Genesis 3:16

[RumTumTugger]

False

Nonsense.

Once again, please stop making up false statements about me.

It does look like what Cerebrum says you are saying that God is a Liar when you insist that cutting Adam and Eve off from the tree of life(eventual physical death) and himself(spiritual death) does not mean he followed through on the punishment he said would happen if they eat of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil.

IF you are not saying that then God lied when he told Adam the consequences of eating of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil you might want to think about choosing your words more wisely.

Yes God was merciful(but not in the way the words you chose make it seem where Just punishment was not received) he made a way for them to have the Right relationship(it was God who sacrificed the animal to give them skins to cover themselves a typology of what Jesus did on the cross for us) with him that he that is is mercy but in his justice he did cause death not immediate physical but there was an immediate spiritual death.


robrecht, God is Just and merciful but in his justice he cannot forgo punishment for wrong doing especially punishment he said would happen that is what you seem to think he can do. Jesus's life and death was his way of bring together his Justice and mercy bringing life where Adam and Eve's Sin brought death into the world just like God said would happen. As is stands what the words you have been using seem to say God is unjust and not truly merciful. think it through before you say anything more, please.

I did not edit anything out of your post I hit edit instead of reply accidentally. I hit save without touching your post.

[robrecht]

I explained exactly what and why. Your denials without the clarification I asked for are further cementing my position, and lowering my respect for you.

If that were so then you would be able to show how and where I am wrong, with the full quote. You snipped out the major substance of my response.

I really don't like being called a liar. Especially after I just went great lengths to explain exactly how your words lead to that conclusion.

It's like this, if God didn't do what He said He would do in Genesis, then He both lied, and He was unjust in showing mercy to those who were unrepentant. Not only were they unrepentant, but Adam blamed God, and Eve shifted blame onto the serpent.

Now, unless you've changed your mind about God not doing what He said He would do, then yeah, your position leads to exactly the conclusions I outlined. If you are going to accuse me of accusing you falsely, then you need to substantiate it.

Oh, and you do realize I was trying to be charitable by saying that I didn't think you understood where your claims logically lead to right? I know that many people end up taking positions that if they thought them through to their logical conclusions they wouldn't believe them. I thought that maybe that was what happened in this situation.

Clearly I don't think that you actually believe God to be a liar, only that your statements(this includes your "questions" that were designed to make me "think") so far, when taken to their conclusions mean just that. Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I'm saying? I'm trying to be charitable, but that's becoming harder with each of your posts.

It seems to me that you are trying to impose what you feel are logical conclusions on my words based on your own presuppositions and assumptions, but if you truly want to be respectful, despited your stated loss of respect, please understand that I am not bound by your presuppositions and assumptions and that I have already rejected your own logical conclusions as in no way reflecting what I think. If you can respect that, I may be willing and able to clarify some of our differing presuppositions. You may think you are being charitable, but that is certainly not how I have experienced your attempts to explain my position to me, even with your gracious assumption that I may not understand my own position.

ETA: Do you see how this is different from calling you a liar? I don't think you are attempting to deceive anyone, and have never said such, but are you making up things about what you honestly think are my positions and what must be logical conclusions based on my positions.

[Cerebrum123]

It seems to me that you are trying to impose what you feel are logical conclusions on my words based on your own presuppositions and assumptions, but if you truly want to be respectful, despited your stated loss of respect, please understand that I am not bound by your presuppositions and assumptions and that I have already rejected your own logical conclusions as in no way reflecting what I think.

I have explained in detail why what I said follows from your beliefs, at the end of this post I will put them in a syllogism so as to further clarify my own position.

If you can respect that, I may be willing and able to clarify some of our differing presuppositions. You may think you are being charitable, but that is certainly not how I have experienced your attempts to explain my position to me, even with your gracious assumption that I may not understand my own position.

That's exactly what I've asked you to do. You snipped that out of my post in your last response. You have so far merely dismissed what I've said as "ridiculous", and "false accusations". You did so without even explaining yourself. I at least went through the trouble of doing that, and am attempting to do so even further.

First syllogism, God ending up as a liar.

Premise 1, a falsehood spoken when it is known to be false is a lie.
Premise 2, God knows the future, thus knew that what He said was false.

Conclusion, God lied.

For God being unjust we have two different things.

Premise 1, God is a God of truth.
Premise 2, God delights in truth. Telling the truth is the right thing to do, especially when someone has been lied to.
Premise 3, the serpent spoke the whole truth, Adam and Eve would be like God, knowing both good and evil, and they would not die.

Observation, God punished the serpent for merely telling the truth.

Conclusion, God unjustly punished the serpent for doing what was right.

Premise 1, Biblical mercy is not withholding punishment from those who are unrepentant, and deserve their punishment.
Premise 2, Adam and Eve both deserved their punishment, and were unrepentant.
Premise 3 God is completely Holy, and cannot abide sin. Sin must be punished, and in the proper way.
Premise 4, The wages of sin is death(both physical and spiritual)
Premise 5(Your premise, which doesn't fit the account since Adam and Eve were both punished with physical and spiritual death, one immediate, one later to come) Adam and Eve were not punished according to God's Law. They did not die according to God's own words.

Conclusion, God is unjust.

Feel free to show me how, logically, you can avoid the conclusions, which I find you should agree with all those premises.

[robrecht]

It does look like what Cerebrum says you are saying that God is a Liar when you insist that cutting Adam and Eve off from the tree of life(eventual physical death) and himself(spiritual death) does not mean he followed through on the punishment he said would happen if they eat of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil.

IF you are not saying that then God lied when he told Adam the consequences of eating of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil you might want to think about choosing your words more wisely.

Yes God was merciful(but not in the way the words you chose make it seem where Just punishment was not received) he made a way for them to have the Right relationship(it was God who sacrificed the animal to give them skins to cover themselves a typology of what Jesus did on the cross for us) with him that he that is is mercy but in his justice he did cause death not immediate physical but there was an immediate spiritual death.

robrecht, God is Just and merciful but in his justice he cannot forgo punishment for wrong doing especially punishment he said would happen that is what you seem to think he can do. Jesus's life and death was his way of bring together his Justice and mercy bringing life where Adam and Eve's Sin brought death into the world just like God said would happen. As is stands what the words you have been using seem to say God is unjust and not truly merciful. think it through before you say anything more, please.

I did not edit anything out of your post I hit edit instead of reply accidentally. I hit save without touching your post.

Do you really believe that I could possibly be saying "God is a Liar", that "God is unjust and not truly merciful"? Wow! I would never say anything like that. I can barely type them in quotation marks even for the purpose of rejecting such statements with all of my being.

Above you said that I "insist" that cutting Adam and Eve off from the tree of life does not mean that God followed through on punishment he said would happen. I don't believe I have "insisted" on any such thing. I think I've said here that there are multiple valid interpretations of the narrative and, for me, that is part of its great beauty and power.

What kinds of misconnects do you think would result in such a profoundly disturbing disagreement about what I might be saying? Perhaps you think it is merely my not being careful about my words. While I often do not express myself as clearly as I would like, I think there may also be some other things going on here. Just a though. At any rate, please do not put words in my mouth, especially such blasphemous thoughts.

[Violet]

In response to your OP, I started with exegesis of Genesis 3:16 ff.; then, I went to the middle part of Genesis 3 for more context; now I have gone back to the beginning of Genesis 3 for the full context of the story of the Fall and its consequence (3:1-24). I am indebted to Waltke (op. cit.) for the following outline.

The story is of a contest between God and Satan, who is a real entity represented in the story as a snake.

Satan is characterized as "crafty"; cunningly, he distorts God's words and thus deceives Eve whom he uses to bring both Adam and Eve under his control. Satan subverts obedience to God and distorts the prospect of Adam and Eve by emphasizing God's prohibition (2:9), not his provision, reducing God's command to a question, doubting his sincerity, defaming his motives, and denying the truthfulness of his threat. The snake makes God appear to be restricting Adam and Eve from full humanity.

Eve's decision to disobey God and eat the forbidden fruit 'gives priority to pragmatic values, aesthetic appearance, and sensual desires over God's word. Armstrong states, "What Adam and Eve sought from the tree of knowledge was not philosophical or scientific knowledge desired by the Greeks, but practical knowledge that would give them blessing and fulfillment." They were not seeking information but power that comes from knowledge―knowledge that has the potential for evil ends as well as good.' The man chose to obey his wife, not God. (see 3:17)).

Sin's consequences (3:7): "the eyes of both of them were opened. Ironically, their opened eyes bring them shame. This knowledge of good and evil is not a neutral state, desired maturity, or an advancement of humanity, as is commonly argued. God desires to save humans from their inclination for ethical autonomy. Because Adam and Eve have attained this sinful state, they must not eat of the tree of life and are consigned forever to the forbidden state of being inclined to choose their own code of ethics (Gen. 3:22). By contrast, in God's kingdom one chooses to know God and live upon his word (Deut. 8:3).

.... 3:12-13. The woman you put here . . . the serpent . . . I ate. The couple shows their allegiance to Satan by distorting the truth and accusing one another and ultimately God (see James 1:13). They are preoccupied with "I."

.... all the days. The serpent's final defeat under Messiah's heel (3:15) is delayed to effect God's program of redemption through the promised offspring. In the interim, God leaves Satan to test the fidelity of each succeeding generation of the covenant people (Judg. 2:22) and to teach them to "fight" against untruth (Judg. 3:2).

15. I will put enmity. In sovereign grace God converts the depraved woman's affections for Satan to righteous desire for himself.

your offspring and hers. .... Humanity is now divided into two communities: the elect, who love God, and the reprobate, who love self (John 8:31-32, 44). Each of the characters of Genesis will be either of the seed of the woman that reproduces her spiritual propensity, or of the seed of the Serpent that reproduces his unbelief. The unspoken question is, "Whose seed are you?"

I am inclined to be more a Wesleyan than a Calvinist; however, I see in the interpretation presented by Waltke a solution to the problem of the curses presented in 3:16 ff. ― that is, the solution provided by God in Christ (Genesis 3:15): in Christ, you are set free from all curses, as you submit to Him and obey Him.

I am grateful for your care and for the time you took to give this to me. I've been thinking about it. The answer to my deeper question is Christ and His work and I CAN rest in that.

[robrecht]

I have explained in detail why what I said follows from your beliefs, at the end of this post I will put them in a syllogism so as to further clarify my own position.

That's exactly what I've asked you to do. You snipped that out of my post in your last response. You have so far merely dismissed what I've said as "ridiculous", and "false accusations". You did so without even explaining yourself. I at least went through the trouble of doing that, and am attempting to do so even further.

First syllogism, God ending up as a liar.

Premise 1, a falsehood spoken when it is known to be false is a lie.
Premise 2, God knows the future, thus knew that what He said was false.

Conclusion, God lied.

For God being unjust we have two different things.

Premise 1, God is a God of truth.
Premise 2, God delights in truth. Telling the truth is the right thing to do, especially when someone has been lied to.
Premise 3, the serpent spoke the whole truth, Adam and Eve would be like God, knowing both good and evil, and they would not die.

Observation, God punished the serpent for merely telling the truth.

Conclusion, God unjustly punished the serpent for doing what was right.

Premise 1, Biblical mercy is not withholding punishment from those who are unrepentant, and deserve their punishment.
Premise 2, Adam and Eve both deserved their punishment, and were unrepentant.
Premise 3 God is completely Holy, and cannot abide sin. Sin must be punished, and in the proper way.
Premise 4, The wages of sin is death(both physical and spiritual)
Premise 5(Your premise, which doesn't fit the account since Adam and Eve were both punished with physical and spiritual death, one immediate, one later to come) Adam and Eve were not punished according to God's Law. They did not die according to God's own words.

Conclusion, God is unjust.

Feel free to show me how, logically, you can avoid the conclusions, which I find you should agree with all those premises.

[robrecht]

When there is no repentance, there is no mercy. Although, perhaps you are also one who doesn't understand what Biblical "mercy" actually is.

Just as you were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience, so they have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy. For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all. O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift to him, to receive a gift in return?"

Or think upon the words of the first letter of St Peter:

Or the letter of Paul to Titus:

"For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, despicable, hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit."

Again, did not the mercy of God precede our repentance?

Or the letter of Paul to the Ephesians:

[robrecht]

God's Infinite Infinitive Absolute

God's Infinite Infinitive Absolute:

robrecht (#55): You seem to be imagining that I am thinking that the infinitive absolute in Hebrew denotes immediacy instead of certainty, but I have said no such thing, and that is certainly not what I think.

Cerebreum123 (#56): Then what are you saying? That's the only meaning I've seen from people who say God didn't carry out His punishment, which He did.

What people are you thinking of here? Since you assumed that I was saying the same thing as these other people, I would really like to know who they are so that I can properly and fully differentiate my position from theirs so there will be no further misunderstanding based on your false assumption. In addition, it might be very good for you to acknowledge that your reaction to what I have said was based, in part, on your false assumption that I was supposedly saying the same thing that you’ve seen elsewhere, but which I have never actually said.

I think I've already told you my position on the infinitive absolute in Hebrew. I would translate it the same as most translators, a number of examples of which you yourself have linked to, for example:

KJV: 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.

ASV: 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.

BBE: But of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you may not take; for on the day when you take of it, death will certainly come to you.

DET: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt certainly die.

DRB: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. for in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

NWB: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt surely die.

WEB: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat of it you will surely die."

YLT: and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.

Benner: and~from~Tree the~ Discernment Functional and~ Dysfunctional Not you(ms)~will~Eat From~him Given.that in~Day >~Eat~you(ms) From~him >~Die you(ms)~will~Die

Now, ironically perhaps, it is you who do indeed want to retain a sense of immediacy in your #2 below (still #56):

“He did so [carry out his punishment] in two ways, #1 cutting Adam and Eve off from the tree of life, which took away their source of immortality, and #2 by cutting off the relationship He had with them an instant spiritual death happened.”

You had previously introduced (#49) another sense in which the infinitive absolute can be understood that might go along your #1 above: “From what I understand the Hebrew literally translated says "dying you shall die" which not only conveys certainty, but also a process of dying.

All three of your interpretive additions to Gen 2,17 are perfectly valid inferences that one may draw from the larger story, if one wants to, but they are not actually part of the text of Gen 2,17. God does not actually say, ‘you will die spiritually’, nor does he say ‘you will be expelled from the garden, thus losing access to the tree of life, and thereby begin a process of dying that will not actually occur for another eight centuries.’

The text simply says that ‘on the day that you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you will surely die.’

Are there perhaps other reasons why Adam did not actually die on that day but rather some eight centuries later?

In addition to, or instead of, your interpretative additions to the text, there are elements that are actually in the text that might help make sense of what God actually says in Gen 2,17 and the rest of the story as it unfolds. For one, God only told Adam that he (singular) would surely die on the day that he ate of this tree. In the meantime, however, other complicating factors have arisen. Eve, the mother of all the living, has come on the scene. She seems to have a rather different understanding of God’s commandment to Adam. Did Adam not tell her exactly what God had said? Did he perhaps not fully understand God’s words? Did Eve add her own interpretation? Somehow the communication was muddled and Eve now (mis)understood the prohibition such that one should not even touch some tree in the middle of the garden—she does not specify the nature of this tree. She does not appear to be aware of the infinitive absolute and its certain nature as a divine warning, curse or punishment. Did she possibly imagine that perhaps this tree was merely thought to be poisonous? Did the prohibition to not even touch some nondescript tree in the midst of the garden somehow appear more arbitrary or unreasonable to her because Adam did not reveal to her the nuances of God's words? Most importantly, the crafty serpent intervened and, explicitly negating God’s infinitive absolute, effectively cast doubt on Eve’s muddled understanding of whatever Adam had told her and in the process awakened in her a view of the desirable nature of the tree. Did Adam know that the fruit that Eve gave him to eat was from the forbidden tree? Did the serpent trick Eve, as she would claim? Were any of these elements potentially mitigating factors? God cursed the serpent and the ground from which the human had been made, but he did not explicitly curse the human or his woman. Why was there an explicit curse of the serpent but no explicit curse for Adam and Eve? Why are the curses of the ground (and later of Cain) eased somewhat subsequently? Why would the curses for human disobedience of God's law be made much more explicit later on but not here? Did God take into consideration any of these potentially mitigating factors? He did not accuse Adam or Eve of merely trying to shift the blame, ‘though others outside the text will make that valid point. Maybe God saw that there was indeed an element of truth in what they said, or was their level of dishonesty equal to that of Satan in your opinion? Maybe God did not acknowledge any truthfulness in Adam or Eve, but still, in his infinite mercy, nonetheless felt compassion for them and wanted to give them the opportunity to learn and repent. Quite a few incongruous elements in the story invite questions and ponderings about how to interpret.

From a later Christian theological perspective, some early church fathers thought that God subsequently developed a plan to bring good out of this calamitous situation (felix culpa). Others speculated that God already had a long-range plan for the incarnation which he did not abandon merely because of a relatively minor fall of man in his childhood. Of course, I do not think these competing Christian theological scenarios were intended by the ancient author/redactors of Genesis 2-3, but I do think that the narrative itself was obviously flexible enough for a variety of exploratory interpretations.

[robrecht]

Other Questions and Assumptions

Other Questions and Assumptions

How can questions apparently devoid of thought get a person to think?

Your presumption that my questions are devoid of thought, aside from being an apparent attempt to insult, do not bode well for your being able to participate in a charitable and intelligent discussion between us.

God, being omniscient doesn't change His mind, you are caught up in anthropomorphisms

Do you not think that this biblical narrative contains an anthropomorphic representation of God? You do not think that God is ever presented as changing is mind or regretting an earlier decision in the Bible? What of the flood? What of Abraham's intercession for Sodom and Gomorrah? What of Jesus' parable of the unjust judge, who is influenced only by the persistence of the woman? Does not Jesus here even use an image of an unjust judge to teach us something even more true about unceasing prayer to God? Do you think that anthropomorphic portrayals in poetic narratives have a teaching value even if they employ a limited conception of God's nature and interaction with us?

I went back and read your earlier posts(what point in discussing this is there if there is no correct interpretation, and it's all just made up?), but this last part of your response shows that you haven't been reading mine. Unless you are saying that a poetic narrative can be both historical and poetic, which doesn't seem to be what you are saying based on your first post in this thread. Typology, by definition is based in history, the later Biblical writers all took Gensis 1-11 as straightforward history, as do 1st Century Jews like Josephus.

Source: Christian Think Tank

Typology is basically a way of looking at history--a way of interpreting history, esp. the history of the interaction between God and Israel. Goppelt says it best:

"Only historical facts--persons, actions, events, and institutions--are material for typological interpretation; words and narratives can be utilized only insofar as they deal with such matters. These things are to be interpreted typologically only if they are considered to be divinely ordained representations or types of future realities that will be even grater [sic] and more complete. (GT:17-18)

© Copyright Original Source

Source.

If Adam and Eve aren't historical, than all typology based on them is invalid, including Jesus being the "Last Adam". Do you really want to be claiming that?

You really need to stop putting words in my mouth. Asking if I really want to claim what you suppose must be necessary logical conclusions presumes that I agree with your presuppositions and the limits of your logical thought process. I do not. I do not agree with the claim that typology can only function validly when antitypes are historical. You are also wrong to assume that I think that a poetic narrative cannot be used to relate or interpret historical characters, events, peoples, or institutions. I do not think that the story of the first human, his wife, the serpent, and the forbidden fruit should be considered an exact or merely historical report and transcript of conversations that actually took place or that they fully circumscribe and define God's thought process. I do nonetheless believe that this and other poetic narratives of the bible are inspired and true at a very deep and profound level and that the inspired authors were capable of great artistry that is unfortunately oftentimes opaque to those who are unwilling or unable to read it in the original language.

Then you have all the Biblical writers taking Adam and Eve as real people who lived in real history. ...
So, unless your "poetic narrative" also teaches history, it makes a lie out all these passages, and much more.

In addition to your already identified false assumption, I certainly do not agree with your imposed conclusion here. Nowhere have I claimed that the bible is a lie or full of lies or anything like that and you are engaging in dangerous and uncharitable innuendo towards a fellow brother in Christ.

Having God say something completely false means He's a liar, having Him give mercy without repentance means He's unjust. Those are the conclusions your words so far lead to. Your response proves my point entirely, you don't understand where your thinking is leading at all.

Unless words no longer have meaning, this is exactly where your train of thought as you have displayed in this thread logically leads to. Falsehoods can never lead to "greater truth", and are lies, and granting mercy without repentance is unjust. Yet those are exactly the things you accuse God of doing. Do you get it yet?

Given your posts in this thread, especially the first one, the only thing I can see is that you've steeped yourself way too deep in postmodern thought. Postmodernism eventually leads to the conclusion that truth does not exist. When there is no possibility of objective knowledge, there is no possibility of anything actually being "true".

There needs to be some major clarification on your end for me to believe anything different. If my understanding is correct about what you are actually saying(remember, those were your questions to get me to "think"), then I suggest you need to take a step back and actually look at what you are saying.

I have already rejected your false logic and claims about me here in general, but perhaps it will be helpful for you to consider a few more specifics. I have never said that God said something completely (or even partly) false in Gen 2,17. I did not claim that he 'gave mercy without repentance', but I do believe that he is merciful from all eternity and forever, as the psalmist says repeatedly, and that he is always interested in making repentance possible. I have never accused God of being unjust. I certainly believe that truth exists. While I do have some appreciation for postmodern interpretative theory, I am also steeped in modern historico-critical methodology, despite its limitations, but most of my manner of interpreting poetic narratives in the bible is anchored in ancient methods of interpretation.

[Cerebrum123]

God’s Syllogisms

I do not think the beauty and power of a poetic narrative can be captured well in syllogisms. Theologians and exegetes who understand some texts of the Bible as poetic narratives believe that this art form has been well chosen as a way of communicating deep mysteries that transcend our ability to understand and communicate in purely logical propositions. God's goodness and the existence of various forms of evil is not merely a philosophical problem but also a theological mystery. The biblical story of evil and sinfulness, suffering and death in God’s creation is indeed such a mystery. Did God create evil? Why did he create and place a cunning serpent with us in the garden? Why are we now at odds with the rest of creation, with God, and each other? If we deserve to die, are there nonetheless still grounds for hope in the restoration of innocence and union with an eternally merciful God? Did Adam, do we, truly grasp the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God? When the biblical authors write and we read a poetic narrative that attempts to plumb some of these mysteries, have they been fully explained? When we imagine God warning or threatening Adam with death for his future disobedience, do we really believe that we have perfectly encapsulated and fully understood what are no longer God’s unsearchable judgments and inscrutable ways? Do we truly think we have now known the mind of the Lord? Are we now able to be his counselor? Can we tell God that he cannot be merciful toward Adam, that he cannot continue to work with Eve, the mother of all the living, and all her children, that they cannot be given the opportunity to learn repentance? As his counselors, do we now understand God’s judgment to such a degree that we can tell him that he cannot be gracious to whomever he will be gracious, that he cannot show mercy on whomever he will show mercy? I think it is a mistake to reduce the mysteries of this story to pedantic or pedestrian syllogisms.

Does God lie? Of course not! That is unspeakable blasphemy. Is God unjust? Absolutely not! Do we understand the depth of God’s mysterious judgment and mercy? No, we can only barely begin to wonder about and worship God’s infinite loving-kindness and righteous mercy.

Note, I wrote this response before you wrote your two subsequent posts.

God did not create moral evil, as moral evil is a lack or perversion of that which is good.

God created Satan as good, and he rebelled. Satan, who now does everything he can to oppose God's will deceived Eve.

Luke 10:17-19New International Version (NIV)

17 The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.”

18 He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

We are at odds with the rest of the creation and God because of not only Adam's sin, but our own. Jesus Christ laid the groundwork for our redemption, but it's only possible if we are repentant, because thought God is merciful, He is also just, and can't betray His nature, just as He can't lie because it's contrary to His nature.

Romans 5:12 [ Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ ] Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

Romans 8:21-23New International Version (NIV)

21 that[a] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies.

Now, no, but all of that is in Christ, and He can bestow that upon us, most won't be revealed until after the White Throne Judgment however.

Colossians 2:2-4New International Version (NIV)

2 My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.

Genesis is NOT a "poetic narrative", but a historical narrative, and you haven't even touched my arguments on that. Do you have a reading comprehension problem or something? Because I have gone out of my way to make myself clear to you, and you are still ignoring nearly ALL of what I have said.

If words actually mean anything, then we know that God, knowing the future, and not being able to lie did not contradict His nature. Or are you so far down the postmodernist rabbit hole that you can no longer see the light at all?

No, but we know what He has revealed to us, about Himself, and about His past actions, which is more than enough to understand this narrative.

No, and He was merciful, just not in your* unjust, dishonest way.

Again, we are not God's counselor's, but He has made it clear He isn't merciful on the unrepentant. Or have you become a universalist?

We are to have the mind of Christ however, something you seem to be neglecting in all this.

1 Corinthians 2:15-16New International Version (NIV)

15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for,

“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”[a]
But we have the mind of Christ.

This last line in your paragraph is where the condescension comes in. You, having avoided answering any of my arguments, are now treating me as a child* or "pedestrian". You are refusing to use your God given brain, and are retreating into mysticism. It gives the appearance of gnosticism. Giving you a special kind of knowledge the rest of us "pedestrians" lack. Pull your head out of this rabbit hole, and get some light and fresh air, you're not thinking straight.

If Genesis were a "poetic narrative" as you have so far defined it, then there would be absolutely no real reason to read it. After all, why try to understand something that can't be understood, even in principle? This is exactly the problem you face when you claim that everyone gets a different understanding from it.

Nothing more than confusion, and God is not the author of confusion, although I know someone who sows as much of it as possible.


