Adam and Eve Were Replacements for a Previous Couple Who Died

[ScottA]

My translations? No.

I use the KJV primarily and I do not need to retranslate anything as the rest of you here have to.

Anyhow, the rest of your posts are the usual "I am right because I say so" rhetoric. You have proven nothing.

So, let us stay on target here. Answer honestly which of the following fits your interpretation of Genesis 2:17...

1) Figurative Death, Figurative Day
2) Figurative Death, Literal Day
3) Literal Death, Figurative Day
4) Literal Death, Literal Day

I choose number four. And you?

Many are the usual, but I am not one. Nor do I have an "interpretation."

You, on the other hand having a translation, would do well to go back and take to heart what I have written to you.

 

[QuantumBit]

Many are the usual, but I am not one. Nor do I have an "interpretation."

You, on the other hand having a translation, would do well to go back and take to heart what I have written to you.

I knew you would avoid my Genesis 2:17 question. Oh well.

Would anyone like to share their interpretation of Genesis 2:17?

1) Figurative Death, Figurative Day
2) Figurative Death, Literal Day
3) Literal Death, Figurative Day
4) Literal Death, Literal Day
5) Other (explain why)

I added #5 in case I missed something.

Again, I choose #4. Big whoop. Wanna fight about it?

I am still waiting for someone to prove me wrong.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

I am still waiting for someone to prove me wrong

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Not at all. As an Engineer and Inventor, I am the first to figure something out almost on a daily basis. It is what I do for a living.

Besides that, my Testimony stands. I have yet to meet one person on the planet that does not alter the Word of God as you and everyone else does.

I hate to break the news to you, but being an engineer and inventor does not give you insight into reinterpreting the Word of God. Gods Word is to be accepted and obeyed, not tinkered with to satisfy your whims.

So because you think every one else may do it (you are guessing) you think that gives you the right to change what God inspired? WOW.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Neither a concordance nor a knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, etc. is required to prove that the current teachings on display in this thread (and all over the world for that matter) are in serious contradiction with the rest of the Bible, as I have proven over and over.

The LITERAL reading does not contradict, yet everyone seems to think so. That is the point of this thread.

Well as you have clearly shown, you do not accept the literal reading. By saying Adam and Eve were replacements shows you reject teh Word as written.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Again, I already showed how 'dying you will die' is an extremely contradictory interpretation. It does not work for the rest of the Bible.

How about we take a look at what one of the Scholars has to say...

Well it is the accurate translation for the passage in question, if you bothered to look at the Hebrew. As for the other passages, we can look at them one by one and see if the construct in the language god inspired them in is the same construct as in gen. 2. the fact you pooh-poohed off the need to know Hebrew and Greek more than concordance level, shows you unfit to make such bold claims as you do.

 

[Mr E]

Not at all. As an Engineer and Inventor, I am the first to figure something out almost on a daily basis. It is what I do for a living.

Besides that, my Testimony stands. I have yet to meet one person on the planet that does not alter the Word of God as you and everyone else does.



Neither a concordance nor a knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, etc. is required to prove that the current teachings on display in this thread (and all over the world for that matter) are in serious contradiction with the rest of the Bible, as I have proven over and over.

The LITERAL reading does not contradict, yet everyone seems to think so. That is the point of this thread.



Again, I already showed how 'dying you will die' is an extremely contradictory interpretation. It does not work for the rest of the Bible.

How about we take a look at what one of the Scholars has to say...

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
....in the day that … die] Literally, in the day that Adam ate of the fruit, he did not die. This is one of the minor inconsistencies in the story which are not explained for us. Either we are to assume that, in some fuller version of it, the Lord God was described as “repenting” of the sentence of immediate death, as changing His mind and sparing man in His mercy: or the words “in the day, &c.” are to be regarded as metaphorical, and the doom, “thou shalt surely die,” merely means “thou shalt become mortal.”

Genesis 2:17 Commentaries: but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

biblehub.com

I trust you can comprehend the magnitude of what is being said in the above Commentary? It is not minor, that is for sure.

Nevertheless, there is an inconsistency. Do you understand? <-- Please answer so that I know you acknowledge it.

I refuse to be told how 'wrong' I am when this is a standard teaching at any Bible college.

So, what is their solution?

TO ASSUME!

Is that what everyone expects me to do? <-- Please answer the question.

We are to assume that "God changed his mind" even though it does not say that anywhere in the context? Are you kidding me? Either that, or we have to say that the verse is "not literal", in other words, we cannot believe what Genesis 2:17 says so we must ALTER IT to say "thou shalt become mortal" when it clearly does not say that? Unbelievable!

I am telling you and everyone here that I am NOT going to 'assume' anything. I have every right to believe what the verses teach EXACTLY how they are WITHOUT altering them. How dare you or anyone here tell me that I have to add and take away from the Word of God to make it say what you or someone else wants it to. That will never happen.

