badger3k

In another thread, we have a visitor arguing the usual creationist nonesense. One of the arguments he is using is that in Genesis, when god said that Adam and Eve would die the day they ate the fruit, it really meant that they would start to age. Taking "die that day" to mean "you will start to die that day". I (naturally) am highly skeptical of this, but I lack the knowledge to effectively say much more than attack the basic mindset that interprets this. My question is: Does the original language (I am assuming Hebrew, but it might be other) have such a possible meaning? Does anybody know the Hebrew (or Greek even) words that were given, and how they translate?

The posts are in this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...0&page=8&pp=25) specifically posts # 178, 182, 184, 188). Duckbill is Wyatt Junker on the freeper site if anyone was following that particular thread.

Appreciate any help on this.

martini

is it not up to them to show why their translation is correct and superior to taking the verse at face value?

badger3k

True, but I realized that I didn't know the answer myself. So despite my skepticism, I need information to make the judgement myself. Rather than wait and see if it is even addressed (and in what way), I decided to ask and see if I can find out from the well-informed people here.

Sauron

Fine. In that case, humans should age and die but not the rest of creation.
Right?

I mean, if eating of the tree of knowledge caused the death, then animals and plants should be exempt.

badger3k

Good point - I never thought of it that way. Of course, they claim that everything else was included, but that isn't what is said....

judge

The hebrew phrase "on that day you will surely die is used elsewhere in the HB. I think it is 1 Kings 2:36-46 . You will notice that shimei did not die on that day, but on that day he came under the sentence of death.

Therese

Would it also be fair to say that because humans have 'souls', and animals supposedly do not, that the animals already had a time limit on there existance from 'creation'? :huh:

neilgodfrey

No-one's death certificate has ever cited "old age" as the cause of death. Old age is not a cause of death and many species that produce asexually can live forever unless squashed or eaten.

All large multicellular bodies that are designed to pass on their germ genes through sexual reproduction have cells programmed to cause the death of each part of that multicellular vehicle once its job is done. In the grand scheme of life death generally follows sexual reproduction. Programmed cell death through “death cells� is just how all sexual beings work.

Those species like us that delay death after reproduction (their “death cells� continue to be countered by “repressor cells�) or that produce neuter members (e.g. bees) are selected by evolution to gain the extra protection of social organization.

So the questions to be asked are:

How were Adam and Eve designed to reproduce before they ate the fruit? (Presumably nonsexually since they could live forever like lower life forms unless squashed or eaten.)

If sexually, then did they have the same normal “death� and “repressor cells� that all sexually reproducing life-forms have today?

If not, what changes and additions happened in their cellular makeup when they ate?

Did Jesus at the moment of his birth have the same cellular makeup that meant from the day he was born he was programmed to die and thus "dead" in the manger?

If so, then why bother with the cross if he was "dead" ("ageing") already?

Mageth

I think you need to look at the whole of the verses, though, and not just at that one phrase (muwth)

From the NKJV:

Gen 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.

1Ki 2:37 For it shall be, [that] on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die: thy blood shall be upon thine own head.

Note that I highlighed a phrase in the verse from 1 Kings: thou shalt know for certain.

In the Genesis verse, the day seems to refer to the day in which "thou shalt surely die.".

In the 1 Kings verse, the day seems to refer to the day "thou shalt know (for certain) that thou shalt surely die."

IOW, the first seems to refer to the day you will die. The second to the day as a day on which you will know you will die (but not necessarily on that day).

Your translation of the 1 Kings verse uses the phrase that on that day you will be "sure" that you will die. Still the same objection, though.

The bottom line is, I don't think it's correct to try to make the point you're trying to make by comparing these two verses. It's true that they both contain the Hebrew word muwth, but both use it in significantly different contexts.

Muwth, BTW, pretty much means to die/be killed/be executed.

The serpent wasn't lying , then when in Gen 3:4 he said to Eve "Ye shall not surely die". For they didn't. Not until the end of a long life, that is. Note that Shimei, in 1 Kings, allegedly did die violently and prematurely not long after violating the command.

Dr_Paine

That could be one apologetic defense. However, such an argument presumes:

1. the existence of the soul
2. that other animals lack souls

These are clearly two a priori assertions without proof. :down: