Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] dying you will die

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] dying you will die
  • Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:53:34 -0500

Dear Scott, David, and Isaac,
David,
I appreciate your response, and the quote. I have heard this explanation of �in the day� before, and I think it is a good one. And it may be all that was intended by what God said. But I don�t think we can escape the fact that they were also banned from the one tree which God said would give them eternal life, were they to eat from it. And if you lose access to life, you either gain death, or maintain your course with it(as I have proposed). And as far as we know, the banishment happened in the same 24 hour day. So perhaps both were intended. It wouldn�t be the last time in scripture where there would be dual meanings. Either way, I think either one or both of these are very acceptable explanations, and I am confused as to why the verse causes a conflict in believing that God does what he says he will do.


My commentary here is indirectly related to your inquiry and you may or may not consider it as you evaluate the more specific replies to your query. Anton Chekov wrote, “No psychologist should pretend to understand what he does not understand... Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand nothing.” I contend Chekov's quote is analogous to the "experts" you allude to. At any rate, I will await the responses you seek with interest but in the mean time let me suggest that a day is 1000 years for Hashem and 1000 years is a day. Thus, Adam & Hawaah (Eve) did die within a "day" as neither reached 100 years of life. Neither do we know at what age Hashem created them.

HH: I hesitate to multiply theories, but an idea I had was that the force of the infinitive absolute might suggest certification. In other words, we often think that if Adam and Eve had refrained from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they would have been home free. Yet they could have obeyed at that point but disobeyed at some other. Since the work of the law is written on our heart, they could have murdered, disobeying their conscience and sinning against God like Cain did. So perhaps not eating from the tree would not guarantee their not dying. Dying could still have been a possibility. But eating from the forbidden fruit made death certain. On the day that they ate, they would certainly die. Up until that time, death was a possibility, and it still could have been possible if they had not eaten, but it was certain when they did eat:

Gen. 2:17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”

Isaac Fried doesn't like "surely," but that seems partially due to the associations he has with the word and not to the force of the Hebrew, since many, many sources validate this to be the force of the Hebrew not only here but as a general possibility valid for many texts. The ideas above would eliminate the idea of redundancy in the use of the infinitive absolute while retaining a word like surely or certainly. However, it is just a thought.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page