No that's just a bastardisation of the term done by Trinitarians to justify their models.
Because you say so?
There's no question that Elohim is plural and means EITHER any god with a little "g" or a particular god who wishes to be seen as the top dog and thus likes to be known as God with a capital "g".
Strong's Concorance - Elohim :
Original Word: אֱלהִים
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: elohim
Phonetic Spelling: (el-o-heem')
Definition: God, god
It even applies to angels and men.
In your belief system this amounts to wilful forced coercion. i.e an entity puts you in a hopeless environment in which you will surely die and says hey, worship me, bow down, and I'll save you.
But that's not what happened...
God made man, gave him life, and placed him in the garden.
He then gave only one law to man. That law was "Do not partake of the Tree."
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a symbol of the law, because the law is the knowledge of good and evil.
In other words, the only law God gave to Adam was "do not partake of the law."
His warning to Adam was that if Adam partook of the tree (and therefore of the law), the law would kill him.
This is demonstrated throughout the Bible. The law is a bringer of death. If you partake of the law, it will kill you.
God was literally telling Adam do not eat of the Tree, because that way leads to death.
That's quite the opposite of "an entity puts you in a hopeless environment in which you will surely die."
In fact, the only way it would have been such is if God HAD NOT placed the Tree in the garden, and HAD NOT told Adam to not partake of it.
An entity putting you in a hopeless environment where you have no means of escape makes the entity cruel, and certainly not worthy of worship.
As stated before, the Tree was the way out of the garden, the way out from the presence of God, the way to reject God.
God made it explicitly clear by presenting Adam with a choice that if he disobeyed Him, and partook of the Tree, that Adam would die.
That's a sick way to acquire followers and none of them can thus be genuine. Your god lacks the will to make humans free.
Weren't you arguing in the other thread about how men DON'T have free will?
If so, then what are you complaining about?
If men are not free, then your ranting and raving is also just part of what God has determined would happen, and therefore utterly meaningless, according to your own view.
But because God DID make men free, then your arguments fall flat.
He has imprisoned them on this planet and curtailed their natural abilities.
Rather, He created a world for us to live on, and on which to be fruitful and multiply.
He has taken free will from them
No, he hasn't. If He had, then none of your arguments matter, because they were all predetermined to happen anyways.
and stripped them of life years that they would otherwise live.
Preventing men from living as long as they did was an act of mercy.
Otherwise, men would be wicked for much longer, and deserving of much more punishment for evil deeds.
God doesn't want that.
He doesn't want His creation to become so evil.
And why has this been done? Well according to the literal (incorrect) reading
We've been over this already.
Just because you don't like the literal reading of the text A) doesn't therefore make everything in the Bible figurative, and B) doesn't make the literal reading incorrect.
The literal (not woodenly literal) interpretation is the only one that makes sense.
of the Bible it's because Adam and Eve dared to want to know things, to learn, to be better than they are, something your god cruelly forbade them to do.
First of all, ou keep saying that a literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect, yet argue as though it were correct.
This is called a stolen concept fallacy.
Don't use fallacies to support your position.
Second, that's not why God reduced man's life expectancy, nor is it what happened for which God kicked them out of the garden.
God told Adam to not eat of the tree, "for in the day you eat of it, dying you shall die."
The serpent deceived Eve, by telling her, when she said, not what God told Adam, but a law around the law he was given, " 'you shall not eat it,
nor shall you touch it, lest you die' ", that "you will not surely die."
He wasn't talking about eating of the tree. He was talking about touching the tree, which God gave no such command against.
It's likely that Eve thought he was referring to not eating of it as well, and was thus deceived by the serpent.
God said "Do not eat."
Somehow, Eve heard "do not eat or touch," likely from Adam.
The serpent used that addition to deceive Eve, who then gave the fruit to her husband, who then broke God's law to not eat of it, and ate of it.
The knowledge they gained was not some abstract knowledge that only God had.
It was knowledge of sin, the experience of sinning, which God had told them not to do.
