Why Do Christians Lie About What God Said in Genesis 2:17?

[Diamond7]

Furthermore, we DON'T know either that the biblical Adam and Ever were "separate" creations from some other line of homo-sapiens, and we don't know that the first three chapters of Genesis somehow implies this.

What is difficult is when we are told that Eve came from the "side" of Adam. I have struggled for a long time trying to figure out why God made male and female, man and women. Of course this is so we can understand the relationship between Christ and the Church. In Revelations we read: " the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world." How did God know from the foundation of the world that adam and eve were going to sin?

 

[Strong in Him]

How did God know from the foundation of the world that adam and eve were going to sin?

You're asking how God knew something?
Really?

 

[Diamond7]

You're asking how God knew something?
Really?

Calvan and Smith say it was God's plan for man to sin. I find that hard to believe.

 

[Strong in Him]

Calvan and Smith say it was God's plan for man to sin. I find that hard to believe.

I agree with you.
I don't believe it.

 

[th1bill]

"WE" do????????????????????????????????????????

I'm sorry my good chap, but scientifically, I can't equate a Mitochondrial Eve with the Biblical Eve. Let's not talk about this as if these two separate concepts can be equated with each other. They're definitely not the same concept. Not by a long shot.

Furthermore, we DON'T know either that the biblical Adam and Ever were "separate" creations from some other line of homo-sapiens, and we don't know that the first three chapters of Genesis somehow implies this.

And with Empirical science, you can prove you are not just blowing smoke up an improper place?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And with Empirical science, you can prove you are not just blowing smoke up an improper place?

That's why good scientists, even Christian ones, don't rely solely on the old ideal of "mere empiricism" to get things right.

 

[CoreyD]

One of the biggest lies that is told by many Christians is that Genesis 2:17 is 'not literal'...

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."

They will either change the word 'day', or they will change the phrase 'surely die' to mean something they do not (e.g., day = thousand years, spiritual death, began to die, etc.).

According to Scholars who understand how to properly translate and interpret the text, both 'day' and 'surely die' are to be understood as being literal.

Many resources may be found on the internet that go into great detail on this topic.

Example 1:

Finally, to interpret Genesis 2:17 as announcing natural consequences instead of a juridical penalty ignores the overwhelming biblical evidence of how authors used the phrase in question throughout the Old Testament. As such, the natural consequences interpretation seems to establish human arbiters as higher authorities than the text to determine its truthfulness and relevance. Scripture no longer interprets Scripture.

Dying You Shall Die: The meaning of Genesis 2:17

Example 2:

Here is another Bible Scholar that also agrees that 'day' and 'surely die' are literal...

Note that Dan McClellan in the above videos believes that God lied.

Although I agree with the above research that Genesis 2:17 is literal, I do not believe God lied.

So, why do so many Christians lie and claim that Genesis 2:17 is not literal? Is there an agenda here? Are they just ignorant?

Both are literal.
We know "die" refers to literal death, from Genesis 3:19, and Romans 5:12
We know "day" refers to a day from God's perspective from Genesis 2:4, and Genesis 3:17-24
Please see 2 Peter 3:8, and Psalm 90:4

The problem some people are having with "day", is the span.
Some people say the day is 24 hours long as we know it today, whereas, the Bible does not refer to day in Genesis 1 through to 3, as 24 hours long, and no one can say this is so, from scripture. Only their view, or opinion.

How long was the day the heavens and earth were created?
Genesis 2:4

This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

It's a day to God, but it certainly could not be 24 hours long.
To think that, the six days would have had to be a 1 minute in length, or less, since the heavens would have taken longer than the earth to create.
Each day could not be 24 hours long, even if we used white out to remove Genesis 2:4

 

[CoreyD]

Hi @HTacianas . Thanks for the list. I believe there is a third option we can add.

3. They physically died, and God resurrected them.

Obviously, the view is controversial, so I do not expect many to agree.

If that is an option then we can add a couple more.
4. God lied.
5, There was no Adam and Eve.
....

We don't want to just make up anything and take liberties to insert it as we feel to.
So let's just squash 3 - 5. Made up ideas with no scriptural reference or support, do not count. Agreed?

 

[CoreyD]

This is the only option that agrees with Scripture.

Can you please provide us with the scriptures. Thanks.

 

[th1bill]

That's why good scientists, even Christian ones, don't rely solely on the old ideal of "mere empiricism" to get things right.

