Welcome to Gaia! ::

Pseudo-Onkelos's avatar

Adored Admirer

IVovacane
Pseudo-Onkelos
IVovacane
Pseudo-Onkelos
IVovacane
Lied about what? That they would die?
The payment of sin is death But Adam and Eve didn't die straightaway because of His Mercy.


It wasn't because of God's mercy that they didn't die immediately. In 1 Kings 2:36 - 38, King Solomon said to Shimei that he was to build a house and dwell in Jerusalem and that if he left, he would die. Well, Shimei eventually left Jerusalem and went to Gath. It wasn't literally on that day that Shimei died. He was sent to Solomon, who had him killed. "On that day" isn't a literal day, it just means "when".

IVovacane
He set them up huh? I can't tell you how many times I Used this illustration but here it goes...


Your illustration doesn't work. Little Johnny knows what morals are. His father isn't omniscient so as to know ahead of time that his son will definitely take the cookie from the cookie jar. Little Johnny's offspring will also not suffer the consequences of this act. Nice to know father will beat his son, though.

Did you review my whole post or just certain parts?
Then what was it? http://www.3amthoughts.com/article/bible-study/lamb-slain-adam-and-eve
Also, I like your sig xD


I don't read links. I don't take Christian interpretation into consideration when reading the Tanakh objectively. My best bet is with ancient Near Eastern motifs.

Thank you.

So you refuse to answer the question? surprised

Your welcome.


I don't know what question you asked.
Masrur Fanalis's avatar

Distinct Seeker

Pseudo-Onkelos
IVovacane
Pseudo-Onkelos
IVovacane
Pseudo-Onkelos


It wasn't because of God's mercy that they didn't die immediately. In 1 Kings 2:36 - 38, King Solomon said to Shimei that he was to build a house and dwell in Jerusalem and that if he left, he would die. Well, Shimei eventually left Jerusalem and went to Gath. It wasn't literally on that day that Shimei died. He was sent to Solomon, who had him killed. "On that day" isn't a literal day, it just means "when".



Your illustration doesn't work. Little Johnny knows what morals are. His father isn't omniscient so as to know ahead of time that his son will definitely take the cookie from the cookie jar. Little Johnny's offspring will also not suffer the consequences of this act. Nice to know father will beat his son, though.

Did you review my whole post or just certain parts?
Then what was it? http://www.3amthoughts.com/article/bible-study/lamb-slain-adam-and-eve
Also, I like your sig xD


I don't read links. I don't take Christian interpretation into consideration when reading the Tanakh objectively. My best bet is with ancient Near Eastern motifs.

Thank you.

So you refuse to answer the question? surprised

Your welcome.


I don't know what question you asked.

Oh okay, I'll rephrase my post.

God didn't let adam and eve die immediately, but as a sign of mercy to them by slaying a lamb as a covering for their sins and what he would do later with Jesus Christ. Instead of them, it was a lamb. You claimed it wasn't mercy. So, the question is "if its not mercy, then what is it?"


The fact that man had sinned before God required the shedding of blood:
“Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” (Hebrews 9:22 NIV)
Pseudo-Onkelos's avatar

Adored Admirer

IVovacane
Pseudo-Onkelos
IVovacane
Pseudo-Onkelos
IVovacane
Pseudo-Onkelos


It wasn't because of God's mercy that they didn't die immediately. In 1 Kings 2:36 - 38, King Solomon said to Shimei that he was to build a house and dwell in Jerusalem and that if he left, he would die. Well, Shimei eventually left Jerusalem and went to Gath. It wasn't literally on that day that Shimei died. He was sent to Solomon, who had him killed. "On that day" isn't a literal day, it just means "when".



Your illustration doesn't work. Little Johnny knows what morals are. His father isn't omniscient so as to know ahead of time that his son will definitely take the cookie from the cookie jar. Little Johnny's offspring will also not suffer the consequences of this act. Nice to know father will beat his son, though.

Did you review my whole post or just certain parts?
Then what was it? http://www.3amthoughts.com/article/bible-study/lamb-slain-adam-and-eve
Also, I like your sig xD


I don't read links. I don't take Christian interpretation into consideration when reading the Tanakh objectively. My best bet is with ancient Near Eastern motifs.