Thus, their eyes were opened, because now they comprehended why God warned against eating it.
Before, they had only known good.
After they ate of the Tree, they knew of both good and evil, because disobeying God is evil, something they had not known before, because they had never disobeyed God before.
In fact the Bible clearly says that the gods were concerned that humans might be like them and live forever.
No, it doesn't say anything about "gods," plural.
It also doesn't say they "might" be like Him, rather, that "the man
has become like one of Us,
to know good and evil."
Thus, "lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever," therefore God kicked them out of the garden.
An act of mercy, and a punishment for disobedience.
kgov.com
In fact pretty wicked. Such a story taken literally,
Rather, such a story perverted as you have done so...
doesn't support the Christian concept of a loving god.
The story taken literally, and not figuratively, does in fact show God to be loving and just.
It paints a picture of a despotic god who wants all the power and be top dog whilst everyone else is subjugated beneath him.
Rather, it paints a picture of a just God who has the right to demand that His creation obeys him, and punishes those who do not.
Small wonder the other gods sought to rebel against such tyranny.
Addressed elsewhere in this post, or in the other thread, I don't remember which.
The reality of course is that the Bible text is not literal in much of Genesis, it is purely allegorical which is why a literal reading makes no sense.
False.
The proper allegorical reading conceals the secrets of alchemy and the Elixir Of Life (manna, Soma, Ambrosia, Philosopher's Stone etc). The Church peddles its BS literal nonsense and keeps the masses in ignorant stupor. Genesis is a declaration of wonder, it's announcing the Stone, it's describing how it is made, what some of the practical processes are. The male and female principles required for that Work and so on.
This is worthless nonsense.
Consider this my response to the portions of your posts that I quoted here that I snipped out due to being related to the notion that the Bible is a book about alchemy.
Your reasoning was religious indoctrination not critical thinking.
Says the one who refuses to think critically about what he's saying.
Mankind is bent on evil as you put it because mankind has been forced into a planetary prison and the key substance humans need to survive and flourish has been taken from them by your god.
Rather, mankind is bent on evil because men would rather satisfy their own desires than obey the God who made them.
And for that reason, they do not deserve to partake of the Tree of Life.
In other words your god has set up the environment, removed what's needed to exist in that environment
Humans seem to exist just fine without this supposed "necessary item."
and as a result has forced humans to vie for scarce resources.
Scarce?
My friend, have you never looked out the window of a plane in flight?
"Scarce" my foot!
Humans have no choice but to fight each other because otherwise they die.
Humans die even without fighting.
So that can't be it.
They must eat, drink, acquire shelter, warmth from the elements etc etc.
Yes. Why?
"Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it':
Cursed is the ground for your sake...
"
Note the story of Eden. Adam and Eve wandered around naked. They didn't feel the extremes of heat or cold.
Arguably, because they had only been alive for a week before they sinned, and hadn't yet experienced the seasons.
Also, the yearly cycle of seasons we experience today are not what would have been experienced before the Flood. They would not have been anywhere near as harsh.
They didn't need to eat or drink per say other than to take in quantities of the Stone in whatever form god supplied it be that in the waters available to them or in the foods around them.
There is no "Stone."
Also, Genesis 3:22 indicates that man had not yet eaten of the tree of life, and thus your argument falls flat there, as well.
They went from an existence in which they would have lived forever with no needs whatsoever to living in a hellish planetary world stripped of that most vital substance which god witheld from them.
Rather, they went from an existence in which they would have lived forever with their Creator, with some needs, which would have been easily taken care of through normal life in the garden, to disobeying God, Him kicking them out so that they could not live forever (because they had rejected life, God), into a fallen world that was not "hellish" nor "stripped of substance."
The world was a bountiful place, just not as bountiful as the garden.
. . . We are nothing more than grunt slaves as a result destined to die. How loving indeed!
Utter nonsense.
A tyrant rules by force of arms or instilled fear.
The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
God's proposition is worship me, follow me, or else I'll destroy you in a lake of fire.