It's not only a complete misunderstanding of the word, the verse, the text and the meaning... you also completely miss the concept and principle at work. This is probably because you've decided that "day" specifies 24 hours. It doesn't. And if you miss that at this point Adam and his mate were spiritual (divine) beings dwelling with God in Paradise (the heavens) then you'll also miss what dying means. It meant they lost that immortality, and fell.... (unless a seed falls to the ground and dies)--- this is 'literally' why we still refer it to the fall of man. They were banished from God's presence, their spirits condemned to the earthly plane--- imprisoned in human cells.

You have to look at it from the spiritual perspective or you'll never get past your nose.

 

[marks]

I knew you would avoid my Genesis 2:17 question. Oh well.

Would anyone like to share their interpretation of Genesis 2:17?

1) Figurative Death, Figurative Day
2) Figurative Death, Literal Day
3) Literal Death, Figurative Day
4) Literal Death, Literal Day
5) Other (explain why)

I added #5 in case I missed something.

Again, I choose #4. Big whoop. Wanna fight about it?

I am still waiting for someone to prove me wrong.

How do you define death?

Does it include "dead in transgression and sin"?

Much love!

 

[ScottA]

I knew you would avoid my Genesis 2:17 question. Oh well.

Would anyone like to share their interpretation of Genesis 2:17?

1) Figurative Death, Figurative Day
2) Figurative Death, Literal Day
3) Literal Death, Figurative Day
4) Literal Death, Literal Day
5) Other (explain why)

I added #5 in case I missed something.

Again, I choose #4. Big whoop. Wanna fight about it?

I am still waiting for someone to prove me wrong.

#5 Other:

In the day (time or event) Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil mankind entered into death. Thus the need for a Savior and to be born again of the spirit of God.

However, what is missing in most people's understanding is that having been created in the "image" of God, none of this world is real in the way that God is real, but a mere image-- which is to say, not real at all but rather a manifest "image" of all things in God. This is our last will and testament and the witness of evidences for or against us before the judgement.

As such, the times of this world are an illusion, as the reading of a book that is already written. In other words, just as the scriptures elude to things being "before the foundation of the world", all this is not actually occurring in times, but only being revealed in times. Therefore I have explained the the 3rd day and the 6th as I have...for it is only the revelation "image" broken down into would-be chapters of the events that actually have already occurred "before the foundation of the world." But I digress, even "before the foundation of the world", is only world-speak according to times for the purpose of understanding.

 

[Mr E]

#5 Other:

In the day (time or event) Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil mankind entered into death. Thus the need for a Savior and to be born again of the spirit of God.

However, what is missing in most people's understanding is that having been created in the "image" of God, none of this is world and is real in the way that God is real, but a mere image-- which is to say, not real at all but rather a manifest "image" of all things in God. This is our last will and testament and the witness of evidences for or against us before the judgement.

As such, the times of this world are an illusion, as the reading of a book that is already written. In other words, just as the scriptures elude to things being "before the foundation of the world", all this is not actually occurring in times, but only being revealed in times. Therefore I have explained the the 3rd day and the 6th as I have...for it is only the revelation "image" broken down into would-be chapters of the events that actual have already occurred "before the foundation of the world." But I digress, even "before the foundation of the world", is only world-speak according to times for the purpose of understanding.

Very good Scott-
I hear people wonder out loud— asking questions like- “Are we living in a simulation?” Or, “Is this the Matrix, after all?”

Kind of. I ask it like this- ‘Is your dream, dreaming you?’

The spiritual man you see or ‘imagine’ everything you see through their eyes is in fact the real you and this other (physical) you on earth is just a reflection of that real you.

An image of reality, but a cheap imitation by comparison. Still- a reflection. So…. As the saying goes- if you don’t like what you see in the mirror, change it. Do some soul-searching because real change happens on the inside, not the outside. Changing the outside is like fixing a facade.

 

[QuantumBit]

...you think that gives you the right to change what God inspired? WOW.

The entire point of this thread is to demonstrate that everyone here changes what God inspired.

All I am showing is what happens when we do not.

 

[QuantumBit]

Well as you have clearly shown, you do not accept the literal reading. By saying Adam and Eve were replacements shows you reject teh Word as written.

God said Adam would die on that very day. That is precisely what happened.

Do you believe what God said? I do.

God then rose them from the dead and gave them the corrupted Bodies we have now because that is what they chose. God honored the request.

That is what Resurrection of the Damned is all about. God gives the Unsaved another chance. God is Love.

 

[Mr E]

God said Adam would die on that very day. That is precisely what happened.

Do you believe what God said? I do.

God then rose them from the dead and gave them the corrupted Bodies we have now because that is what they chose. God honored the request.

That is what Resurrection of the Damned is all about. God gives the Unsaved another chance. God is Love.