Thank you.

So you refuse to answer the question? surprised

Your welcome.


I don't know what question you asked.

Oh okay, I'll rephrase my post.

God didn't let adam and eve die immediately, but as a sign of mercy to them by slaying a lamb as a covering for their sins and what he would do later with Jesus Christ. Instead of them, it was a lamb. You claimed it wasn't mercy. So, the question is "if its not mercy, then what is it?"


The fact that man had sinned before God required the shedding of blood:
“Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” (Hebrews 9:22 NIV)


Except, the name of the animal isn't stated. That is entirely a Christian interpretation. The Hebrews knew nothing of a messiah. Messianic eschatology came about much, much later.
Also, to address the "Original Sin means God can kill whoever he wants whenever he wants, especially before Jesus showed up, for any reason," argument in general terms:

A fairly recent concept in earthly justice is the idea that laws should be enforced equally and without discrimination. If you pass laws that make a bunch of people criminals (say... a 'drug war', for instance) and then selectively enforce them (by focusing this 'drug war' on certain specific groups of the population), you're prone to being accused of abusing the law to perpetuate injustice.

So, well, what's wrong with that concept? If God defined the law so as to make everyone guilty, and now selectively enforces that law according to His whim, how is that not an abuse of even divine law?
Masrur Fanalis's avatar

Distinct Seeker

Pseudo-Onkelos
IVovacane
Pseudo-Onkelos
IVovacane
Pseudo-Onkelos


I don't read links. I don't take Christian interpretation into consideration when reading the Tanakh objectively. My best bet is with ancient Near Eastern motifs.

Thank you.

So you refuse to answer the question? surprised

Your welcome.


I don't know what question you asked.

Oh okay, I'll rephrase my post.

God didn't let adam and eve die immediately, but as a sign of mercy to them by slaying a lamb as a covering for their sins and what he would do later with Jesus Christ. Instead of them, it was a lamb. You claimed it wasn't mercy. So, the question is "if its not mercy, then what is it?"


The fact that man had sinned before God required the shedding of blood:
“Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” (Hebrews 9:22 NIV)


Except, the name of the animal isn't stated. That is entirely a Christian interpretation. The Hebrews knew nothing of a messiah. Messianic eschatology came about much, much later.

I know it didn't really state what animal it was, but it was most likely a lamb. But it still doesn't regard the fact that God slayed an animal as a sign of mercy.
You didn't answer the question...its okay.
Hebrews isn't talking about the messiah (that I know of) its just stating that forgiveness won't be granted without blood-other known as a sacrafice.
Pseudo-Onkelos's avatar

Adored Admirer

IVovacane
I know it didn't really state what animal it was, but it was most likely a lamb.


Assumption.

IVovacane
But it still doesn't regard the fact that God slayed an animal as a sign of mercy.


Why does it have anything to do with mercy?

IVovacane
You didn't answer the question...its okay.


I already did. "In/On that day" isn't a literal day.

IVovacane
Hebrews isn't talking about the messiah (that I know of) its just stating that forgiveness won't be granted without blood-other known as a sacrafice.


And that was written thousands upon thousands of years later.
Don't we all inherit the sins of our fathers and mothers, and none are innocent at birth because of that? Isn't that the whole concept behind the original sin?
Masrur Fanalis's avatar

Distinct Seeker

Pseudo-Onkelos
IVovacane
I know it didn't really state what animal it was, but it was most likely a lamb.


Assumption.

IVovacane
But it still doesn't regard the fact that God slayed an animal as a sign of mercy.


Why does it have anything to do with mercy?

IVovacane
You didn't answer the question...its okay.


I already did. "In/On that day" isn't a literal day.

IVovacane
Hebrews isn't talking about the messiah (that I know of) its just stating that forgiveness won't be granted without blood-other known as a sacrafice.


And that was written thousands upon thousands of years later.

If you read the links, you would know what it had to do with mercy :l

What are you talking about? "In/on that day" isn't in that Genesis verse. You failed to tell me what it was if it wasn't mercy :l. Clarify what your saying so that I won't be misunderstood?

