Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 11-26-2006, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

It all makes sense if "dying you shall die" has the meaning of "doomed to die".

Meaning that we can read an "eventually" into it? The same doubled muwth is found in Pharaoh's threat against Moses (Ex10:28) but the intent that it would be carried out immediately is clear.

And Pharaoh said unto him, Get thee from me, take heed to thyself, see my face no more; for in [that] day thou seest my face thou shalt die.

GakuseiDon · 11-27-2006, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Meaning that we can read an "eventually" into it? The same doubled muwth is found in Pharaoh's threat against Moses (Ex10:28) but the intent that it would be carried out immediately is clear.

And Pharaoh said unto him, Get thee from me, take heed to thyself, see my face no more; for in [that] day thou seest my face thou shalt die.

No, not "eventually", but more like "unavoidably", e.g. "doomed". KJV translates it as "surely". But I honestly don't know whether it is a reasonable reading -- it just makes sense, and the context fits around it AFAICS.

Mihilz · 11-27-2006, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

Conversely, that it could make sense suggests that haughty claims that "God was lying in Genesis" are less than compelling.

There are probably a million rationalisations that could make sense. Are you sure you're not the one offering "self-serving rationalisations"?

spin · 11-27-2006, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

No, not "eventually", but more like "unavoidably", e.g. "doomed". KJV translates it as "surely". But I honestly don't know whether it is a reasonable reading -- it just makes sense, and the context fits around it AFAICS.

The text is plain in its significance. The Hebrew of Gen 2:17 with a literal translation reads:

Code:

WM(C                   HD(T         +WB WR(
But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

L) )KLK    MMNW
do not eat from it

KY  BYWM  
for on the day

)KLK    MMNW
you eat from it

MWT     TMWT
a death you will die

The only temporal reference is "on the day". There is no "surely", "unavoidably" or "eventually". Just "on the day".

spin

Jayhawker Soule · 11-27-2006, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The text is plain in its significance. ... The only temporal reference is "on the day". There is no "surely", "unavoidably" or "eventually". Just "on the day".

The Robert Young Literal Translation offers "dying thou dost die", but the significance of a text, plain or otherwise, is not exhaustively exposed by the act of proffering a literal translation.

As far as "surely" is concerned, it is inferred by the following translations: KJV, NKJV, NLT, NIV, ESV, NASB, ASV, Webster, and HNV, while Darby suggests "certainly". The NET Bible suggests ...

54 tn Heb “dying you will die.” The imperfect verb form here has the nuance of the specific future because it is introduced with the temporal clause, “when you eat…you will die.” That certainty is underscored with the infinitive absolute, “you will surely die.”

Robert Alter's writes ...

16-17 surely eat ... doomed to die The form of the Hebrew in both instances is what grammarians call the infinitive absolute: the infinitive immediately followed by a conjugated form of the same verb. The general effect of this representation is to add emphasis to the verb, but because in the case of the verb "to die" it is the pattern regularly used in the Bible for the issuing of death sentences, "doomed to die" is an appropriate equivalent.
[The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary (or via: amazon.co.uk)]

... and we have already seen how Targum Pseudo-Jonathan understood the text.

The Stone Edition Tanach (or via: amazon.co.uk) suggests that the verse means that they "would be subject to death", while Sarna reads it as inferring "inevitable expulsion from the garden". Similarly, Richard Elliot Friedman's Commentary on the Torah (or via: amazon.co.uk) notes: "The verse may mean that in th day that humans eat from the tree of knowledge they become mortal, ..."

Since we are dealing with an ancient language presumably replete with vernacular and idiom, I suspect that there is always an element of informed speculation in any translation, so I have no issue with the possibility that Alter, Friedman, and Sarna are wrong. I do, however, find your certainty unfounded and mildly amusing.

Finally, there is much talk of an E-author and J-author and redaction and conflation, all suggesting a readiness to harmoize disparate lore. That these authors/redactors apparently divined no compelling reason to redact a verse that we now find problematic suggests to me a different, and presumably more informed, understanding of the text that you now declare "plain in its significance". But, 'surely', I could be wrong as well.

Jack the Bodiless · 11-27-2006, 07:44 AM

As I mentioned on the thread linked earlier, the "toxic lie" occurs in the Sumerian original: Adapa lost the chance to become immortal because his god Enki assured him that he would die if he ate it.

Furthermore, the same double-emphasis is used in the previous verse, Genesis 2:16, to describe eating: the phrase translated as "surely eat", not "doomed to eat".

The meaning seems quite clear, and is supported by the description of what happens when the fruit IS eaten: enlightenment, not death.

Why should we assume that this would have been redacted? It wasn't written by Christians, after all. Judaism doesn't place as much emphasis on God's "niceness". It doesn't seem especially out-of-character for the OT God to lie in this fashion.

The Evil One · 11-27-2006, 08:48 AM

The structure is not unique to Hebrew: in English we can talking about singing a song, dying a death, seeing the sights, etc etc. where the verb and the object are cognate. It doesn't have any temporal implications in English and only sometimes is it emphatic.

Amaleq13 · 11-27-2006, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

Since we are dealing with an ancient language presumably replete with vernacular and idiom, I suspect that there is always an element of informed speculation in any translation, so I have no issue with the possibility that Alter, Friedman, and Sarna are wrong.

I don't see where their comments require or even suggest that "on that day" should be interpreted to mean anything other than "on that day".

dzim77 · 11-27-2006, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mihilz

There is nothing to suggest that God meant that they would die eventually. What kind of threat would that be anyway?

You don't think mortality is a significant consequence to someone who has the option of enjoying eternal paradise?

Mihilz · 11-27-2006, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzim77

You don't think mortality is a significant consequence to someone who has the option of enjoying eternal paradise?

They didn't have that option. Other participants of this discussion have shown that.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-27-2006, 07:44 AM	#46
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	As I mentioned on the thread linked earlier, the "toxic lie" occurs in the Sumerian original: Adapa lost the chance to become immortal because his god Enki assured him that he would die if he ate it. Furthermore, the same double-emphasis is used in the previous verse, Genesis 2:16, to describe eating: the phrase translated as "surely eat", not "doomed to eat". The meaning seems quite clear, and is supported by the description of what happens when the fruit IS eaten: enlightenment, not death. Why should we assume that this would have been redacted? It wasn't written by Christians, after all. Judaism doesn't place as much emphasis on God's "niceness". It doesn't seem especially out-of-character for the OT God to lie in this fashion.

11-27-2006, 08:48 AM	#47
The Evil One Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: England Posts: 2,561	The structure is not unique to Hebrew: in English we can talking about singing a song, dying a death, seeing the sights, etc etc. where the verb and the object are cognate. It doesn't have any temporal implications in English and only sometimes is it emphatic.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.