*My word, not yours. I feel it adequately sums up how you've engaged in this conversation, if it can be called a conversation that is.
**By this I mean that YOUR position leads to these conclusions. I said you can clarify how it wouldn't, but you didn't do that. You merely jumped into your mysticism, and are now plunging your head into the sand like an ostrich, all the while claiming the high ground at the same time.

Did God’s Infinite Mercy, Which Endures Forever, Have A Beginning?

Our repentance does not cause God's mercy. Do not despise the riches of God's kindness and forbearance and patience. Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? Do God’s mercy and compassion depend on human will or exertion, or on God who shows mercy?

Sound familiar? See elsewhere in Paul's letter to the Romans:

Just as you were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience, so they have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy. For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all. O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift to him, to receive a gift in return?"

I see nothing here that contradicts what I said, Notice the "having now received mercy". This is talking about those saved, IE, those who have repented.

Or think upon the words of the first letter of St Peter:

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy he has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead ..."

Did our repentance cause this? Did not God’s mercy precede our repentance?

Seems to me to be the same thing.

Or the letter of Paul to Titus:

"For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, despicable, hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit."

Again, did not the mercy of God precede our repentance?

You are using equivocation. Yes, allowing us a way to be reconciled to God is a form of mercy, but it's not the same as making it so those who deserve to be punished and remain unrepentant do not get the lawful punishment they deserve. Can you show me a single instance of such a thing happening anywhere else in the Bible? Other than what you are saying in Genesis I mean.

Or the letter of Paul to the Ephesians:

"But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ -- by grace you have been saved -- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God -- not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life."

Do you still think there is no mercy without our repentance? Is not God’s mercy, his lovingkindness, and patience meant to lead us to repentance? Is not God eternally merciful? If as the psalmist repeatedly says, his mercy endures forever, did it really only have a beginning with our repentance?

Read above. Or do you think that God will forgo judgment at the end of times for those who remain unrepentant, like you claim He did for Adam and Eve?

God's Infinite Infinitive Absolute:

robrecht (#55): You seem to be imagining that I am thinking that the infinitive absolute in Hebrew denotes immediacy instead of certainty, but I have said no such thing, and that is certainly not what I think.

Cerebreum123 (#56): Then what are you saying? That's the only meaning I've seen from people who say God didn't carry out His punishment, which He did.

What people are you thinking of here?

Usually atheists who are trying to force a contradiction where there is none.

Since you assumed that I was saying the same thing as these other people, I would really like to know who they are so that I can properly and fully differentiate my position from theirs so there will be no further misunderstanding based on your false assumption. In addition, it might be very good for you to acknowledge that your reaction to what I have said was based, in part, on your false assumption that I was supposedly saying the same thing that you’ve seen elsewhere, but which I have never actually said.

You are the one who has repeatedly said that Adam and Eve were not punished by God.

I think I've already told you my position on the infinitive absolute in Hebrew. I would translate it the same as most translators, a number of examples of which you yourself have linked to, for example:

KJV: 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.

ASV: 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.

BBE: But of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you may not take; for on the day when you take of it, death will certainly come to you.

DET: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt certainly die.

DRB: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. for in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

NWB: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt surely die.

WEB: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat of it you will surely die."

YLT: and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.

Benner: and~from~Tree the~ Discernment Functional and~ Dysfunctional Not you(ms)~will~Eat From~him Given.that in~Day >~Eat~you(ms) From~him >~Die you(ms)~will~Die

This clarifies nothing, because it still doesn't show how you get the idea that God didn't go through with what He said He would do.

Now, ironically perhaps, it is you who do indeed want to retain a sense of immediacy in your #2 below (still #56):

“He did so [carry out his punishment] in two ways, #1 cutting Adam and Eve off from the tree of life, which took away their source of immortality, and #2 by cutting off the relationship He had with them an instant spiritual death happened.”

Want to? No, that's just what happens to have happened. I guess I should have put it all in one post. I can be forgetful at times.

You had previously introduced (#49) another sense in which the infinitive absolute can be understood that might go along your #1 above: “From what I understand the Hebrew literally translated says "dying you shall die" which not only conveys certainty, but also a process of dying.

All three of your interpretive additions to Gen 2,17 are perfectly valid inferences that one may draw from the larger story, if one wants to, but they are not actually part of the text of Gen 2,17. God does not actually say, ‘you will die spiritually’, nor does he say ‘you will be expelled from the garden, thus losing access to the tree of life, and thereby begin a process of dying that will not actually occur for another eight centuries.’

Actually, the wording fits in the same as for Shimei and Moses from John Reece's citations earlier in this thread. Then there's the fact that death is regularly used of those who are not in a right relationship with God.

Luke 9:59-61New International Version (NIV)

59 He said to another man, “Follow me.”

But he replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”

60 Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”

Colossians 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,

Ephesians 2:1 [ Made Alive in Christ ] As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins,

Luke 15:32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”

The text simply says that ‘on the day that you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you will surely die.’

Are there perhaps other reasons why Adam did not actually die on that day but rather some eight centuries later?[/QUOTE]

But he did die that day. He also began to die that day, fulfilling both understandings of the words.

In addition to, or instead of, your interpretative additions to the text, there are elements that are actually in the text that might help make sense of what God actually says in Gen 2,17 and the rest of the story as it unfolds. For one, God only told Adam that he (singular) would surely die on the day that he ate of this tree. In the meantime, however, other complicating factors have arisen. Eve, the mother of all the living, has come on the scene. She seems to have a rather different understanding of God’s commandment to Adam. Did Adam not tell her exactly what God had said? Did he perhaps not fully understand God’s words? Did Eve add her own interpretation? Somehow the communication was muddled and Eve now (mis)understood the prohibition such that one should not even touch some tree in the middle of the garden—she does not specify the nature of this tree. She does not appear to be aware of the infinitive absolute and its certain nature as a divine warning, curse or punishment. Did she possibly imagine that perhaps this tree was merely thought to be poisonous? Did the prohibition to not even touch some nondescript tree in the midst of the garden somehow appear more arbitrary or unreasonable to her because Adam did not reveal to her the nuances of God's words? Most importantly, the crafty serpent intervened and, explicitly negating God’s infinitive absolute, effectively cast doubt on Eve’s muddled understanding of whatever Adam had told her and in the process awakened in her a view of the desirable nature of the tree. Did Adam know that the fruit that Eve gave him to eat was from the forbidden tree? Did the serpent trick Eve, as she would claim? Were any of these elements potentially mitigating factors? God cursed the serpent and the ground from which the human had been made, but he did not explicitly curse the human or his woman. Why was there an explicit curse of the serpent but no explicit curse for Adam and Eve? Why are the curses of the ground (and later of Cain) eased somewhat subsequently. Why would the curses for disobedience be made much more explicit later on but not here? Did God take into consideration any of these potentially mitigating factors? He did not accuse Adam or Eve of merely trying to shift the blame, ‘though others outside the text will make that valid point. Maybe God saw that there was indeed an element of truth in what they said, or was there level of dishonesty equal to that of Satan in your opinion. Maybe God did not acknowledge any truthfulness in Adam or Eve, but still, in his infinite mercy, nonetheless felt compassion for them and wanted to give them the opportunity to learn and repent. Quite a few incongruous elements in the story invite questions and ponderings about how to interpret.

You don't even realize that all of this denies God's foreknowledge. Also, as I have repeatedly said, and done my best to conclusively show,
Genesis is not "poetic narrative", but historical narrative. Without history behind it, you invalidate all typology, and all the historical usages I previously outlined. I don't think you really want to do that, do you?

Oh, and Eve was explicitly cursed with increased labor pains, and with a "desire" for her husband(these would go to all women since Eve was the first of all women, thus represented them). Adam was directly cursed with hard labor, and to return to dust(which extended to all humanity since he was federal head of creation)

From a later Christian theological perspective, some early church fathers thought that God subsequently developed a plan to bring good out of this calamitous situation (felix culpa). Others speculated that God already had a long-range plan for the incarnation which he did not abandon merely because of a relatively minor fall of man in his childhood. Of course, I do not think these competing Christian theological scenarios were intended by the ancient author/redactors of Genesis 2-3, but I do think that the narrative itself was obviously flexible enough for a variety of exploratory interpretations.

If we can't understand it in principle then what good is it to us at all? That's what your "poetic narrative" situation leads to when it's upon the reader to decide what it means.***

[Cerebrum123]

Other Questions and Assumptions

Your presumption that my questions are devoid of thought, aside from being an apparent attempt to insult, do not bode well for your being able to participate in a charitable and intelligent discussion between us.

And your attempt at insult with "pedestrian" in your earlier response was better? Physician heal thyself.

