The Hebrew of Genesis 2:16-17 & 3:2-4

[apostoli]

Recently, I came across an article that discussed the Hebrew of Genesis 2:16-17 & 3:2-4
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/die.html

In summary the article proposes that the dialogue goes like this:

God advises: as soon as you eat of the fruit, you shall be doomed to die (literally:"dying thou shall die").
Eve tells the serpent: If I eat or even touch the fruit I will very suddenly die.
To which the serpent replies: You will not very suddenly die.

The article enquires...

"The reply of the serpent is phrased negatively and returns to the repeated word form but uses the same word form as the Lord for the first word and the word of Eve for the second word. This repeated word form is unique and appears no where else in the Scriptures. Therefore, the reply seems to be directed to how Eve had phrased her answer and to be correcting her statement or adding special emphasis in a negative way. There surely must be meanings within these Hebrew word changes that are not fully revealed by the translations."

I'd appreciate any comment on the validity of the article's presentation of the Hebrew?

Peace

[John Reece]

I'd appreciate any comment on the validity of the article's presentation of the Hebrew?

The article's presentation of the Hebrew in grossly invalid.

The only difference between the word form in 2:17 and the word form in 3:3-4 is that in 2:17 the form is Qal masculine singular ([hebrew]TmWT[/hebrew] [tāmūt]) and in 3:3-4 the form is Qal masculine plural ([hebrew]TmTWN[/hebrew] [t^emutūn]) of the verb [hebrew]mWT[/hebrew].

The only difference between the term spoken by the serpent in 3:4 ([hebrew]mWT TmTWN[/hebrew] [mōt t^emutūn]) and the term spoken by God in 2:17 ([hebrew]mWT TmWT[/hebrew] [mōt tāmūt]) is the difference between the singular form of the verb in 2:17 and the plural form of the verb in 3:4.

Contrary to the author's assertions, the word form is neither unique nor unusual, and the conjectured sense thereof is both unsupported and unsupportable by any valid exegesis of the Hebrew text.

[Tladatsi]

John R. is quite correct, your author has completely mis-read or mis-represented the Hebrew. The problem many readers find with this passage is that the ralking snake speaks the truth and Yahweh's threat does not pan out. The talking snake says eating the fruit of the TOKOGAE will give them wisdom and it will not kill them. On the other hand Yahweh said that if they eat the furit of the TOKOGAE, they will die. The snake was right. Of course there were unintended consequences other than that death neither Adam nor Eve nor the snake did not imagine (i.e. Yahweh's anger) but that is an entirely different matter. Many readers find this disconcerting and so come up with convoluted readings so that Yahweh's threat is some how actualized as Adam and Eve loosing immortality. It must be pointed out that Adam and Eve were never immortal. In fact, Adam and Eve were not expelled from the Garden of Eden as any punishment but to prevent them from becoming immortal by eating the fruit of the Tree of Life and becoming too god-like.

Recently, I came across an article that discussed the Hebrew of Genesis 2:16-17 & 3:2-4
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/die.html

In summary the article proposes that the dialogue goes like this:

God advises: as soon as you eat of the fruit, you shall be doomed to die (literally:"dying thou shall die").
Eve tells the serpent: If I eat or even touch the fruit I will very suddenly die.
To which the serpent replies: You will not very suddenly die.

The article enquires...

"The reply of the serpent is phrased negatively and returns to the repeated word form but uses the same word form as the Lord for the first word and the word of Eve for the second word. This repeated word form is unique and appears no where else in the Scriptures. Therefore, the reply seems to be directed to how Eve had phrased her answer and to be correcting her statement or adding special emphasis in a negative way. There surely must be meanings within these Hebrew word changes that are not fully revealed by the translations."

I'd appreciate any comment on the validity of the article's presentation of the Hebrew?

Peace

[apostoli]

Thanks guys,

Can either of you give some insight on the Hebrew of the plurality of "you" in the verses of Genesis 3. I won't presume that it is meaning both Adam & Eve given the conversation is presented as one to one between Eve & the serpent.

Peace

[John Reece]

Can either of you give some insight on the Hebrew of the plurality of "you" in the verses of Genesis 3. I won't presume that it is meaning both Adam & Eve given the conversation is presented as one to one between Eve & the serpent.

The plural verbs do indicate both Adam and Eve.

Although the conversation is between Eve and the serpent, the subject of the conversation is what God said to both Adam and Eve.

All that the serpent said about what God had said to Adam and Eve, and the serpent's assertions in response to what the woman said God had said, was all applicable not only to Eve but also to Adam.

[apostoli]

Hello John,

Thanks for the info. Though I accept what you relayed, I was wondering, given that God delivered his command to Adam pior to Eve's creation, wheher the plural "you" is an idiom with the meaning "anyone".

The plural verbs do indicate both Adam and Eve.

Although the conversation is between Eve and the serpent, the subject of the conversation is what God said to both Adam and Eve.

All that the serpent said about what God had said to Adam and Eve, and the serpent's assertions in response to what the woman said God had said, was all applicable not only to Eve but also to Adam.

[John Reece]

Though I accept what you relayed, I was wondering, given that God delivered his command to Adam pior to Eve's creation, whether the plural "you" is an idiom with the meaning "anyone".

No, the plural inflection of the verbs with the inherent subject "you" is not an idiom with the meaning "anyone".

[apostoli]

No, the plural inflection of the verbs with the inherent subject "you" is not an idiom with the meaning "anyone".

Thankyou!