I don't get what you're saying.
Pseudo-Onkelos's avatar

Adored Admirer

IVovacane
If you read the links, you would know what it had to do with mercy :l


Or, you could just tell me because I don't feel like sifting through someone else's argument.

IVovacane
What are you talking about? "In/on that day" isn't in that Genesis verse.You failed to tell me what it was if it wasn't mercy :l. Clarify what your saying so that I won't be misunderstood?


"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:17) I don't need to prove that it was God's mercy. I'm not the one making the claim. I have demonstrated it's just another way of saying "when" and that it doesn't literally mean death will occur that very day.

About that other bit, I want to understand Genesis in its original context, not one based on Christian interpretation, which occurred thousands of years later.
Masrur Fanalis's avatar

Distinct Seeker

Pseudo-Onkelos
IVovacane
If you read the links, you would know what it had to do with mercy :l


Or, you could just tell me because I don't feel like sifting through someone else's argument.

IVovacane
What are you talking about? "In/on that day" isn't in that Genesis verse.You failed to tell me what it was if it wasn't mercy :l. Clarify what your saying so that I won't be misunderstood?


"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:17) I don't need to prove that it was God's mercy. I'm not the one making the claim. I have demonstrated it's just another way of saying "when" and that it doesn't literally mean death will occur that very day.

About that other bit, I want to understand Genesis in its original context, not one based on Christian interpretation, which occurred thousands of years later.

Its okay. Its my agruement as well if I fully agree with them.


Yes, they absolutely did. It just wasn't physical death God was referring to. That very day, their spirits died, and it was this spiritual death that God was talking about, because sin

God required animal sacrifices to provide a temporary covering of sins and to foreshadow the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Leviticus 4:35, 5:10).
Pseudo-Onkelos's avatar

Adored Admirer

IVovacane
Pseudo-Onkelos
IVovacane
If you read the links, you would know what it had to do with mercy :l


Or, you could just tell me because I don't feel like sifting through someone else's argument.

IVovacane
What are you talking about? "In/on that day" isn't in that Genesis verse.You failed to tell me what it was if it wasn't mercy :l. Clarify what your saying so that I won't be misunderstood?


"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:17) I don't need to prove that it was God's mercy. I'm not the one making the claim. I have demonstrated it's just another way of saying "when" and that it doesn't literally mean death will occur that very day.

About that other bit, I want to understand Genesis in its original context, not one based on Christian interpretation, which occurred thousands of years later.

Its okay. Its my agruement as well if I fully agree with them.


Yes, they absolutely did. It just wasn't physical death God was referring to. That very day, their spirits died, and it was this spiritual death that God was talking about, because sin

God required animal sacrifices to provide a temporary covering of sins and to foreshadow the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Leviticus 4:35, 5:10).


There is no mention of a spiritual death. This, again, is a Christian interpretation. You're reading into the text.

This, too, is a Christian interpretation and had nothing to do with a messiah until much, much later.
Masrur Fanalis's avatar

Distinct Seeker

Pseudo-Onkelos
IVovacane
Pseudo-Onkelos
IVovacane
If you read the links, you would know what it had to do with mercy :l


Or, you could just tell me because I don't feel like sifting through someone else's argument.

IVovacane
What are you talking about? "In/on that day" isn't in that Genesis verse.You failed to tell me what it was if it wasn't mercy :l. Clarify what your saying so that I won't be misunderstood?


"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:17) I don't need to prove that it was God's mercy. I'm not the one making the claim. I have demonstrated it's just another way of saying "when" and that it doesn't literally mean death will occur that very day.

About that other bit, I want to understand Genesis in its original context, not one based on Christian interpretation, which occurred thousands of years later.

Its okay. Its my agruement as well if I fully agree with them.


Yes, they absolutely did. It just wasn't physical death God was referring to. That very day, their spirits died, and it was this spiritual death that God was talking about, because sin

God required animal sacrifices to provide a temporary covering of sins and to foreshadow the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Leviticus 4:35, 5:10).


There is no mention of a spiritual death. This, again, is a Christian interpretation. You're reading into the text.

This, too, is a Christian interpretation and had nothing to do with a messiah until much, much later.