He has the right to demand that. --- He is the Creator.
He is life, the source of life. --- Rejecting Him is the same as rejecting life.
The lake of fire is simply where God is not. --- The flames are not literal flames, but are figurative of the pain that one will experience there. The pain is not a result of God torturing those there, but simply the knowledge that they will never again have the opportunity to form a relationship with their Creator. Yet for those who go there, it is preferable to living with Him for eternity. Their hatred of Him is what burns them.
It is where you will end up, if you do not repent.
He put the lake of fire there,
He made the lake of fire, because forcing someone to live with Him for eternity is worse than sending them there.
he is responsible for the creation of this Earth and its limited resources.
Limited? Good sir, the resources we know about show no sign of running out anytime soon, and have lasted us for 7500 years or so.
He is responsible for witholding from mankind the one true thing mankind needs to survive, maintain perfect health and flourish.
Nonsense.
God wants the human slave force.
More nonsense.
He must be bored as hell if he is the all-powerful all-knowing entity Christianity claims him to be.
Even more nonsense.
(if taken literally which is incorrect)
False.
The story of Genesis . . . tells us that god created Adam (man) to tend a bloody garden which god had created.
That wasn't man's only purpose, nor was it man's primary purpose.
Why the hell would an all-powerful god need a man to tend a garden.
Apparently you believe that such a thing is purposeless.
He can just will the garden to maintain itself and it happens.
Why?
Your god is a jealous being, he somehow needs to create other beings
No.
God has no "need" to create.
He created because He wanted to.
so that he can be worshipped by them.
No.
SoT, what is the most important thing in life?
Do you know?
That's pretty pathetic. Worse still when he gives them a very limited choice of actions
Adam and Eve were free to do whatever they wanted.
The only thing they were not allowed to do was eat of the Tree, so I'm not seeing the problem.
and they don't do what he wants then he punishes them brutally,
No.
God told man "do not do this" and then punished him when he disobeyed.
He wanted them to obey Him, but gave them free reign to not obey him, while still warning them of the consequence of disobeying, which was death.
They were not punished for acting out their will.
They were punished for disobedience.
They rejected life, therefore the result is death.
The moment Adam partook of the fruit of the Tree, he knew he had disobeyed, and broken God's law. This was the knowledge the Tree gave him, which God had forbidden, because He loved man and did not want man to die.
consigning them to a very limited lifespan instead of immortality
Yes, that's what happens when you reject life. You die.
God has therefore set before you this day, SoT, life and death. Therefore, choose life, that you may live.
Repent of your rejection of God. He will forgive you, and give you life eternal.
and limiting all the votal resources they will need to flourish resulting in mankind having to constantly fight amongst itself for those resources.
The reason men fight is because we are fallen creatures, not because of a lack of resources.
To the extent man rebels against God, to that extent, we suffer. That's how we were made.
We are a doctored species.
Whatever that's supposed to mean...
Our pineal glands are suppressed. Our brains are suppressed preventing us from using about 80% of its capacity.
I agree, we do not perform to the same extent that ancient man did. But that's by design. If men today were capable of the same level of thinking as Adam was, we would be MUCH worse off, because men would be capable of coming up with even more wicked ways to rebel against God.
It's a mercy that God designed us this way, that if man fell, even though we are slowly breaking down, it prevents us from becoming too evil.
That's brilliant design, of you ask me.
We feel the extremes of heat and cold where before we were immune to them.
Does pain serve a purpose?
If you could not feel heat or cold, what would happen if you accidentally put your hand on a hot stove?
This argument is silly, on its face, because it assumes that neither pain nor our senses have a purpose.
The free flow of vital universal life force is kept from us,
And yet, life goes on...
Fascinating how that works...
we are generally kept ignorant of it, the secrets of how to tap into it are hidden from us and those that find it are forced into hiding.
Yawn.
I could go on and on. The human condition is a pathetic vulnerable weak one
False.
