual or moral death immediately ensued; he lost his original righteousness, in which he was created; the image of God in him was deformed; the powers and faculties of his soul were corrupted, and he became dead in sins and trespasses; the consequence of which, had it not been for the interposition of a surety and Savior, who engaged to make satisfaction to law and justice, must have been eternal death, or an everlasting separation from God, to him and all his posterity; for the wages of sin is death, even death eternal, Romans 6:23
Upvote
0
- Mar 4, 2005
- 28,136
- 8,082
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
If they had died physically, the text would have said so.
I'm not assuming anything.
Genesis 2:20 says "But for Adam no suitable helper was found". In the NIV there is a note to say "or, for the man....". Adam was the first man who was created; that is what his name means: man.
Now read Genesis 3:17 - "to Adam, God said ....".
Genesis 3:20 "ADAM named his wife Eve".
Genesis 3:21; "The Lord made garments for Adam and his wife
Genesis 4:1 "Adam lay with his wife, Eve".
It sounds as though you are saying that a man and his wife were created: they both died immediately they ate the fruit. A new man, called Adam was created/the original one was resurrected and a new woman called Eve was created/the original woman was resurrected. And this couple - Adam and Eve mark 2 - were the ones who were evicted from the garden, had Cain and Abel etc.
But that doesn't make sense.
a) the man is called Adam in chapter 2 - before the fall.
b) the text doesn't say anything about a man and a woman dying and then being resurrected.
c) the Lord punished Adam and his wife and then drove them from the garden. Why would God have cursed them if they had died as soon as they ate the fruit? Why would he have resurrected them if they had died in their sin? If they had been resurrected as sinners, what was the point of their having died?
So the woman physically died, was resurrected as Eve, (not mentioned in the text), banished from the garden then slept with Adam, her husband, and gave birth to Cain.
If the woman's physical death was punishment for sinning, why did God resurrect her, make her a garment to clothe her because she had been ashamed of her nakedness - and then drive her form the garden?
If both man and woman had been raised from the dead by God, they could have stayed in the garden and eaten from the tree of life. They would have had their punishment - physical death.
Eve was her name - given after the fall.
And if you are saying that they were different women, then there was no resurrection. If there had been, it would have been the same woman brought back from the dead.
Read about Elijah raising a boy to life; or Jesus raising Jairus' daughter and Lazarus. In each case, it was the same person brought back to life.
As with Jesus himself - he gave the disciples many proofs that HE, Jesus, was alive again. He wasn't a different man.
Upvote
0
- Mar 4, 2005
- 28,136
- 8,082
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
For clarity and perspective; what are you asking?
Do you want me to list 3 things in churches which are Scriptural, or 12?
Do you want 3/12 things in churches, and another 3/12 in politics which are Scriptural?
Do you want 3 things in total - one from churches, one from politics and one from science - which are Scriptural?
For starters;
Meeting with other Christians, is Scriptural.
Worshipping God is Scriptural
Reading his word - what he has actually said/inspired to be written - is Scriptural
Singing and praying are Scriptural. In some churches, folk prophesy/speak in tongues, that is Scriptural too.
Being filled with the Spirit is Scriptural.
Finding out what gifts God has given you and using them to serve him, is Scriptural.
Seeking God and his Kingdom, are Scriptural.
Putting God first and not worshipping money/idols is Scriptural.
In politics; being concerned for, and trying to help, the poor, hungry and marginalized, is Scriptural.
Standing for justice, and against dishonesty and violence, is Scriptural.
In science? The Bible is not a science text book.
All of this has nothing to do with the fact that the OP asks why Christians don't believe certain events in Genesis, and then sets out a teaching which isn't in Genesis, or anywhere else in the Bible.
Upvote
0
A different Gospel from what? The Gospel clearly written in the Bible or the one you were told to parrot without be a Berean?
I doubt you see clearly.
Upvote
0
I believe I have my answer as to why Christians lie about what God said. It is basically denial and cognitive dissonance, usually with a smug and dismissive response. Folks are too busy being on their high horses and looking down their noses to be bothered with correction.