They didn't die that day and God does not lie. What other kind of death is there? Spiritual, right?
Mankind was considered dead in sin and sin is what seperates us from God. We are dead in sin, correct me if I'm wrong. Adam and eve were seperated by God.

Well, I am christian. razz
Btw what do you believe in all this?
Hoppie's avatar

Shy Fairy

13,850 Points
  • Bunny Spotter 50
  • Bunny Hunter 100
  • Bunny Hoarder 150
IVovacane
Pseudo-Onkelos
IVovacane
Pseudo-Onkelos
IVovacane
If you read the links, you would know what it had to do with mercy :l


Or, you could just tell me because I don't feel like sifting through someone else's argument.

IVovacane
What are you talking about? "In/on that day" isn't in that Genesis verse.You failed to tell me what it was if it wasn't mercy :l. Clarify what your saying so that I won't be misunderstood?


"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:17) I don't need to prove that it was God's mercy. I'm not the one making the claim. I have demonstrated it's just another way of saying "when" and that it doesn't literally mean death will occur that very day.

About that other bit, I want to understand Genesis in its original context, not one based on Christian interpretation, which occurred thousands of years later.

Its okay. Its my agruement as well if I fully agree with them.


Yes, they absolutely did. It just wasn't physical death God was referring to. That very day, their spirits died, and it was this spiritual death that God was talking about, because sin

God required animal sacrifices to provide a temporary covering of sins and to foreshadow the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Leviticus 4:35, 5:10).


There is no mention of a spiritual death. This, again, is a Christian interpretation. You're reading into the text.

This, too, is a Christian interpretation and had nothing to do with a messiah until much, much later.

They didn't die that day and God does not lie. What other kind of death is there? Spiritual, right?
Mankind was considered dead in sin and sin is what seperates us from God. We are dead in sin, correct me if I'm wrong. Adam and eve were seperated by God.

Well, I am christian. razz
Btw what do you believe in all this?


Actually god did condemn them to die physically. Only one tree was disallowed to them, so if they had remained blissfully ignorant they could have lived forever in the garden because of the tree of life.
Masrur Fanalis's avatar

Distinct Seeker

Hoppie
IVovacane
Pseudo-Onkelos
IVovacane
Pseudo-Onkelos


Or, you could just tell me because I don't feel like sifting through someone else's argument.



"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:17) I don't need to prove that it was God's mercy. I'm not the one making the claim. I have demonstrated it's just another way of saying "when" and that it doesn't literally mean death will occur that very day.

About that other bit, I want to understand Genesis in its original context, not one based on Christian interpretation, which occurred thousands of years later.

Its okay. Its my agruement as well if I fully agree with them.


Yes, they absolutely did. It just wasn't physical death God was referring to. That very day, their spirits died, and it was this spiritual death that God was talking about, because sin

God required animal sacrifices to provide a temporary covering of sins and to foreshadow the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Leviticus 4:35, 5:10).


There is no mention of a spiritual death. This, again, is a Christian interpretation. You're reading into the text.

This, too, is a Christian interpretation and had nothing to do with a messiah until much, much later.

They didn't die that day and God does not lie. What other kind of death is there? Spiritual, right?
Mankind was considered dead in sin and sin is what seperates us from God. We are dead in sin, correct me if I'm wrong. Adam and eve were seperated by God.

Well, I am christian. razz
Btw what do you believe in all this?


Actually god did condemn them to die physically. Only one tree was disallowed to them, so if they had remained blissfully ignorant they could have lived forever in the garden because of the tree of life.

....I know this. Have you been following the whole conversation?:l
Kelevra Black's avatar

Dangerous Genius

IVovacane
Kelevra Black
IVovacane
Kelevra Black

God said do not eat of the tree of life, Eve even said it. Btw, its an author who wrote Genesis, not authors.


None of that changes the fact that God lied, tried to withhold knowledge, and then punished the entire human race for something that Adam and Eve did before they had any knowledge of Good and Evil. They did not know they were sinning...
If God did not want him to eat of the tree, he should not have placed it there.

God set them up to fail by placing it there and not giving them the intellectual or moral foundation to make moral judgments based on what he had said, and the contradictory statement the serpent had said.