Do you not think that this biblical narrative contains an anthropomorphic representation of God? You do not think that God is ever presented as changing is mind or regretting an earlier decision in the Bible? What of the flood? What of Abraham's intercession for Sodom and Gomorrah? What of Jesus' parable of the unjust judge, who is influenced only by the persistence of the woman? Does not Jesus here even use an image of an unjust judge to teach us something even more true about unceasing prayer to God? Do you think that anthropomorphic portrayals in poetic narratives have a teaching value even if they employ a limited conception of God's nature and interaction with us?

I never said that anthropomorphisms weren't used, I said you were stuck on one, like you claimed I was earlier on. And again, Genesis is NOT "poetic narrative". Or are you really going to throw out most of the NT teachings? Each of the works in the NT uses Genesis as either typology, or history, even Jesus did so. To try and recast it as something else destroys each and every one of those uses, and completely invalidates the positions taught by them.

You really need to stop putting words in my mouth. Asking if I really want to claim what you suppose must be necessary logical conclusions presumes that I agree with your presuppositions and the limits of your logical thought process. I do not.

I know you don't agree, but you haven't shown where my logic fails, only declared it to be "pedestrian". I gave you the premises, show where they are wrong, or how the conclusion doesn't follow from them. You haven't done that at all, only dodged what I've said, and gone on to post 4 responses back to back. None of which have answered what I asked for so far, clarification on HOW you avoid those conclusions, or HOW the premises I outlined were wrong.

I do not agree with the claim that typology can only function validly when antitypes are historical.

Then you deny the very definition of typology. I already supplied my sources on that, your denial without any real argument as to why is just another dodge. Here again since you apparently didn't read it.

Source: Christian Think Tank

Typology is basically a way of looking at history--a way of interpreting history, esp. the history of the interaction between God and Israel. Goppelt says it best:

"Only historical facts--persons, actions, events, and institutions--are material for typological interpretation; words and narratives can be utilized only insofar as they deal with such matters. These things are to be interpreted typologically only if they are considered to be divinely ordained representations or types of future realities that will be even grater and more complete. (GT:17-18)

© Copyright Original Source

Source.

You are also wrong to assume that I think that a poetic narrative cannot be used to relate or interpret historical characters, events, peoples, or institutions. I do not think that the story of the first human, his wife, the serpent, and the forbidden fruit should be considered an exact or merely historical report and transcript of conversations that actually took place or that they fully circumscribe and define God's thought process.

I don't think Genesis fully describes God's thought process either, which is why I take things from other Biblical works in the premises I gave previously. However, you have not clarified what I asked, and you still don't leave it clear if you believe that Adam, Eve, and the serpent all did what was ascribed to them. How am I supposed to understand you if you won't clarify yourself when asked?

You do realize that a historical narrative need not be "merely historical report", like you might see on the evening news. Or on a documentary. It means that what is recorded happens to be real events that really happened. I still can't tell if you're denying that or not, you seem to be, why deny the definition of typology otherwise?

I do nonetheless believe that this and other poetic narratives of the bible are inspired and true at a very deep and profound level and that the inspired authors were capable of great artistry that is unfortunately oftentimes opaque to those who are unwilling or unable to read it in the original language.

Here comes that gnostic feeling again. Apparently I'm someone who can't understand what you do, because you have access to reading the original language directly while I don't have that. You do realize that people can, and do explain things in other languages, and that God's truth is not limited by human language, right? God is far more powerful than any "language barrier" you might imagine.

In addition to your already identified false assumption, I certainly do not agree with your imposed conclusion here.

No you haven't, you've merely dodged everything I've said, and attempted to drown me out with massive responses, very little of it touching my actual arguments. What little does, I've dealt with.

Also, I KNOW you don't agree with it, which is why I point it out at all. I know you would never agree to such as explicitly stated, but your words without the clarification I have asked for logically lead to just those conclusions, and you've done NOTHING to show otherwise other than condescending dismissals. Oh, and an appeal to a moral high ground you don't posess.

Nowhere have I claimed that the bible is a lie or full of lies or anything like that and you are engaging in dangerous and uncharitable innuendo towards a fellow brother in Christ.

I KNOW YOU NEVER SAID THOSE THINGS! I'm saying that your words in this thread when followed through to their conclusions do just what you yourself would never agree with. Comprende?

I have already rejected your false logic and claims about me here in general, but perhaps it will be helpful for you to consider a few more specifics. I have never said that God said something completely (or even partly) false in Gen 2,17.

Yes, you did. You said that God did not carry out His word to Adam, even though there was no repentance. That's not how God works when it comes to punishment for sin. It was an entirely false statement from your perspective. Adam didn't die, and according to you he didn't even begin to die as the text allows. Again, a 100% false statement, God, having complete foreknowledge would have known this to be so. All that together makes it a lie.

I did not claim that he 'gave mercy without repentance', but I do believe that he is merciful from all eternity and forever, as the psalmist says repeatedly, and that he is always interested in making repentance possible.

Yes you did, here's the quotes.

No doubt! But be glad at least that God did not carry out his original threat to kill the human on that very day that he eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of all knowledge, even the experience of pain.

Of course I thought it through, but I don't agree with your interpretation of the Hebrew. God is free to be merciful, is he not? Is it a lie for him to reconsider something he said previously in favor of mercy? Is that not a greater truth? Don't get too caught up in anthropomorphic elements of a poetic narrative.

Clearly you found this to be an act of mercy. One that was given without even an inkling of repentance, and in fact, more defiance of God.

I have never accused God of being unjust.

Not directly, no, which is why I've had to walk you through this by the hand.

I certainly believe that truth exists.

Yet not when it comes to Genesis since there is no objectively true interpretation.

While I do have some appreciation for postmodern interpretative theory, I am also steeped in modern historico-critical methodology, despite its limitations, but most of my manner of interpreting poetic narratives in the bible is anchored in ancient methods of interpretation.

If, like wikipedia claims(yeah, I know, wiki isn't the best source for deep inquiry), that historic-critical method is "higher criticism", then I think that's a huge part of the problem. The intent listed doesn't seem bad, but many of the attempts, and a few of the methods most certainly are. Rudolf Bultmann's "form criticism" for example.

I think you would be much better off with historical-grammatical method. At least it strives to take all the Biblical works together, rather than separate them, sometimes individual works, into small divided chunks.

***That certainly seems to be what you were saying with your original post in this thread.

[robrecht]

Note, I wrote this response before you wrote your two subsequent posts. ...

Genesis is NOT a "poetic narrative", but a historical narrative, and you haven't even touched my arguments on that. Do you have a reading comprehension problem or something? Because I have gone out of my way to make myself clear to you, and you are still ignoring nearly ALL of what I have said.

Again with the attempt to insult. I thought I did indeed touched upon your arguments and rejected them. If you would like to repeat something specific that I may not responded to directly, I will try to correct any omissions on my part.

If words actually mean anything, then we know that God, knowing the future, and not being able to lie did not contradict His nature. Or are you so far down the postmodernist rabbit hole that you can no longer see the light at all?

Are you imagining that I somehow disagree with this?

No, and He was merciful, just not in your* unjust, dishonest way.
*My word, not yours. I feel it adequately sums up how you've engaged in this conversation, if it can be called a conversation that is.

Please substantiate your accusation of dishonesty or withdraw. I do not believe you are allowed to accuse others of dishonesty at TWeb without substant

Again, we are not God's counselor's, but He has made it clear He isn't merciful on the unrepentant. Or have you become a universalist?

I pretty much agree with Hans Urs Cardinal von Balthasar and Avery Cardinal Dulles on this point.

If Genesis were a "poetic narrative" as you have so far defined it, then there would be absolutely no real reason to read it.

I'm sorry you feel this way, and I certainly disagree with you, but I don't happen to recall if I have offered any formal definition of 'poetic narrative' nor do I think that is really necessary.

After all, why try to understand something that can't be understood, even in principle?

This is too black-and-white of a characterization for me. I believe that we understand in part, as through a glass darkly by means of enigmas, but we will eventually know God face to face, that we shall know as we are known. If you feel this is gnosticism or evil mysticism, please take it up with St Paul.

I see nothing here that contradicts what I said, Notice the "having now received mercy". This is talking about those saved, IE, those who have repented.

Good! I would hope not.

You are using equivocation. Yes, allowing us a way to be reconciled to God is a form of mercy, but it's not the same as making it so those who deserve to be punished and remain unrepentant do not get the lawful punishment they deserve. Can you show me a single instance of such a thing happening anywhere else in the Bible? Other than what you are saying in Genesis I mean.

Please explain how you think I am using equivocation. I don't believe I have ever claimed that 'allowing us a way to be reconciled to God ... is the same as making it so those who deserve to be punished and remain unrepentant do not get the lawful punishment they deserve.' That is not my interpretation of Genesis 2-3 and it is not something that I believe. Thus, I will not try to show you where this happens anywhere else in the Bible.

Read above. Or do you think that God will forgo judgment at the end of times for those who remain unrepentant, like you claim He did for Adam and Eve?

