Mihilz

I think Christians rationalise it by saying that normal death is a separation of soul and body and so therefore a 'spiritual death' is a separation of man and God. Of course there is no evidence for this idea whether meaningless or not. It's just another ad hoc hypothesis.

Jayhawker Soule

Alter renders the phrase as "doomed to die". Similarly, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan reads "for in the day that thou eatest thou wilt be guilty of death."

The JPS Torah Commentary on Genesis notes in reference to Genesis 2:9 ...

• the tree of life It is clear from 3:22 that the fruit of the tree was understood to bestow imortality upon the eater. What is uncertain is whether a single bite was thought to suffice or whether steady injestion was needed to sustain a process of continuous rejuvenation. Either way, the text presupposes a belief that man, created from perishable matter, was mortal from the outset but that he had within his grasp the possibility of immortality.

Consistent with this is the understanding that to be driven from the garden and denied access to the tree of life was to be "doomed to die". Furthermore, such a reading would explain why Genesis 2:16-17, enthusiastically touted as problematic by those who derive some sense of validation by denigrating the text, was never redacted.

Mihilz

So you mean that in chapter 3 verses 4-5 the serpent is essentially saying "You will not be doomed to die for God knows that the day you eat the fruit your eyes will be opened"?

This doesn't seem to make sense because having their eyes opened does not mean that they cannot also be doomed to die. It reads as if the serpent is saying "you will not die the day you eat it; your eyes will be opened instead".
And he is also saying that God told them they would die because he doesn't want them to have the knowledge of good and evil.

I also think its rational to assume that one bite of the fruit of the tree of life will make them immortal because one bite of the tree of knowledge gave them knowledge.

GakuseiDon

Yes, I have to admit that makes sense. And if Gen 3:8 (when God catches up with them) is supposed to have occurred later on that same day, then Adam was indeed "doomed to die" on the day that he ate the fruit, since that was the day he was driven away from Eden and from access to the tree of life. Interesting.

Jayhawker Soule

You think it "rational to assume"? OK - and I find it to be a baseless and self-serving rationalization.

Mihilz

God's decision to cast Adam & Eve from the garden is a reaction to eating the fruit. HE didn't want them to have both knowledge and immortality. The evidence is in chapter 3 verse 22: "lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever".

Mihilz

What are you talking about "self-serving rationalization"? Now, that's what you can call baseless. You don't even know me.

Jayhawker Soule

No, I don't, save for the fact that you've decided to reframe an evaluation as a personal attack.

Your choice ... but tell me: are you claiming that it is not a rationalization or that it is not self-serving? I'd also be interested in reading why you think the verse escaped redaction.

Mihilz

It is neither a rationalisation nor self-serving. For one thing I fail to see how it can be self-serving for me to assume that the same rules apply for both trees. Secondly, I am trying to look at this narrative objectively. I have no bias to rationalise in this discussion.

Jayhawker Soule

Yes: you fail to see it. OK.