Upvote
0
- Mar 4, 2005
- 28,136
- 8,082
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
So why haven't you answered my post which pointed out to you that you are wrong and your teaching isn't in Scripture?
Upvote
0
Great points you made @Strong in Him . I appreciate you taking the time to write your concerns.
The text does say so. Did you not review the videos and links I provided? The fact-checks are easily verifiable.
God said the couple would die physically within twenty-four hours. To suggest otherwise is to call God a liar.
We must assume that what God said would happen, did in fact happen.
Why should God have to redundantly write "...and the Man and the Woman died"? Are we that unfaithful and unbelieving?
Is it wise to be a Doubting Thomas?
Bingo! That is precisely what Genesis 1-3 teaches when one does not alter the words 'day' and 'surely die'. I am not the one changing them.
This includes Genesis 2:4...
Genesis 2:4
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens."
Everyone changes the word 'day' in the above verse to 'six days' or 'back in the day' or some other Gospel that God did not author. Yet, ironically, I am the bad guy here for *not* changing them. I am being denied the literal interpretation. Who has the authority to do that?
It makes perfect sense to those that have studied this for as many years as I and others have.
For whatever reason, the name 'Adam' stayed consistent. I believe it has to do with a very profound teaching related to Jesus being the Last Adam...
1 Corinthians 15:45
"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."
Could it be that Jesus was the First Adam as well? Look...
Revelation 22:13
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."
First and last what? Some Scholars believe that Adam partook of the Forbidden Fruit as a sacrifice to save his Bride. Sound familiar?
If Jesus was the one who started the mess, then it would make sense for him to clean up the mess that he made and make everything right.
Perhaps that is too much common sense?
Again, God said that Adam would die on that day...
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."
Literal day. Literal, physical death. There is no changing what God said. I have the verses to prove my case.
Moreover, when someone is sleeping, their eyes are closed physically and literally. When they awaken from slumber, they physically and literally open their eyes...
Genesis 3:7
"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."
If we look at the above verse in a literal sense, their eyes were physically closed and then physically opened. Yes, there can be a metaphorical meaning, but the literal meaning should not be ignored. We know what 'sleep' can mean in the Bible...
John 11:13
"Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep."
They partook and slept the sleep of death.
You are asking the right questions. The Adam and Eve lesson is *way* more meaningful than the 'nursery rhyme' watered down 'milk of the word' teachings the world is usually taught.
It all has to do with the Law and 'reaping what one has sown'. Most do not understand that the penalties can carry over to their next incarnation.
More importantly, it has to do with second chances.
Yes, except it is mentioned.
Would you rather God burn her for infinity?
The sin that Adam and Ishshah committed were *unpardonable*. They had to die the Second Death. This is the Law.
The lesson is that the Second Death is not as bad as the Church teaches. God is Love. God is Merciful. Everything works out in the end. It is quite beautiful really.
By the way...
The 'shame' came from the fact that the Woman now had reproductive organs that were not there before. Shame is our private parts.
The Tree of Life imparts immortality in a Glorified Body. It is a 'one shot deal'. The First Adam and the Woman were 'naked' because they were not clothed with a Tabernacle Body yet. That is what the purpose of the trees were for. They are designed to clothe the Soul + Spirit.
Job 10:11
"Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews."
The couple were no longer eligible to partake of the Tree of Life because, due to their sin, death and forgiveness is now required before eating.
If they had not sinned, they could have partaken without having to die a physical death first.
Very clever. I appreciate your high-level critical thinking skills.
If the couple were brough back to life similar to Lazarus, etc., then there would be no need to change Ishshah's name to Eve.
We know it was more than just a simple 'revival' because everyone involved (including the Serpent) now have different anatomical and biological features. In other words, their very DNA was altered to the point they became something new and different. They became a 'new creature' if you will.
The Serpent was changed into the 'Seed of the Serpent' which is what we now call 'Sperm'...
Genesis 3:14
"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life."
