I think it is well to remind folks that if “Death” came to all of us via Adam & Eve:
- A “plain reading” would tell us that Adam and Eve should have died that day. The fact they didn’t means
we have to somehow find the correct interpretation of the Hebrew:
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.”
17 “ū·mê·‘êṣ, had·da·‘aṯ ṭō·wḇ wā·rā‘, lō ṯō·ḵal mim·men·nū; kî, bə·yō·wm ’ă·ḵā·lə·ḵā mim·men·nū mō·wṯ tā·mūṯ.”
As you can see (above) I provide the Hebrew text in the reverse word order as it would be in reading Right-to-Left. And then I provide the more conventional sequence, for English readers to read the English left to right.
Is it my imagination? Or doesn’t the translated English take on a certain “test my meaning” stance?
“… in the day thereof that you eat, surely, you WILL die.” < Doesn’t this remind you a little of Bill Clinton’s original position about the affair with the intern?: “I am not having an affair with that woman.” Right… he stated categorically, that he was not having one - - how could he, he was standing in front of a podium speaking to the press! Certainly nobody would be so foolish as to think he could be so bold as to engage in a liaison right in front of the cameras!
Yes, I’m being mildly sarcastic. But even with a more realistic interpretation, Bill could easily be saying that he IS NOT having an affair, because he complied with Hillary’s request YESTERDAY to end the relationship! Follow my meaning here?
The Hebrew says: “surely, you WILL die”. And the qualifying phrase, “in the day thereof”, is not a reference to the time of death, but a reference to the day when the outcome will be SET! On THAT day, you will be put on a path to someday die !!!
Does anyone doubt this interpretation? How could one? For, we know for a fact he did not die, nor did Eve, on that very day. So the meaning we think it intended to mean, must not be the correct interpretation. It’s not like one writer write what Yahweh said … and then somebody else wrote the ending. These texts were all part of the overall narrative the writer had in mind.
But how does this sentence support the idea that there was no death in Eden UNTIL THE SIN!?!?!
How would anyone know? Not only did nobody die that day, but Adam lived an abnormally long life!.. over 900 years!
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
As you can see from the illustration, even Adam doesn’t live long enough to see “death” - - with the crucial exception of Cain killing Abel. But this isn’t natural death, right? Nobody would ever suggest that if there hadn’t been “The Fall” - - that nobody would ever murder another? Death, in this case, is natural death, right?
It seems to me the only reason we have this strange idea that the Earth was instantly corrupted by the First Sin… is because the Church Fathers looked around and said: “look at how corrupt the material world is!”
But it’s not like we have anything to compare it to, right? Nobody got a look at the inside of Eden when that flaming sword was guarding the gate!
So, @jdd8910 , how do we fairly arrive at this conclusion that something strange entered the Universe because of the sin? If anything, I have to wonder if that fruit was a good luck charm for Adam! Living to 930 years is a pretty lucky run!