[__ Science __ ] What Was the “Forbidden Fruit” in Genesis?

[jaybo]

No. They tell us that the "days" (actually "yom" which can a number of different things) are not literal, since it's absurd to suppose literal mornings and evenings without a sun to have them. What you fail to realise is that the source of this information isn't Moses or any patriarch, but comes from God. He would not have made such an error. This is how He tells us it's not literal.



No, He can do just fine without any of that.
[/QUOTE]

Should I believe you or what the Bible clearly says? If it's absurd to suppose literal mornings and evenings without a sun to have them, what else in the Bible should I disbelieve?

 

[Barbarian]

Should I believe you or what the Bible clearly says?

If you believed what the Bible clearly says, you'd realize that the text itself tells you that it's not a literal history.

If it's absurd to suppose literal mornings and evenings without a sun to have them

And it is, of course.

what else in the Bible should I disbelieve

As you see, you only disbelieve the parts you don't like. The text tells you that it's figurative, not literal.

 

[Barbarian]

Wow, do you have a long way to go to understand Christianity. Mystery Babylon is not our earthly mother (unless you're an abomination or a harlot). This is what the Word of God ultimately teaches, not what you say it teaches.

The rest of your post -- actually all of it -- is nonsense, inspired by Satan. That is the last I will say on the subject.

Sounds like some kind of modern revival of gnosticism, doesn't it?

 

[jaybo]

If you believed what the Bible clearly says, you'd realize that the text itself tells you that it's not a literal history.




And it is, of course.



As you see, you only disbelieve the parts you don't like. The text tells you that it's figurative, not literal.

Wrong. The text says exactly what I posted earlier: "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." So light and darkness determine what a "day" is, not the sun and moon (created several verses later).

If you don't take the Bible literally -- for what it actually says -- that's your problem, not mine.

What other parts of the Bible do you disbelieve?

 

[jaybo]

If you believed what the Bible clearly says, you'd realize that the text itself tells you that it's not a literal history.




And it is, of course.



As you see, you only disbelieve the parts you don't like. The text tells you that it's figurative, not literal.

The text says no such thing. If it does, then show me where in the Bible it says that the Biblical text is figurative, not literal. As you see, you only disbelieve the parts you don't like.

 

[Barbarian]

The text says no such thing. If it does, then show me where in the Bible it says that the Biblical text is figurative, not literal.

Where it speaks of mornings and evenings before there is a sun to have them. That's how it tells you it's not a literal account.

Accept it as it is, without revisions. And it won't bother you any more.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Apricot

 

[jaybo]

Where it speaks of mornings and evenings before there is a sun to have them. That's how it tells you it's not a literal account.

Accept it as it is, without revisions. And it won't bother you any more.

I agree that you should accept it as it is, without revisions. Apparently you have neither gotten up early, before the sun rises, yet there is light, nor been outside on a night where there is no moon.

I won't debate this with you any more. You're hung up on some bizarre detail that you must have sunlight or moonlight for there to be a day. But that's not what the Bible says. It describes a day as evening and morning. Should anyone believe you or God's Word?

 

[JLB]

[ACMP=reminder]

No. The very next verse says their 'eyes were opened'.

Gen 3:6 is when they died.
Gen 3:7 is when they experienced the Resurrection of Damnation.

Resurrected people are not dead.

By the way...

There were no 'breezes' before the Fall. That verse contains a very subtle, yet important clue that the Earth, as well as the Universe itself, had changed drastically.

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.
And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. Genesis 3:6-8


They certainly did not die in Genesis 3:6, nor did they experience the resurrection of damnation in verse 7.


Here is when the scriptures teach us Adam died.


And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
Genesis 5:3-5


Be careful that you share what is actually written in God’s word. If everyone were to just “make up” whatever they wanted from the scriptures, then the scriptures would soon lose any real credibility of being God’s word.