The above is literally describing Reincarnation. The Serpent was in one form, then he was resurrected into another, very different form. Christians are so blind that they do not even see how the Bible teaches reincarnation right in front of their faces. The so called 'snake' is the Milk of the Word interpretation. "Ooooh, look out for the scary snake!" That is a Children's tale version.
The Serpent, in the form of Male Seed, was then placed into the loins of Man. All Males have the Seed of the Serpent in their loins.
As for the Woman, she now has something called 'conception' added to her biology. Adam now has the Seed of the Serpent in his loins as I mentioned. When Adam placed this Seed into Eve, she begat Cain, the first reincarnation of the Serpent. Satan was a 'murderer from the beginning'. It is literal.
Everyone was reincarnated. That is what the story is teaching. No one sees it except a rare few. Folks would rather teach 'another Gospel' that God 'torments and burns everyone for infinity'... in addition to telling lies.
He was a different man. He literally came back in a different body. People did not recognize him...
John 20:15
"Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away."
John 21:4
"But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus."
Luke 24:15-16
"And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him."
And of course...
John 20:27-28
"Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."
The infamous 'Doubting Thomas'.
The text does say so. Did you not review the videos and links I provided? The fact-checks are easily verifiable.
God said the couple would die physically within twenty-four hours. To suggest otherwise is to call God a liar.
We must assume that what God said would happen, did in fact happen.
Why should God have to redundantly write "...and the Man and the Woman died"? Are we that unfaithful and unbelieving?
Is it wise to be a Doubting Thomas?
Bingo! That is precisely what Genesis 1-3 teaches when one does not alter the words 'day' and 'surely die'. I am not the one changing them.
This includes Genesis 2:4...
Genesis 2:4
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens."
Everyone changes the word 'day' in the above verse to 'six days' or 'back in the day' or some other Gospel that God did not author. Yet, ironically, I am the bad guy here for *not* changing them. I am being denied the literal interpretation. Who has the authority to do that?
It makes perfect sense to those that have studied this for as many years as I and others have.
For whatever reason, the name 'Adam' stayed consistent. I believe it has to do with a very profound teaching related to Jesus being the Last Adam...
1 Corinthians 15:45
"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."
Could it be that Jesus was the First Adam as well? Look...
Revelation 22:13
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."
First and last what? Some Scholars believe that Adam partook of the Forbidden Fruit as a sacrifice to save his Bride. Sound familiar?
If Jesus was the one who started the mess, then it would make sense for him to clean up the mess that he made and make everything right.
Perhaps that is too much common sense?
Again, God said that Adam would die on that day...
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."
Literal day. Literal, physical death. There is no changing what God said. I have the verses to prove my case.
Moreover, when someone is sleeping, their eyes are closed physically and literally. When they awaken from slumber, they physically and literally open their eyes...
Genesis 3:7
"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."
If we look at the above verse in a literal sense, their eyes were physically closed and then physically opened. Yes, there can be a metaphorical meaning, but the literal meaning should not be ignored. We know what 'sleep' can mean in the Bible...
John 11:13
"Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep."
They partook and slept the sleep of death.
You are asking the right questions. The Adam and Eve lesson is *way* more meaningful than the 'nursery rhyme' watered down 'milk of the word' teachings the world is usually taught.
It all has to do with the Law and 'reaping what one has sown'. Most do not understand that the penalties can carry over to their next incarnation.
More importantly, it has to do with second chances.
Yes, except it is mentioned.
Would you rather God burn her for infinity?
The sin that Adam and Ishshah committed were *unpardonable*. They had to die the Second Death. This is the Law.
The lesson is that the Second Death is not as bad as the Church teaches. God is Love. God is Merciful. Everything works out in the end. It is quite beautiful really.
By the way...
The 'shame' came from the fact that the Woman now had reproductive organs that were not there before. Shame is our private parts.
The Tree of Life imparts immortality in a Glorified Body. It is a 'one shot deal'. The First Adam and the Woman were 'naked' because they were not clothed with a Tabernacle Body yet. That is what the purpose of the trees were for. They are designed to clothe the Soul + Spirit.
- Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil: Clothes one with a mortal body of corruption.
