BadBadBad

You can enlighten yourself any time you want. The information is readily available, but I think you know that. Is it a surprise for you to hear about errancy in the Bible on an atheist web site? Did you want to argue with me in particular?

The topic here is what would it take to enlighten you that Genesis has contradictions, and in fact it's a silly bunch of stories about creation, great floods, people turning in to pillars of salt, talking snakes, etc etc. What would it take David?

davidH

Jinto,

So we now revert to Old English in the King James version.

The phase you have a problem with is : 'for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'

Jinto, what difference does inserting 'for in the day' in the place of 'when' in the KJV?

I am interested to know how you interpret the phrase 'for in the day' because you obviously are taking it to mean 'for on the day' and there is a difference.

'for when you eat of it you will surely die'
'for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die'

'for when thou eatest of the fruit, on that very day thou shalt die'
This is what would have been written if your interpretation is correct.

davidH

Steven Carr,

Having already posted above about the 'day'.

To which you wrote:

No, they did surely die - just as God said. It was possible for them not to die, but that does not alter the truth of what God said, that they would surely die.

Brettc,

Its no surprise to hear about it - but I see none in the passage we are discussing at the minute. No, I wasn't wanting to argue with you in particular, I was wondering if someone had happened to come up with another interpretation that forced errancy, that I hadn't heard about.

Creation, is not silly, it is intirely feasible if God exists, the flood of Noah is also feasible, not only so but a lot of evidence has been gathered that indicates this, not to mention that nearly every ancient people group has a flood story of global proportions.
A person turning into a pillar of salt, and a talking snake.

What would it take? Well, perhaps more than the fairy tale of the frog that turned into a prince

Steven Carr

If it was possible for them not to die, then it was not sure, or at the least God made sure only *after* he had barred them from the tree of life, and not before.


And 'in the day' also means 'on the day', the meanings are identical.


Surprising how Christians struggle with basic English, yet can interpret Hebrew flawlessly.

Magus55

Yet, "i don't believe in God" and " I have no belief in God" are completely two different meanings.

That quote is not reffering to the second Adam eats from the tree, He will drop dead. It means when Adam eats from the tree, He will become corrupt and no longer live for ever. Yes He lived for a long time, but the verse never says anything about him having to die immediately.

Clutch

Well, if the verse never says that, then it's settled!

Sort of like the verse nowhere says that Adam was otherwise going to live forever. Indeed, it suggests he had to eat from a special tree for that -- access to which was entirely a matter of geography.

...now watch the confabulation, reinterpretation and evasion continue...

Asha'man

Actually, it says exactly that: On the same day that you eat the fruit, you will die. That is the plain meaning of the words. Any other interpretation is more wishful thinking that anything else.

Magus55

You keep thinking that... Must please your atheistic mind to think you know a contradiction of something that doesn't even exist to you.

Viti

There was no global flood, period...the evidence does not in any way indicate there was and in fact much evidence falsifies the theory. For one thing there are civilizations with unbroken records from pre-during-and post the supposed flood dates.

There was probably a large regional flood, maybe even several...but no global flood. So The Bible is wrong.

And as for the Judas story, I hope you do a twisting double back flip as a dismount for those gymnastics.

Jinto

No, those two have the same meaning, it's "I don't believe in God" and "I believe there is no God" that have different meanings.

As was said: Funny how theists have trouble with basic english, yet can interpret Hewbrew flawlessly.

By the way, who was Jesus's paternal Grandfather?