JLB
[/ACMP]

 

[Who Me]

No. They tell us that the "days" (actually "yom" which can a number of different things) are not literal, since it's absurd to suppose literal mornings and evenings without a sun to have them. What you fail to realise is that the source of this information isn't Moses or any patriarch, but comes from God. He would not have made such an error. This is how He tells us it's not literal.



No, He can do just fine without any of that.
[/QUOTE]
Yes you can mean like day several things depending on context. The context of genesis1 shows that they are intended to be literal days.
That isn't just theologians speaking, but also the understanding of Hebrew professors, Jewish rabbies etc. Many of whom acknowledge the the meaning is of literal 24 hour days, yet themselves do not believe it.

As you say God is the author of genesis and in using numbered days, designated by evening and morning he intended to tell us he created in six periods of 24 hours.

 

[jaybo]

Even though this has strayed far from the OP's subject...

When does any day begin and end? The Bible clearly defines "day" as comprised of evening and morning. Nothing could be clearer. Even though we Westerners define a day as beginning in the morning and ending at night, that is not the Biblical definition.

Can we end this discussion please?

 

[Barbarian]

Yes you can mean like day several things depending on context. The context of genesis1 shows that they are intended to be literal days.

The context clearly says they are not, since they mention mornings and evenings before a sun existed to have them. The context clearly says this is not a literal account.

When does any day begin and end? The Bible clearly defines "day" as comprised of evening and morning. Nothing could be clearer.

And morning and evening are clearly defined in terms of a sun. Nothing could be clearer.

Can we end this discussion please?

Sure. Unless someone else comments, I'm done.

 

[Who Me]

The context clearly says they are not, since they mention mornings and evenings before a sun existed to have them. The context clearly says this is not a literal account.

Yet it is the Bible that says it is a literal account.
The comment in the forth commandment only makes sense if genesis is literal.
As does Jesus' comment that man is from the begining of creation.

As I have said Hebrew scholars accept that the account in Hebrew is intended to be understood as a literal account.

 

[Barbarian]

Yet it is the Bible that says it is a literal account.

No, it never says that the creation story is a literal account. Indeed, it says otherwise. It often mentions Jesus in instances of figurative speech and parables. St. Paul mentions parables such as the story of Abraham and Isaac.

 

[Barbarian]

The comment in the forth commandment only makes sense if genesis is literal.

I don't see why mentioning an allegory later in the Bible would convert it to a literal account. Indeed, St. Paul says otherwise:

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered Isaac: and he that had received the promises, offered up his only begotten son; [18] (To whom it was said: In Isaac shall thy seed be called.) [19] Accounting that God is able to raise up even from the dead. Whereupon also he received him for a parable.

 

[jaybo]

No, it never says that the creation story is a literal account. Indeed, it says otherwise. It often mentions Jesus in instances of figurative speech and parables. St. Paul mentions parables such as the story of Abraham and Isaac.

This is confusing. You say that the creation story is not a literal account then say it mentions Jesus. Where (aside from John 1) does it say this, certainly not in Genesis. Then you say that the story of Abraham and Isaac is a parable (according to Paul). Where do you come up with this kind of interpretation?

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the creation story is not a literal account. Nor does it say that the story of Abraham and Isaac is not factual.

 

[Barbarian]

This is confusing. You say that the creation story is not a literal account then say it mentions Jesus.

I don't see why it's hard to mention Jesus along with figurative parts of the Bible. After all, He used parables Himself.

Where (aside from John 1) does it say this, certainly not in Genesis.

As you know, the text clearly indicates this, mentioning mornings and evenings before a sun existed. So the text itself shows that it's not literal.

Then you say that the story of Abraham and Isaac is a parable (according to Paul). Where do you come up with this kind of interpretation?

Hebrews 17-19. See above.

 

[jaybo]

I don't see why it's hard to mention Jesus along with figurative parts of the Bible. After all, He used parables Himself.


As you know, the text clearly indicates this, mentioning mornings and evenings before a sun existed. So the text itself shows that it's not literal.


Hebrews 17-19. See above.

I'm leaving this discussion -- since it's not a discussion. Your explanations don't make sense and are contradictory to the Bible.