- Tree of Life: Clothes one with an immortal Glorified Body.
Job 10:11
"Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews."
The couple were no longer eligible to partake of the Tree of Life because, due to their sin, death and forgiveness is now required before eating.
If they had not sinned, they could have partaken without having to die a physical death first.
Very clever. I appreciate your high-level critical thinking skills.
If the couple were brough back to life similar to Lazarus, etc., then there would be no need to change Ishshah's name to Eve.
We know it was more than just a simple 'revival' because everyone involved (including the Serpent) now have different anatomical and biological features. In other words, their very DNA was altered to the point they became something new and different. They became a 'new creature' if you will.
The Serpent was changed into the 'Seed of the Serpent' which is what we now call 'Sperm'...
Genesis 3:14
"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life."
The above is literally describing Reincarnation. The Serpent was in one form, then he was resurrected into another, very different form. Christians are so blind that they do not even see how the Bible teaches reincarnation right in front of their faces. The so called 'snake' is the Milk of the Word interpretation. "Ooooh, look out for the scary snake!" That is a Children's tale version.
The Serpent, in the form of Male Seed, was then placed into the loins of Man. All Males have the Seed of the Serpent in their loins.
As for the Woman, she now has something called 'conception' added to her biology. Adam now has the Seed of the Serpent in his loins as I mentioned. When Adam placed this Seed into Eve, she begat Cain, the first reincarnation of the Serpent. Satan was a 'murderer from the beginning'. It is literal.
Everyone was reincarnated. That is what the story is teaching. No one sees it except a rare few. Folks would rather teach 'another Gospel' that God 'torments and burns everyone for infinity'... in addition to telling lies.
He was a different man. He literally came back in a different body. People did not recognize him...
John 20:15
"Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away."
John 21:4
"But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus."
Luke 24:15-16
"And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him."
And of course...
John 20:27-28
"Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."
The infamous 'Doubting Thomas'.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Oct 28, 2006
- 21,422
- 10,065
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
You're referencing Dan McClellan as a "Christian" who lied? Seriously? Isn't he more a Mormon than anything else?
Of course, the Adam and Eve story is presented in a literal fashion, and in the narrative, they did die in the day they ate of the forbidden fruit. That is, they were driven from the source of Life in the Garden ---The Tree of Life --- and prevented from entering back in, thus pushing them immediately into a context of mortality.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 4, 2005
- 28,136
- 8,082
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
If the Hebrew text says that, it is something that the English translators have chosen not to make clear.
No bible, that I know of, has "if you eat the fruit you will physically die within 24 hours.
No, I prefer to stick with the Scripture, rather than a YouTube video by someone I've never heard of.
No, you/Dan McClellan have interpreted it to mean that.
The text does NOT say, "they died physically, were resurrected and carried on with their lives."
Is it wise to believe the word of someone who is very active in the Mormon church?
The Mormons are a cult; they do not believe in the Trinity.
No, it's not.
Where does it say "they physically died and were raised again"?
Why were they banished from the Garden if they had already been punished through death?
So where are the literal words "Adam and Eve ate the fruit, physically died less than 24 hours later and were raised again"?
You believe the Bible to be literal; show me where they are. You can assume that you know what God's word means - but if the words aren't there, you are reading into the text.
Because there was only one (first) Adam.
God created man. The Hebrew is something like Adameh - it is literally the word for man. Every time "man" is written in Genesis 1-3, that word is used.
God gave Adameh the task of naming the animals. For Adam, or man, no suitable helper was found. Same man.
The same man who ate the fruit hid from God because he was afraid and ashamed. What did he have to be afraid of if he had died for his sin and then been resurrected?
No, Paul says that Jesus is the second Adam.
Adam - the first man - sinned; Jesus never did.
Alpha is the first letter in the Greek alphabet; Omega is the last. We would say A-Z - which means A, Z and every letter in between.
Jesus is THE Word; the first word, the last word and every word, and letter in-between. He was there at the beginning of creation and will be there at the end.
He is everything.
They can believe what they like; it's not what the text says.