Do you follow this premise always then Qbit? Do you always take scripture literal? --or just when you feel like it?

 

[QuantumBit]

Well it is the accurate translation for the passage in question, if you bothered to look at the Hebrew. As for the other passages, we can look at them one by one and see if the construct in the language god inspired them in is the same construct as in gen. 2. the fact you pooh-poohed off the need to know Hebrew and Greek more than concordance level, shows you unfit to make such bold claims as you do.

I already checked to see if it works. It does not. Again, by altering a single verse to make it say what *YOU* want it to say, you have now broken all of the others...

Example 1:
Genesis 20:7
"Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die [spiritually die], thou, and all that are thine."

Example 2:
Judges 13:22
"And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die [spiritually die], because we have seen God."

Example 3:
1 Samuel 22:16
"And the king said, Thou shalt surely die [spiritually die], Ahimelech, thou, and all thy father’s house."

Example 4:
2 Samuel 12:5
"And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die [spiritually die]"

Example 5:
1 Kings 2:37
"For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die [spiritually die]: thy blood shall be upon thine own head."

Etc. Etc.

I do not believe in contradictions. If we do not change 'surely die' in Genesis 2:17, all of the other verses no longer contradict.

Why is this a bad thing instead of good?

Why is everyone defending contradictions?

If you folks wish to dig into the original Hebrew and make your own translations, that is on you. My Bible is perfectly translated already. I do not need to alter it. <-- Again, my main point.

 

[QuantumBit]

How do you define death?

1st Death = Physical Death
2nd Death = Lake of Fire... aka... Born Again of an Earthly Woman

Does it include "dead in transgression and sin"?

The phrase you are referring to I am assuming comes from...

Ephesians 2:1
"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins"

Notice the word 'Spiritual' is not found anywhere in the above verse. Christians are TOLD to ADD it there.

Anyhow, to answer your question, we must first understand what the word 'Quickened' means...

1 Corinthians 15:36
"Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die"

OK, now we know that only that which is physically dead can be quickened. That is the rule stated plainly and succinctly.

We can double check...

1 Peter 3:18
"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit"

Again, 'put to death in the flesh' defines that which can be quickened. There is no 'Spiritual Death' here.

Thus, the phrase 'dead in trespasses and sins' means we were all physically dead in 'times past' (past life) and had to be quickened.

It is all LITERAL...

Ephesians 2:6
"And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:"

It is past tense!

So, when did they have a past life?

Ephesians 2:12
"That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world"

The past life in the context of the above verses was before Jesus (God in the flesh) was in the world. It was a completely different time period. It could have been hundreds of years before.

 

[QuantumBit]

...the fact you pooh-poohed off...

You never answered my questions...

Nevertheless, there is an inconsistency. Do you understand? <-- Please answer so that I know you acknowledge it.

Is that what everyone expects me to do? <-- Please answer the question.

Go back and read the commentary from the experts.

The Experts are 'baffled'. Why is that?

 

[QuantumBit]

The Experts are baffled...

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
....in the day that … die] Literally, in the day that Adam ate of the fruit, he did not die. This is one of the minor inconsistencies in the story which are not explained for us. Either we are to assume that, in some fuller version of it, the Lord God was described as “repenting” of the sentence of immediate death, as changing His mind and sparing man in His mercy: or the words “in the day, &c.” are to be regarded as metaphorical, and the doom, “thou shalt surely die,” merely means “thou shalt become mortal.”

Genesis 2:17 Commentaries: but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

biblehub.com

Folks in this thread are even more baffled.

 

[Mr E]

The Experts are baffled...



Folks in this thread are even more baffled.

You discredit yourself. If you were a real engineer you'd follow the rules you establish.... like a legend on a blueprint.... This, means that.

But you don't. You say a day is literally a day. Fine. Put it on the legend. Now a day is always a day.

Then you say an eye is an electron. Is the eye always an electron? Is it literally an electron? Or is the tabernacle actually a zygote? You are saying you don't change scripture-- so a day is always a day, but somehow the temple is now a zygote. ummm.... you just changed scripture. Go back to school and complete your degree.

 

[marks]

Example 1:
Genesis 20:7
"Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die [spiritually die], thou, and all that are thine."

Unless you recognize that there are different kinds of death this is what you will arrive at. You treat "spiritual death", something that is Scriptural, as if it didn't exist.

Much love!

 

[marks]

OK, now we know that only that which is physically dead can be quickened. That is the rule stated plainly and succinctly.

Spiritually dead may be spiritually quickened, don't you know?

Study carefully through Ephesians 2, it applies to the living of a single life, born dead in sin, raised to spiritual life in Christ. You say it doesn't use the word spiritual, I say it doesn't have to. There is a lot in the Bible about this. But you seem set so I'm going to leave it be.

Much love!