Ah! But the rule stands: If it cannot empirically be proven, it is a Scientific Theory but it is not fact and therefore not Science. It is come to be known as Trash Science. But for the Spirt Filled Christian, the Bible, because of our close association with Ruah, is the Final Court of Arbitration until Yashua ha¨Mashiah returns to rule. Are you a Christian or a Saved Man?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ah! But the rule stands: If it cannot empirically be proven, it is a Scientific Theory but it is not fact and therefore not Science. It is come to be known as Trash Science. But for the Spirt Filled Christian, the Bible, because of our close association with Ruah, is the Final Court of Arbitration until Yashua ha¨Mashiah returns to rule. Are you a Christian or a Saved Man?

I'd say yes, I'm a Christian, but from the looks of your style of writing, I'm probably not a Christian by your strict Baptist standards or measure.

As for "science," I begin with both the History of Science and the Philosophy of Science and I end up advocating for Methodological Naturalism which avoids "scientism" (otherwise known as 'Philosophical Naturalism). I tend to know that 'facts' and 'data' are always interpreted and that they don't interpret themselves

 

[CoreyD]

How did God know from the foundation of the world that adam and eve were going to sin?

To get the correct answer to this question, one has to study the scriptures giving consideration to the original languages of the text, and the context.

The word translated foundation, is katabolé (καταβολή). The word usage can be "depositing, sowing, deposit, technically used of the act of conception".
The word translated world, is kosmos (κόσμος). The word usage can be "order, inhabitants of the world (earth)"

If we therefore read each text that is translated "foundation of the world", as "laying down seed (at conception) of the world (inhabitants)"...
We ask the question, when was the laying down of seed at conception of inhabitants of the earth?
The answer we get is, 'From Cain - the first seed of conception - offspring of Adam and Eve'.
However, Abel was the first righteous, so Cain does not count, in the context of the 'foundation of the world'.

Would that answer be correct? Is it some wild guess, or idea?
No. However, you decide.

Please read at your leisure, and with pleasure.
Luke 11:49-51; John 17:24; Ephesians 1:3, 4; Hebrews 4:3; Hebrews 9:26; 1 Peter 1:20; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8

Now the scriptures make sense, don't they?
Genesis 3:15

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

Only after Adam sinned, was Christ foreknown, because God put in place the means by which mankind will be redeemed.
Only after Adam sinned was the arrangement put in place by God, for a kingdom made up of the seed - Christ, and the heirs of the kingdom. Galatians 3:16, 29

There was no need for a kingdom, before Adam's sin, and therefore, heaven was never a destination for any believer.
Only after the fall was it arranged for some faithful ones - namely 144, 000 to go to heaven to rule in the kingdom with Christ Luke 22:28-30; Revelation 7:1-3; Revelation 14:1-4; revelation 20:4-6, and bring all things together in Christ. The things in heaven, and the things on earth. Ephesians 1:6-11

Calvan and Smith say it was God's plan for man to sin. I find that hard to believe.

It's not only hard to believe. It paints God as evil - something that Satan delights in. It also is not scriptural.
I hope the above info helps you, my potential brother in the faith.
If you ever have any questions you would like a clear scriptural answer to, please do not hesitate to contact me personally, and ask.

May you have peace.

 

[th1bill]

I'd say yes, I'm a Christian, but from the looks of your style of writing, I'm probably not a Christian by your strict Baptist standards or measure.

As for "science," I begin with both the History of Science and the Philosophy of Science and I end up advocating for Methodological Naturalism which avoids "scientism" (otherwise known as 'Philosophical Naturalism). I tend to know that 'facts' and 'data' are always interpreted and that they don't interpret themselves

Of course, I am not a physic and cannot read your mind but as a Christian Follower of Yashua my spirit-led ways of worship have never been noted as being Baptist... Christian with a Pentecostal slant but nobody in our Baptist Fellowship subscribes to any of the Baptist Associations.

Now, you mention your credentials and I see naught about Ruah (the Holy Spirit) influencing your life. I recall Yashua ha'Mashiah sending the Helper to His Followers live the life that is impossible for us to do it ourselves.

I walked away from the club with my Guitar and equipment on NEW NEAR Night before I got paid because I was indwelt as I sang it in for the drunks. Nothing and, I do mean nothing in my life has been the same since. I am a Spiritually Born Again Follower of The Most High God.

It is my prayer that He touches your heart as He has mine.