People believe that Adam deliberately disobeyed God so that Eve would not be punished on her own? I doubt that. When God said to Adam "what have you done?" his reaction was to blame God and then blame the woman - "the woman YOU gave me gave me this fruit". He was trying to shift the blame.
If what some people say was true, he would have been more or less laying down his life for someone else. So why did God not commend this "greater love" and self sacrifice, instead of punishing him?
Jesus didn't start any "mess."
MAN started the mess - Adam was commanded not to do something, but did it anyway.
You don't have the verses to say "then Adam died physically, was resurrected, given the same name and carried on from where he had left off - i.e hiding from God, then being escorted out of the garden."
I'm asking you to explain things which are not in our English texts and don't make sense.
I'm asking you why I should believe the words of a Mormon teacher?
There is no other incarnation.
Hebrews 9:27.
He didn't "burn her for infinity".Would you rather God burn her for infinity?
He gave her a garment to cover her nakedness, said there would be consequences to her disobedience, escorted her from the garden and then, gave her a son, Genesis 4:1.
So you're a universalist as well?
Nonsense.
That sounds like a Moonies' teaching - it is certainly not taught in Scripture.
Her name wasn't changed - Adam gave her her name after the fall.
No.
a) None of that is mentioned in Scripture.
b) it was you who stated that they were resurrected - I, and others, are saying that they did not physically die.
There is no such thing as reincarnation - that is a belief of Hinduism.
That's because it's not there.
Not at first, because they weren't expecting the resurrection.
Mary recognised him when he spoke her name.
Jesus appeared to the disciples and said "look, it is I", Luke 24:39.
The couple on the road to Emmaus recognised him when he broke the bread.
He was raised with his scars from crucifixion and invited Thomas to touch them.
Upvote
0
lincoy3304
Member
- May 18, 2024
- 7
- 2
- 17
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
As Christians, we are called to do justice to the texts we exegete. The "Biblical scholars" you posted above are popular interpreters, not actual biblical scholars.
It is nearly-universally accepted among that Genesis 1-11 descends from a "genre" called Ancient Near-Eastern (ANE) Myth. The similar stories in this cultural timeframe are the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Atrahasis Epic, the Enuma Elish, and the Egyptian Creation Myth. If you contextualize the Genesis Creation Account (GCA) with the way that these myths were believed by their culture, it is clear that the GCA was not literally believed by the culture believing in the myths. One example of this is with the Babylonian Map of the World, tied to a myth believed in Babylon. This so called map of the world was not held to be literally true, as Babylonians did not reference this map going on adventures, but referenced different ones. Another example is with Egypt and stars. One Egyptian Myth is that the sky goddess Nut contains all the stars, and that she is doing somewhat of a full plank position over this. Egyptians did not expect to find Nut's four limbs at the edges of the Earth, and they did not view stars as fixated in the sky, but used them to navigate. Myths are believed to be true in what they teach.
When Genesis 1-11 is compared to ANE myths, it bears almost complete resemblance. One of the few differences that marks some historical interest is the genealogies in Genesis 5 and Genesis 10. The problem with saying that this is making the entire Genesis 1-11 account historical is flawed in many ways. First off, the GCA could still be compared to ANE myths and considered a myth without including the entire Genesis 1-11 account. However, the bigger problem is that the Genesis genealogies mimic almost exactly in form the Sumerian King List, and other "leader" lists. There are ten post-diluvian and ten-antediluvian generations, with Noah separating them by being in the middle. The parallelic form strikingly suggests a sort of mythical belief. Also, this would require that Noah lived with Abram for 60 years, yet there is no mention of that. A characteristic of an ANE myth is that there are logically incoherent or fantastic elements in the story that would not be believed by the culture believing them. The compilers of the Genesis account (sorry to break it to you, but the Pentateuch was most likely not written by Moses) would have not believed Genesis 1-11 literally. Plus, Genesis 1-11 fits the characteristic of myth fantastically well. I've listed ten characteristics of myths before in other forums, but I'll hope this rejects any hard-pressed people who find that Genesis 1-11 is literal and cannot be believed any other way whilst maintaining Scriptural Inerrancy. The Genesis 1-11 account was not believed to be literally true by the culture(s) believing/writing them, and thus we should not either.