I do not think that, nor did I claim that Adam and Eve were not punished or judged by God.

Usually atheists who are trying to force a contradiction where there is none.

You are the one who has repeatedly said that Adam and Eve were not punished by God.

No, I don't think I ever said that.

This clarifies nothing, because it still doesn't show how you get the idea that God didn't go through with what He said He would do.

This directly answers your question about how I understand the infinitive absolute here. I don't think God exactly said in Gen 2,17 that he personally would kill Adam on the day that he transgressed this commandment, but my explanation of what may have transpired based on the actual text of this story is to be found elsewhere, not in my response to how I understand the Hebrew infinitive absolute here.

Want to? No, that's just what happens to have happened. I guess I should have put it all in one post. I can be forgetful at times.

I am not asking about or disputing what happened in the narrative, but trying to clarify how my understanding of the infinitive absolute in Hebrew differs from what you seem to think about this construction in Hebrew.

Actually, the wording fits in the same as for Shimei and Moses from John Reece's citations earlier in this thread.

If you could be more specific, I may be able to help you better understand some of the specific issues in John's quotations. There are differences of opinion in John's quotation, and I think one of the scholars made a mistake, and I think you are misunderstand some of what is said in his quotations. But I cannot say for sure unless you are more specific.

Then there's the fact that death is regularly used of those who are not in a right relationship with God.

Again, please be careful here, but I think you may be implicitly contradicting yourself, but cannot say for sure unless you are more specific. Do you believe that in Gen 2,17 that God is expressing a punishment that he will impose on Adam or merely expressing what will be the consequences of his disobedience?

You don't even realize that all of this denies God's foreknowledge.

No it does not deny God's foreknowledge, nor do I. It may deny Adam's understanding of God's foreknowledge.

Also, as I have repeatedly said, and done my best to conclusively show,
Genesis is not "poetic narrative", but historical narrative. Without history behind it, you invalidate all typology, and all the historical usages I previously outlined. I don't think you really want to do that, do you?

I do not do that.

Oh, and Eve was explicitly cursed with increased labor pains, and with a "desire" for her husband(these would go to all women since Eve was the first of all women, thus represented them). Adam was directly cursed with hard labor, and to return to dust(which extended to all humanity since he was federal head of creation)

Punished, yes, explicitly cursed know. Read the Hebrew text.

If we can't understand it in principle then what good is it to us at all? That's what your "poetic narrative" situation leads to when it's upon the reader to decide what it means.***

I think you are making assumptions here about what you believe is my hermeneutical methodology. It might help to read Models of Revelation by Avery Cardinal Dulles to get a better idea of hermeneutical theology.

[Cerebrum123]

Again with the attempt to insult. I thought I did indeed touched upon your arguments and rejected them. If you would like to repeat something specific that I may not responded to directly, I will try to correct any omissions on my part.

Again, physician, heal thyself. You were just as insulting when you called my syllogisms "pedestrian". As for the arguments not answered.

You dismissed my syllogisms, and refused to show why. As in you didn't show which premises were wrong, or how the conclusions drawn didn't follow from them.

You ignored the definition of typology, which destroys any case for a non-historical Adam and Eve, same with the historical usages, especially in clearly historical works.

You have repeatedly ignored my request for a clarification of your views, which is where I believe much of the disagreement lies.

You ignored and snipped my Biblical citations in just this recent post, and then ask me to be specific, while snipping out the specifics for crying out loud. That doesn't reflect well on you, especially when you're trying to claim the moral high ground here, while doing the things you are condemning me for.

You dismissed whole posts as "ridiculous, false accusations".

Are you imagining that I somehow disagree with this?

Given your posts so far, yeah, I do. You said in an earlier post that there was no correct interpretation of Genesis. This is a denial of any objectivity when it comes to the subject. So, what else am I supposed to think with statements like that?

Please substantiate your accusation of dishonesty or withdraw. I do not believe you are allowed to accuse others of dishonesty at TWeb without substant

I'll admit I worded that more poorly than I thought. What I meant was, God granted mercy, but not in the way that you claim He did that if He had done would be both unjust and dishonest.

I was not trying to say you are a liar. I apologize if that's what you thought.

I pretty much agree with Hans Urs Cardinal von Balthasar and Avery Cardinal Dulles on this point.

In an article I found, Avery denies universalism. It would have been nice for a link to their ideas on the subject.

I'm sorry you feel this way, and I certainly disagree with you, but I don't happen to recall if I have offered any formal definition of 'poetic narrative' nor do I think that is really necessary.

You didn't give a "formal definition", but your description in your first post makes it clear that there is no objectively true interpretation of Genesis. This would make it impossible in principle to understand it.

This is too black-and-white of a characterization for me. I believe that we understand in part, as through a glass darkly by means of enigmas, but we will eventually know God face to face, that we shall know as we are known. If you feel this is gnosticism or evil mysticism, please take it up with St Paul.

To describe what you are doing by referring to Paul is confusing. What he said is nothing like what you appear to be espousing. You appear to be espousing a kind of personal spiritual information that us "pedestrians" don't have. It's elitist at best, gnostic at worst.

Good! I would hope not.

Please explain how you think I am using equivocation. I don't believe I have ever claimed that 'allowing us a way to be reconciled to God ... is the same as making it so those who deserve to be punished and remain unrepentant do not get the lawful punishment they deserve.' That is not my interpretation of Genesis 2-3 and it is not something that I believe. Thus, I will not try to show you where this happens anywhere else in the Bible.

You claimed that Adam and Eve weren't given their lawful punishment, despite being unrepentant. You are equating mercy in the sense that God allows us a way to be reconciled, with the kind of mercy one receives when they repent and are saved. These are two very different things.

I do not think that, nor did I claim that Adam and Eve were not punished or judged by God.

Sorry, not punished in the way that God claimed they would be.

Please answer my question. Specifically, who are the people whose position you were confusing with what I have said. Since you assumed that I was saying the same thing as these other people, I would really like to know who they are so that I can properly and fully differentiate my position from theirs so there will be no further misunderstanding based on your false assumption. In addition, it might be very good for you to acknowledge that your reaction to what I have said was based, in part, on your false assumption that I was supposedly saying the same thing that you’ve seen elsewhere, but which I have never actually said.

I have forgotten some of their names, it's been a long time ago. The only specific one that comes to mind is duh-swami(not sure on spelling). Him, and many of his buddies made these kinds of accusations, but instead of accepting that the Bible was inspired, they instead used this "contradiction" to mock it.

No, I don't think I ever said that.

Sorry, not punished in the way God said they would be. I thought the context of this conversation would have made that clear by now.

This directly answers your question about how I understand the infinitive absolute here. I don't think God exactly said in Gen 2,17 that he personally would kill Adam on the day that he transgressed this commandment, but my explanation of what may have transpired based on the actual text of this story is to be found elsewhere, not in my response to how I understand the Hebrew infinitive absolute here.

That wasn't my question though. My question was where you get the idea that Adam and Eve were not punished by "death", and "on the day" they ate of it. You haven't really given much of an answer to that. Only posed your "questions to get me to think". I answered all of the other questions you asked too, and again, they didn't appear to be thinking everything through.

I am not asking about or disputing what happened in the narrative, but trying to clarify how my understanding of the infinitive absolute in Hebrew differs from what you seem to think about this construction in Hebrew.

But I've tried to make it clear that both understandings were met, so there is no contradiction either way you slice it, and that God did go through with what He said He would do.

If you could be more specific, I may be able to help you better understand some of the specific issues in John's quotations. There are differences of opinion in John's quotation, and I think one of the scholars made a mistake, and I think you are misunderstand some of what is said in his quotations. But I cannot say for sure unless you are more specific.

Shimei was told that he would "certainly die" the day he crossed the Kidron Valley, and Moses was told that he would "surely die" if he saw Pharoah's face again. Unless you think Solomon had his best messengers watching Shimei on a daily basis, and that it didn't take him very long to return from Gath, there's no way Shimei would have died "that day". He was however brought before Solomon and executed once he got back from Gath.

Again, please be careful here, but I think you may be implicitly contradicting yourself, but cannot say for sure unless you are more specific. Do you believe that in Gen 2,17 that God is expressing a punishment that he will impose on Adam or merely expressing what will be the consequences of his disobedience?

I say it's both.

No it does not deny God's foreknowledge, nor do I. It may deny Adam's understanding of God's foreknowledge.

What? I don't even. What does Adam's understanding of God's foreknowledge have to do with anything?

I do not do that.

By denying the cornerstone of what typology is by definition, does indeed have you doing just that.

Punished, yes, explicitly cursed know. Read the Hebrew text.

What God said about the ground was a curse(this is made even more explicit later on), what God said about the serpent was a curse, so yeah, what God said about Eve was a curse too.

