Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Dying, you will die Gen 2:17

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Scott McAliley" <scottanderin1 AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Dying, you will die Gen 2:17
  • Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:29:53 -0500

I was reading through some archives addressing the infinitive absolute in Genesis 2:17, trying to find some answers to questions that only Hebrew students and experts could answer(I am neither of these, by the way). And I am hoping that someone can give me some insight. But before I ask my questions, I may can offer some insight regarding the larger question that much of that thread seemed to evolve into. There was a lot of speculation over how God could say that in the day they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, dying, they would die, since they didn't physically die that day. But were Adam and Eve not living and dying simultaneously as we all are? If they were already immortal, as so many people claim we innately are, then the tree of life that God plainly said could make them live forever would have no value to them at all if they indeed were already going to live forever anyway. And as far as we know, it was on the same day that they sinned that they were barred from the only thing that would have given them eternal life, therefore, in the day they sinned, already dying, they died in another sense, losing personal access to the tree of life. So my theory is that they were already dying, but with the opportunity, by their own effort in reaching out their hand, taking, and eating from the tree of life, to have eternal life. But the death sentence was fulfilled perfectly, and even on that very day, by their banishment. Does the Hebrew support this theory? I also see the slaying of a beast and covering the nakedness of Adam and Eve as a foreshadowing of Christ's death on the cross. So the banishment seems to have more to do with them losing the ability to save their own souls, than it does eternal death, because God provided the provision(the covering) before He banished them, and because the tree of life was only guarded, not chopped down. The tree appears again in the very last chapter of the Bible, when Christ says that He will give to eat from it, to those who persevere. All of this causes a serious problem for Christians who try to maintain that the banishment from the garden represents eternal damnation in the form of separation from God. Most of these same Christians believe, as I do, that the covering of skins represents our salvation through Christ' death. But you can't have both, because you would have their salvation preceding their damnation. The banishment can only have to do with the fact that we cannot save ourselves from death. Only God can do it. And this seems to be supported even more because we don't just read, "lest they eat of it". We read, "lest they reach out their hand, and eat of it". This seems to have to do with human effort. And the entire message of the Bible is that we are insufficient to save ourselves, and God wants us totally reliant on Him.
It is also commonly taught that their sin ruptured their relationship with God. How can we claim that? There is not one reference of Adam or Eve communicating to God before sin. And there is no picture of worship either. The relationship actually seems pretty bland. But after they sin, then God graciously comes to them, chastens them(a proof of love according to the New Testament), then graciously covers their shame. They could have rejected the covering God offered and tried to maintain their own feeble coverings, as many do. And this seems to parralel how we still today have the choice of accepting God's covering for our sin, Jesus death on the cross, or not. Sorry so long there. My question is: Could the infinitive absolute be referencing either of the following?...1) That they were physically dying and there was nothing that could change that, but that their soul, which would have been saved by eating of the tree of life, will now die as well if they eat th tree of knowledge of good and evil or 2)That their body and soul were always headed for death from the point of their creation, but that they had the opportunity to save both by eating of the tree of life, but would lose that opportunity if they sinned. My next question is: Does anyone find any significance in the fact that when Eve was telling the serpent what God had said, she only used one tense of die, but then the serpent uses both, as God had? And can someone tell me which tense Eve used? And last question: When the serpent gives his response, the literal version I found translates it as, "dying, you will not die", but when I look at the Hebrew, the negation term precedes both forms of die. Is this just how Hebrew works? Why is the term for negation in between the "dies" in the literal translation? I would appreciate any help with this.

Thanks,
Scott McAliley

_________________________________________________________________
Mortgage rates near historic lows. Refinance $200,000 loan for as low as $771/month* https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f8&disc=y&vers=689&s=4056&p=5117





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page