It is nearly-universally accepted among that Genesis 1-11 descends from a "genre" called Ancient Near-Eastern (ANE) Myth. The similar stories in this cultural timeframe are the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Atrahasis Epic, the Enuma Elish, and the Egyptian Creation Myth. If you contextualize the Genesis Creation Account (GCA) with the way that these myths were believed by their culture, it is clear that the GCA was not literally believed by the culture believing in the myths. One example of this is with the Babylonian Map of the World, tied to a myth believed in Babylon. This so called map of the world was not held to be literally true, as Babylonians did not reference this map going on adventures, but referenced different ones. Another example is with Egypt and stars. One Egyptian Myth is that the sky goddess Nut contains all the stars, and that she is doing somewhat of a full plank position over this. Egyptians did not expect to find Nut's four limbs at the edges of the Earth, and they did not view stars as fixated in the sky, but used them to navigate. Myths are believed to be true in what they teach.
When Genesis 1-11 is compared to ANE myths, it bears almost complete resemblance. One of the few differences that marks some historical interest is the genealogies in Genesis 5 and Genesis 10. The problem with saying that this is making the entire Genesis 1-11 account historical is flawed in many ways. First off, the GCA could still be compared to ANE myths and considered a myth without including the entire Genesis 1-11 account. However, the bigger problem is that the Genesis genealogies mimic almost exactly in form the Sumerian King List, and other "leader" lists. There are ten post-diluvian and ten-antediluvian generations, with Noah separating them by being in the middle. The parallelic form strikingly suggests a sort of mythical belief. Also, this would require that Noah lived with Abram for 60 years, yet there is no mention of that. A characteristic of an ANE myth is that there are logically incoherent or fantastic elements in the story that would not be believed by the culture believing them. The compilers of the Genesis account (sorry to break it to you, but the Pentateuch was most likely not written by Moses) would have not believed Genesis 1-11 literally. Plus, Genesis 1-11 fits the characteristic of myth fantastically well. I've listed ten characteristics of myths before in other forums, but I'll hope this rejects any hard-pressed people who find that Genesis 1-11 is literal and cannot be believed any other way whilst maintaining Scriptural Inerrancy. The Genesis 1-11 account was not believed to be literally true by the culture(s) believing/writing them, and thus we should not either.
Upvote
0
Eternally Grateful
Active Member
- Aug 15, 2018
- 252
- 101
- 58
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
not sure if this has been visited yet
But they did die (spiritually) they ended up dying physically 900 some years later (at least Adam did)
thats why Adam and all of us have to be born again or born a second time..
But they did die (spiritually) they ended up dying physically 900 some years later (at least Adam did)
thats why Adam and all of us have to be born again or born a second time..
Upvote
0
lincoy3304
Member
- May 18, 2024
- 7
- 2
- 17
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Read what I wrote on the genealogies. Look for "postdiluvian" and "antediluvian" then start reading there.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I am not understanding your question.
What does a person's belief have to do with whether their information is true or false?
Upvote
0
- Oct 28, 2006
- 21,422
- 10,065
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
You're the one who, in your OP, referenced and contextualized McClellan as an example of "a lying Christian."
Do you see the disconnect there?
Upvote
0
No, I do not see the 'disconnect'.
McClellan is correct that Genesis 2:17 is literal.
Are you referring to his conclusion that God must have lied? Obviously, that is a different subject that has nothing to do with whether Genesis 2:17 is literal or not.
Upvote
0
- Oct 28, 2006
- 21,422
- 10,065
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
No. But he's not formally a "Christian" and doesn't qualify, really, as a bona-fide example of a "Christian" who says God lied.
Now do you see the disconnect?
Just for the record, I'm an evolutionist and I don't believe Adam and Eve ever even existed. At the same time, I don't think there's a "lie" from God within the Garden of Eden narrative. There is, however, a perloction problem that the Serpent takes advantage of and uses against Eve, enticing here to requalify her own apparent understanding of what it is she "thought" God meant and using her good will to a misplaced end.