I think you are making assumptions here about what you believe is my hermeneutical methodology. It might help to read Models of Revelation by Avery Cardinal Dulles to get a better idea of hermeneutical theology.

I don't have the money to go out and buy that, and I can't use a library for medical reasons(weakened immune system). It would be better if you could summarize here. Later in the post I asked for clarification. Please read a whole post before you respond.

[robrecht]

And your attempt at insult with "pedestrian" in your earlier response was better? Physician heal thyself.

Sorry you feel that way. I was not trying to insult you personally, and apologize if that was not clear, but I do stand by my comment about the inadequacy of pedestrian and pedantic propositional logic, yours or anyone's, to deal with the mystery of revelation.

I never said that anthropomorphisms weren't used, I said you were stuck on one, like you claimed I was earlier on. And again, Genesis is NOT "poetic narrative". Or are you really going to throw out most of the NT teachings? Each of the works in the NT uses Genesis as either typology, or history, even Jesus did so. To try and recast it as something else destroys each and every one of those uses, and completely invalidates the positions taught by them.

I did not say you did, but I did ask you a specific question here for a specific reason. If you want to have a conversation, please answer. Do you think that this text here uses an antrhopomorphic presentation of God? Do you recognize the limitations of anthropomorphic presentations of God? How do you think that I am 'stuck on an antrhopomorphism? I do not throw out any New Testament teachings. And, as I've already explained, I do not agree with your view that my hermeneutical method does this.

I know you don't agree, but you haven't shown where my logic fails, only declared it to be "pedestrian". I gave you the premises, show where they are wrong, or how the conclusion doesn't follow from them. You haven't done that at all, only dodged what I've said, and gone on to post 4 responses back to back. None of which have answered what I asked for so far, clarification on HOW you avoid those conclusions, or HOW the premises I outlined were wrong.

I thought I already did this in my post entitled, "God’s Syllogisms." Please reread again and let me know specifically which of your premises I have not addressed. I do not want to repeat the same thing all over again if we are not connecting on this point. My post was not a dodge, but it does present some methodological principles that I follow. Again, it may also be helpful for you to read Models of Revelation by Avery Cardinal Dulles as that treats some of this same material in much greater detail and relates it to specific theologians.

Then you deny the very definition of typology.

I already supplied my sources on that, your denial without any real argument as to why is just another dodge. Here again since you apparently didn't read it.

Source: Christian Think Tank

Typology is basically a way of looking at history--a way of interpreting history, esp. the history of the interaction between God and Israel. Goppelt says it best:

"Only historical facts--persons, actions, events, and institutions--are material for typological interpretation; words and narratives can be utilized only insofar as they deal with such matters. These things are to be interpreted typologically only if they are considered to be divinely ordained representations or types of future realities that will be even grater [sic] and more complete. (GT:17-18)

© Copyright Original Source

Source.

I did read it, even pointed out the misspelling, which I just did again. Maybe you could point this out to this "Christianthinktank", whoever they are; I am not familiar with them. I stated very clearly that I do not share as a presupposition one element of their definition. That is not a dodge. It is about as direct as one can be. Obviously, various people will define typology differently. I would not include this presupposition. Nor do the great majority of biblical exegetes that I have known.

I don't think Genesis fully describes God's thought process either, which is why I take things from other Biblical works in the premises I gave previously. However, you have not clarified what I asked, and you still don't leave it clear if you believe that Adam, Eve, and the serpent all did what was ascribed to them. How am I supposed to understand you if you won't clarify yourself when asked?

Perhaps you could ask again so we are both clear on what you think I have not addressed. I think I have been very patient with you and thorough.

You do realize that a historical narrative need not be "merely historical report", like you might see on the evening news. Or on a documentary.

Yes, of course I realize that.

It means that what is recorded happens to be real events that really happened. I still can't tell if you're denying that or not, you seem to be, why deny the definition of typology otherwise?

Since we do not have a 'merely historical report', it is very hard for us to say exactly what happened and what exactly God or the talking serpent might have said. Looking at the obvious artistry of the biblical author in reporting these conversation, I believe we do have a very profound account that is quite sophisticated, beautiful, and powerful. Some of the elements, eg, the talking serpent, do not strike me as likely historical. I have never met nor heard other reports of talking serpents that seemed to be intended as historical.

Here comes that gnostic feeling again. Apparently I'm someone who can't understand what you do, because you have access to reading the original language directly while I don't have that. You do realize that people can, and do explain things in other languages, and that God's truth is not limited by human language, right? God is far more powerful than any "language barrier" you might imagine.

Learning the original languages of the Bible has nothing whatsoever to do with gnosticism. Nor have I ever said that you are unable to understand the things I do. I would be happy to teach you or anyone else biblical languages and I recommend them very highly to anyone. Your innuendo that I might not believe that God is more powerful than any language barrier is, of course, absurd. I have never said, implied, or hinted at anything of that nature.

No you haven't, you've merely dodged everything I've said, and attempted to drown me out with massive responses, very little of it touching my actual arguments. What little does, I've dealt with.

Also, I KNOW you don't agree with it, which is why I point it out at all. I know you would never agree to such as explicitly stated, but your words without the clarification I have asked for logically lead to just those conclusions, and you've done NOTHING to show otherwise other than condescending dismissals. Oh, and an appeal to a moral high ground you don't posess.

Your judgments about my moral character, or lack thereof in your view, are not helpful, or accurate.

I KNOW YOU NEVER SAID THOSE THINGS! I'm saying that your words in this thread when followed through to their conclusions do just what you yourself would never agree with. Comprende?

And I say that my words, when followed to their logical conclusions, most certainly do not do what you say they do.

Yes, you did. You said that God did not carry out His word to Adam, even though there was no repentance. That's not how God works when it comes to punishment for sin. It was an entirely false statement from your perspective. Adam didn't die, and according to you he didn't even begin to die as the text allows. Again, a 100% false statement, God, having complete foreknowledge would have known this to be so. All that together makes it a lie.

Yes you did, here's the quotes.

Clearly you found this to be an act of mercy. One that was given without even an inkling of repentance, and in fact, more defiance of God.

I think we will have to agree to disagree about your understanding of what I meant by what I said. I do not now, nor have I ever believed that God has ever lied, even in part. You might be more careful about your indirect quotes of me. For example: "You said that God did not carry out His word to Adam, even though there was no repentance." My quote had nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not there had been any repentance and I did not claim that is how God works. My understanding of the narrative incorporates potentially mitigating factors as they are recounted, in fact I think the Hebrew artistry of the text can actually be seen as emphasizing this view. I do not believe nor did I say or imply that God made a 100% false statement, or even a .0000000001% false statement. I do not think the account ever addresses any philosophical questions of God's foreknowledge, complete, partial, or otherwise. When you bring such a philosophical presupposition to the text or my interpretation thereof you run the risk of misinterpreting the text and you completely misinterpret my understanding of the text. Also, I did not say Adam did not begin to die; I was merely speaking of the meaning and function of the infinitive absolute construction in Hebrew. Personally, I am not familiar with your ‘process’ interpretation of the infinitive absolute construction in Hebrew. As for what the text allows, I did say that it was a perfectly valid reading of the larger narrative.

Not directly, no, which is why I've had to walk you through this by the hand.

Nor have I ever indirectly said or implied that God is unjust and your attempt to walk me through my own thoughts and words by hand are hopelessly misguided in my opinion. I know very well what I think and the implications of my beliefs and methodology, which as been examined very carefully not only by myself but also by others, professionals in the field and those with pastoral authority in the church. I do not mean to imply that my method is original. Quite the contrary.

Yet not when it comes to Genesis since there is no objectively true interpretation.

I would not say that. I do think it is difficult to approach objectively true interpretations of some texts, perhaps especially those that touch upon the mystery of God and creation, but a variety of methods do help us to approach this truth. In the end, we may not understand a given historical author's understanding until we meet in heaven and read the text together, and he may likewise may not have been aware of some of the profundity of his own text at the time of writing, and none of us will understand how God reads the text, perhaps ever, but certainly not this side of eternity.

If, like wikipedia claims(yeah, I know, wiki isn't the best source for deep inquiry), that historic-critical method is "higher criticism", then I think that's a huge part of the problem.

That is a very old way of speaking of higher and lower criticism and it is merely meant to differentiate relatively objective methods such as text criticism, grammatical and lexical study of languages from interpretative methodologies, be they historical or exegetical. It does not imply any 'huge part of the problem' other than the difficulty involved in interpreting texts and history.

The intent listed doesn't seem bad, but many of the attempts, and a few of the methods most certainly are. Rudolf Bultmann's "form criticism" for example.

Please take that up with Rudolf Bultmann, not me.

I think you would be much better off with historical-grammatical method. At least it strives to take all the Biblical works together, rather than separate them, sometimes individual works, into small divided chunks.