The Spirit in me iis my life now... I am a B

 

[Jamdoc]

What is difficult is when we are told that Eve came from the "side" of Adam. I have struggled for a long time trying to figure out why God made male and female, man and women. Of course this is so we can understand the relationship between Christ and the Church. In Revelations we read: " the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world." How did God know from the foundation of the world that adam and eve were going to sin?

from a scientific perspective, the marrow of rib bones and other flat bones are the best source of stem cells in an adult, where most hematopoiesis (formation of new blood cells) takes place. In children it's the marrow of long bones like the femurs but in adults it's the flat bones, shoulder blades, ribs, and pelvis.
well you can't exactly remove Adam's hip or shoulder to extract marrow and stem cells to clone a new human being from.. but you could remove a rib, a rib isn't a joint, it's protection, and 1 lost rib wouldn't harm Adam that much.

Yes I know that in other acts of creation God simply spoke things into being, but just like Jesus showed multiple ways of being able to heal someone, just speaking the words, touching someone, being touched by someone, spitting on the ground and rubbing the mud in someone's eyes.... God showed He could create new life in multiple ways.. speaking it into existence, taking inanimate matter and making it alive by breathing life into it.. and.. performing surgery on Adam and cloning Eve from a rib.

It is.. one of those things that convinced me the reality of creation more than just "God magic'ed it into existence" that He did something I could understand biologically and it made absolute sense but an ancient person would not understand, but a modern person with a background in biology would look at and say "That makes perfect sense" and ONLY a modern person who understood human anatomy and biology would understand it.

I struggled to believe literal creation until I understood Eve's creation and the realization dawned on me that God was performing surgery and doing cloning from stem cells and the biology of it was perfectly sound. How do you put that in an ancient book that'd be written by people thousands of years ago that had no understanding of human anatomy? How is that something ancient humans would just make up? Divine Inspiration of a more knowledgeable God is the only explanation.. or like Proverbs 6:6-8. Ancient people would not know that worker ants are female. They'd have no way of determining that before the microscope. Yet the ant is gendered female. It is scientifically accurate.

 

[Diamond7]

ONLY a modern person who understood human anatomy and biology would understand it.

Adam would have had to get his mitochondrial DNA from his mom. Although his sister would share the same mitochondrial DNA. I was doing some research on the beginning of male and female that we read about on the sixth day. Unlike asexual where cells copy themselves the cell divides into male and female. Half or one side becomes male and the other half or the other side becomes female. This would fit what we read about Adam and Eve and where she came from. This is why theistic evolution gets to be so complicated.

The passage we are talking about: "Then Adam said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” would indicate the explanation you talk about where God actually took Eve from the bone or bone marrow of the man. Also we no longer have male and female. We now have women and man and we also have monogamy. Although in the study of the Prairie Voles we see that man and women mate for life because of the Oxytocin hormones in the brain. This can be a natural pain killer. This is the same hormone where the mother bonds with her child. Or even animals as people get attached to their pets. My wife was a country girl and they had a few animals that they eventfully eat and so she really did not have pets or animals that they felt any sort of attachment to.

 

[Jamdoc]

Adam would have had to get his mitochondrial DNA from his mom. Although his sister would share the same mitochondrial DNA. I was doing some research on the beginning of male and female that we read about on the sixth day. Unlike asexual where cells copy themselves the cell divides into male and female. Half or one side becomes male and the other half or the other side becomes female. This would fit what we read about Adam and Eve and where she came from. This is why theistic evolution gets to be so complicated.

The passage we are talking about: "Then Adam said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” would indicate the explanation you talk about where God actually took Eve from the bone or bone marrow of the man. Also we no longer have male and female. We now have women and man and we also have monogamy. Although in the study of the Prairie Voles we see that man and women mate for life because of the Oxytocin hormones in the brain. This can be a natural pain killer. This is the same hormone where the mother bonds with her child. Or even animals as people get attached to their pets. My wife was a country girl and they had a few animals that they eventfully eat and so she really did not have pets or animals that they felt any sort of attachment to.

Well it's like the old question about whether Adam had a bellybutton or not.
We have to remember Adam was not born his process for becoming a living being was not the same as ours. God took inanimate material, and made it alive., and it became a living soul.
In Eve's case He used a process that you can science your way through and it makes sense. But for Adam, this was something we cannot explain scientifically.
So we have to assume.. that Adam was man as God wanted man to be, all the rest of us have consequences of our natural generation, things like getting our mitochondria from our mother, and belly buttons from a placenta that Adam did not have, though God may have given him one anyway, just because all humans after him would have them.
Adam would not have scars from diseases like chickenpox or teenage acne, Adam would not have crooked teeth from them having grown in crooked, or gaps, or any tooth decay, or have ever had baby teeth, all those things that can mark us for life growing up, Adam never had because he did not develop.
So because of that, Adam didn't have to get mitochondria from a mother, Adam just would have had Mitochondria, and in fact, Eve would have gotten hers from him, since she was cloned from his body, but made female.