This is why we all need Hermeneutics and solid Biblical Exegesis.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
It is clear to those that are not conditioned to believe something that is not there.
Do a search for 'God lied in genesis 2:17'. You will see countless examples of how a plain reading of the text makes it very clear...
In Genesis 2:17, is God telling a lie for a greater good?
Please be aware that my knowledge of theology is very limited, and thus can make my question naive I was under the impression that the end should not justify the means in the spirit of the Bible. H...
This is a big problem that Christians sweep under the rug. As usual, the answer is "No, God did not lie, we just need to change the words of the Bible to make it say what we want".
Once again, I am going to post the verse...
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."
Your Cognitive Dissonance is preventing you from seeing what is clearly there.
Where is the phrase 'spiritually die'? No Bible I know of says that in Genesis 2:17.
Where is the phrase 'began to die'? No Bible I know of says that in Genesis 2:17.
See? I can play the same game as you, except I win because God is very clear about what he said would happen.
Then here you go...
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."
I doubt you will 'stick with it'.
Nope. It is a translation, not an interpretation. Big difference. As for interpretation, Scripture is the one interpreting as I have posted many times already.
Scripture NEVER interprets 'surely die' as anything other than physical death. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise.
Strawman. That sentence is not there, but so what? The text describes Adam, the Woman and the Serpent all receiving completely different bodies with new biology, DNA, physiology, etc.
Why were their bodies vastly different after partaking?
The Bible is very clear that the Serpent went from one form to another. Hello? That is called reincarnation. You are blind to the obvious.
So, according to you, whether a piece of information is factual or not depends on what church a person goes to or does not go to?
Thus: 1+1=2 is FALSE because a Mormon said it?
Again, where does it say they 'spiritually died'.
Where does it say they 'began to age'.
Incorrect.
1 Corinthians 15:45
"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."
It does not say 'Second Adam'. You just made that up.
This verse needs to be understood with proper semantics...
1 Corinthians 15:47
"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."
In other words, the verse is referring to the second man in the example. Another way of putting it...
1 Corinthians 15:47
"The [former] is of the earth, earthy: the [latter] is the Lord from heaven."
God called 'their' name Adam...
Genesis 5:2
"Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."
Obviously, Jesus was not created as the Second Adam in the above verse.
There you go with your ad hominems again. You can attack a person's character all you want, it will never change the facts.
Again, whether a person is Mormon, Atheist, New Age, Gnostic, etc. has no bearing on whether their information is true or not.
What does Hebrews 9:27 have to do with Reincarnation?
I never said God did. That is your false belief that God torments the disobedient for infinity.
Again, God clothed Adam and the Woman with the bodies we have now...
Job 10:11
"Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews."
How many times must I repeat myself? The least you can do is read and comprehend what I have previously written.
I believe all will be saved in the end as the Bible teaches. To believe that God 'torments people for infinity' or 'annihilates them' is so beyond disgusting, it makes me sick to have to even discuss this topic.
How wicked does a person have to be to even entertain such a demented concept?
So, according to you, there will be sex in Heaven without marriage while they eat of the Tree of Life.
I disagree.
Lol. You literally contradicted yourself.
Of course there is. The Bible teaches reincarnation from beginning to end. You simply never bothered to verify.
In fact, the word 'Hell' means reincarnation. Go look it up.
Nope. The Hindus do not own exclusive rights to that word or concept. Let us use common sense. The phrase 'Born Again' is literally reincarnation!
Reincarnation, also known as rebirth or transmigration, is the philosophical or religious concept that the non-physical essence of a living being begins a new life in a different physical form or body after biological death.
Reincarnation - Wikipedia
According to the above definition, 'Reincarnation' and 'Born Again' are synonymous. The Bible teaches we are to become Born Again, you teach that we are not. You are teaching a lie, plain and simple. This is a fact that cannot be challenged.
Please do not bear false witness against me.
So, Jesus was back in the same mortal body again? How and when did he die for a second time?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