Thank you for the advice. I will take it under advisement.

***That certainly seems to be what you were saying with your original post in this thread.

It is not clear to what this asterisk statement is meant to apply.

[robrecht]

Again, physician, heal thyself. You were just as insulting when you called my syllogisms "pedestrian". As for the arguments not answered.

You dismissed my syllogisms, and refused to show why. As in you didn't show which premises were wrong, or how the conclusions drawn didn't follow from them.

You ignored the definition of typology, which destroys any case for a non-historical Adam and Eve, same with the historical usages, especially in clearly historical works.

You have repeatedly ignored my request for a clarification of your views, which is where I believe much of the disagreement lies.

You ignored and snipped my Biblical citations in just this recent post, and then ask me to be specific, while snipping out the specifics for crying out loud. That doesn't reflect well on you, especially when you're trying to claim the moral high ground here, while doing the things you are condemning me for.

You dismissed whole posts as "ridiculous, false accusations".

I did not snip anything that I disagreed with or seemed to affect our discussion. I do think it is ridiculous for you to try and explain to me what my supposedly unexamined views imply. I have already apologized for the unintended implication of my view of the insufficiency of pedestrian and pedantic syllogisms, yours or anyone's, to deal with some of the issues of interpretation of some of these biblical texts. I have not attacked your character or ever claimed that you made false accusations, in the sense of any attempt at dishonesty, but I do think you have come to false conclusions about what you feel are the implications of my views and methodology. I dealt directly your definition of typology and have been extremely patient in trying to clarify my views for you.

Given your posts so far, yeah, I do [imagine that you disagree with this].

Then please stop using your imagination to try and discern my views.

You said in an earlier post that there was no correct interpretation of Genesis. This is a denial of any objectivity when it comes to the subject. So, what else am I supposed to think with statements like that?

See my previous post where I have tried to explain to you why this is not a true understanding of my views.

I'll admit I worded that more poorly than I thought. What I meant was, God granted mercy, but not in the way that you claim He did that if He had done would be both unjust and dishonest.

I was not trying to say you are a liar. I apologize if that's what you thought.

Thank you for withdrawing.

In an article I found, Avery denies universalism. It would have been nice for a link to their ideas on the subject.

Ask nicely, and I will be happy to look for one. Shouldn't be too hard to find. Let me know what you have already found and I'll see if I can find any more detailed treatment.

You didn't give a "formal definition", but your description in your first post makes it clear that there is no objectively true interpretation of Genesis. This would make it impossible in principle to understand it.

No, this is not really what I believe. Explained in greater detail above.

To describe what you are doing by referring to Paul is confusing. What he said is nothing like what you appear to be espousing. You appear to be espousing a kind of personal spiritual information that us "pedestrians" don't have. It's elitist at best, gnostic at worst.

Then I think your view of what I appear to be espousing is completely wrong.

You claimed that Adam and Eve weren't given their lawful punishment, despite being unrepentant. You are equating mercy in the sense that God allows us a way to be reconciled, with the kind of mercy one receives when they repent and are saved. These are two very different things.

I have never, ever equated those two things.

Sorry, not punished in the way that God claimed they would be. ... Sorry, not punished in the way God said they would be. I thought the context of this conversation would have made that clear by now.

As far as we know, God never claimed Eve would be punished in a particular way. In our text, God is only speaking to Adam and several things happened in the meantime that complicate how God should exercise punishment. This is actually a very cleverly written part of the narrative in Hebrew.

I have forgotten some of their names, it's been a long time ago. The only specific one that comes to mind is duh-swami(not sure on spelling). Him, and many of his buddies made these kinds of accusations, but instead of accepting that the Bible was inspired, they instead used this "contradiction" to mock it.

Do you see the danger of assuming I was supposedly saying something that you were only vaguely recalling someone else as saying?

That wasn't my question though.

Actually, it was your question. Allow me to recapitulate (not in a universalist sense):

robrecht (#55): You seem to be imagining that I am thinking that the infinitive absolute in Hebrew denotes immediacy instead of certainty, but I have said no such thing, and that is certainly not what I think.

Cerebreum123 (#56): Then what are you saying? That's the only meaning I've seen from people who say God didn't carry out His punishment, which He did.

robrecht (#68): I think I've already told you my position on the infinitive absolute in Hebrew. I would translate it the same as most translators, a number of examples of which you yourself have linked to, for example ...

My question was where you get the idea that Adam and Eve were not punished by "death", and "on the day" they ate of it. You haven't really given much of an answer to that.

I think I have answered that directly. Adam did not die that day, but rather some 800 years later. Not sure about when Eve died, but in Gen 2,16 God is only speaking to Adam.

Only posed your "questions to get me to think". I answered all of the other questions you asked too, and again, they didn't appear to be thinking everything through.

I certainly do not reach the same conclusions about my views that you seem to think are required.

But I've tried to make it clear that both understandings were me[an]t, so there is no contradiction either way you slice it, and that God did go through with what He said He would do.

You are missing the intent of my question. I want you to try and clarify how both meaning are supposedly tied to the use and function of the infinitive absolute in Hebrew. If you will try to be specific about your view of this, especially with respect to the quotations provided by John, I think I can show you your error.

Shimei was told that he would "certainly die" the day he crossed the Kidron Valley ...

Actually, that is not what is said in the Hebrew text. I think Victor P. Hamilton makes a mistake on this point.

... and Moses was told that he would "surely die" if he saw Pharoah's face again. Unless you think Solomon had his best messengers watching Shimei on a daily basis, and that it didn't take him very long to return from Gath, there's no way Shimei would have died "that day". He was however brought before Solomon and executed once he got back from Gath.

No, that is not what I think, nor is such a view required for my understanding of the Hebrew here.

I say it's both.

But can the single infinitive absolute phrase in Hebrew be realistically called upon to carry both somewhat contradictory meanings? Both a purpose and consequence clause at the same time, both God's purpose but also the consequences of Adam's own actions? Both immediate spiritual death and long-term physical death occurring over the next 800 years? If God is saying that he will certainly impose the punishment of physical death, and clearly he does this by preventing Adam's access to the Tree of Life, that is clear enough, but do you also believe that it is God who is at the same time saying that it is Adam who will himself directly cause his own spiritual death that very day? Is it not Adam who causes his own spiritual death by disobeying God's commandment? Or, if Adam is not the cause of his own spiritual death, how can God punish him for this? Not strictly speaking impossible, with God all things are possible, but usually we look for the plain sense of words and not really complicated multiple meanings of a two-word phrase, even two uses of the very same word. And, again, while with God all things are possible, but could Adam be expected to understand these two words in this way? Could he explain this effectively to Eve or any subsequent narrator, author or reader?

What? I don't even. What does Adam's understanding of God's foreknowledge have to do with anything?

Well, let's assume we have here an historical narrative based upon the evidence of eye and ear witnesses; are we relying on Adam's report of what God said? Or should we assume that God told Moses what he had said to Adam? In which case, we would be dependent upon Moses understanding of God's foreknowledge here. Whomever the author of the story, we are ultimately dependent upon the author's ideas and expression of what happened. Whatever we think that may be, we are not necessarily saying anything at all about God's actual foreknowledge of anything. Personally, I see no evidence that the author, whomever he was, was directly addressing the philosophical question of the possibility of God's foreknowledge. My understanding of the narrative does not address this question and need not address this question. Thus, you cannot accuse me of necessarily implying anything at all about God's foreknowledge.

By denying the cornerstone of what typology is by definition, does indeed have you doing just that.

No, not at all. You should not assume that I hold to your definition and presuppositions of typology. I do not. Nor do any of the many professional exegetes and hermeneutical theologians I have known over the course of my life.

What God said about the ground was a curse(this is made even more explicit later on), what God said about the serpent was a curse, so yeah, what God said about Eve was a curse too.

Not explicitly, not in Hebrew. A punishment yes, absolutely, but a curse? Regardless, I think this is a minor issue and I'm not sure how or if it is relevant to your mistaken interpretation of my views. I just like to stick to the text as closely as possible, but I will freely grant you the liberty to avoid the Hebrew text if that is what you prefer.

I don't have the money to go out and buy that, and I can't use a library for medical reasons(weakened immune system). It would be better if you could summarize here.

If you can find it on Amazon or somewhere at a reasonable price, I will purchase it for you, if you promise to read it. I am not going to summarize it here. Too much time and trouble.

Later in the post I asked for clarification. Please read a whole post before you respond.

Not sure what you are referring to here, but I think you could also perhaps read your own posts in their entirety and revise accordingly before posting. Would that also solve the issue you are referring to here? When I have snipped irrelevant material from your posts, either because I do not disagree or do not see their relevance, you have complained. Now it seems like you are complaining when I respond to every point, even if you change your point later in your own post.