When they did fail, God should have taught them that what they did was wrong.
But that imposes the question, "Why was it wrong?"
At the end of the day, God lied, not the serpent.
God cursed the entire human race for something two people did, and he didn't get his way.
He threw a temper tantrum...

The serpent exposed his lie and told Eve the truth.

And God is supposed to be the good one?
If you believe that, you're brainwashed.

Lied about what? That they would die?
The payment of sin is death But Adam and Eve didn't die straightaway because of His Mercy. (He delayed the payment by killing a lamb as a symbol of what he would do later on) Then Jesus died on the cross to fulfill the payment. Also... http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BQA/k/257/Did-God-Lie-Adam-Eve-Genesis-217.htm

He set them up huh? I can't tell you how many times I Used this illustration but here it goes...

Little johnny's father sets a cookie in the cookie jar. The father tells little johnny NOT to eat the cookie or else he would get a beating. The father knows little johnny loves cookies. Little johnny nods. Little johnny waits for his dad to leave the kitchen. When it looked clear, little johnny took the cookie and ate it. When the father came back, he saw guilt on little johnny's face. Also, he noticed the cookie was missing...

Now, who was at fault? The father or little johnny? And why? And what do you think the consequence was?

Also, this will basically sum it up...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110812130607AAqIF8T
Although I. Don't agree about the part about christ's sacrafice not covering the sins of adam and eve.

Nope, I'm not brainwashed. Lol :l


Okay. I can see how your illustration is similar, but it isn't the same.
Let's fix it up so the comparison is a little closer.

Little Johnny's father sets a cookie in the cookie jar. The father tells little Johnny NOT to eat the cookie or else he'll DIE. The father knows little Johnny loves cookies. Little Johnny nods. Once Little Johnny's father leaves the kitchen, in comes little Johnny's mother, who then tells Little Johnny that he CAN have the cookie, and that he won't DIE if he eats it.
Little Johnny currently has no knowledge of good or evil, nor has he ever been in this situation before, thus he is not equipped in terms of intellect or experience to make a moral judgment about the contradiction between what his father and mother are saying about what will happen if he eats the cookie.
Johnny chooses to eat the cookie. When his father comes back, Johnny admits truthfully to eating the cookie, and then God doesn't kill Johnny, Johnny doesn't die at all...

Now, Little Johnny can only be held accountable to a certain degree, since he never had to deal with a situation like this before. The rational thing to do would be for Johnny's father to have a talk with his mother, who was the one that actually put little Johnny in this situation where he could have the cookie by telling him he would not die for eating it.
It is actually the mother who should be held responsible for this. But given that she actually told the truth, since Little Johnny went on to live another 900 years, it should be the Father who changes his ways, since he lied to the child to begin with.

But let us humor you and assume that the father is still in the right... Why not just educate Little Johnny on why what he did was wrong? Is that not the patient and loving thing to do?
Instead, Little Johnny's father not only punishes Little Johnny, but he punishes Little Johnny's kids, and their kids, and their kids, and their kids, and their kids, and their kids, and their kids... And so on.

God lied about what would happen if Adam and Eve ate the apple.
He said they would die the day they ate the apple.
They didn't...
God lied.

You seem to b brainwashed, believing that God is always good, even if we can't understand it. Which is just plain ridiculous and it a very obvious demonstration of something called "special pleading."

It's a lot like saying:
"God did a few good things, therefor anything he does is good, even the stuff we might see as bad. All those people he killed when he flooded the Earth, the child he slowly murdered over a period of seven days because David seduced Bathsheba, killing the first born of Egypt (from the Pharaoh's first born to the first born of the slave at the mill, despite the fact that it was the Pharaoh that said no), all of that must have been good too. We couldn't possibly understand God's mind, but we can definitely understand when he does good, but when he does something bad, we just don't understand."

If you believe that a person can not know God's mind, but believe they can recognize when he does good, but his acts of evil are simply misunderstood... You are brainwashed.

God is not good.
God lied to the first humans.
Punished children for the sins of others.
Killed almost all the human race...

I feel like you didn't read my essay at all.
I feel like you maybe read the first couple paragraphs and then skipped over the rest and jumped straight into your reply. I addressed all of this pretty thoroughly.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games