Rather, God designed man to be capable of survival even despite having fallen.
That's not pathetic at all. That's brilliant design.
made deliberately by your god.
God made us capable of surviving even in a fallen world.
Yes, that was deliberate.
If he were cruel, He would not have done so, and mankind would have perished long ago.
His proposition is worship or die. Such are the dictats of tyrants.
No, His proposition is "I have set before you this day life and death, therefore choose life, that you may live."
The way to life is through His Son, Jesus Christ. He died for you, so that you and He could be reconciled. Why do you continue to reject Him?
You may as well worship Hitler.
Do not compare God to Hitler again. This will be your only warning.
You are on a mainline Christian board. Show some respect.
This is just an apologetic stance. A stance you would make no matter how disgusting the attrocities your god perpetrates or permits.
Says the one who rejects any standard of justice, calling it arbitrary.
Therein lies your problem and the reason you don't have the eyes to see and ears to hear that Jesus spoke of.
Or, perhaps we (yes, even Ps82, despite some of her weird beliefs) see the truth, and you have hidden your eyes from it?
There you go, you've cited exctly what I described, the "choice" of tyrants. Do as I say or else . . . . . threat, violence, punishment.
It would be tyrannical only if He was not the Creator.
If any created being said that, you would be justified in rejecting his words.
But because God is the Creator, and thus in a position of authority over you, and because He is objectively good, He is justified in demanding obedience and worship, because He is worthy.
These are NOT the traits of a benevolent entity.
Rather, His demand for justice and righteousness is what leads to His wrath against those who disobey Him and refuse to repent.
Yes he did. It was perverse.
No, He did not.
You argue against man having a will, then demand that God is evil for having forced man to do something.
Do you not see the problem with that?
If man has a choice in the matter, then your condemnation of God is unfounded, because he could have chosen otherwise, but instead chose to disobey God.
The idea that God willed someone to do something against God's will is contradictory. God is not irrational. He cannot violate the law of non-contradiction.
It is rationally equivalent to saying "A = !A."
Let's consider a simple example. You have an empty room with just a table in ot and you put 10 kids aged 5-9 in it. You place a bowl of jelly babies and chocolate buttons on the table and just before you walk out of the room you say to the children "Don't eat the sweets".
Very obviously before very long the children WILL start eating the sweets. Why? Because they are there. Because they are human children.
This is an argument FOR God, not against Him.
It goes a bit deeper than just "because the sweets are there, therefore the children would naturally eat them" though.
If you placed the bowl of candy on the table and didn't mention it, or put it in a cupboard, hiding it from them so they didn't know about it, and then left them alone with it, they would not know it was there, and would thus never eat from the bowl.
Let's take this further. If you had said to them, "don't take any candy from theis bowl, because if you do, you will be grounded for a week," and then leave the room, the children will, at least for a while, avoid the bowl. But eventually, curiosity will get the better of them, and they'll approach the bowl, and eat from it, having either forgotten about the warning of punishment should they disobey, or having decided they don't care.
Either way, they disobeyed the command, "do not eat of the bowl," and thus, when you come back, must rightly punish them
A cat will jump at a fast moving mouse because it's a cat. It's by design.
A cat does so because of instinct. Men are not cats. Cats are not men.
Men have the ability to choose otherwise, ie, a will. Cats operate mostly on instinct, in that while they have, to some extent, a will of their own, their will is generally to follow their instincts.
Trust me on this, I own a cat.
A child will eat sweets because children love sweets.
Yet children, unlike cats,
Who is to blame if the kids eat those sweets?
The children, especially if you told them not to.
Answer: The parent who put the sweets there. End of.
Wrong.
If the parent didn't want them to eat sweets then simple, don't put the bloody sweets there in the first place.
If you would allow it, let's change the analogy a bit.
Instead of sweets, let's say it's the key to the door that leads out of the room.
Would not hiding the bowl, or not putting it in the room in the first place, not be exactly what you are accusing God of doing?
You say you want them to have the ability to leave, but your actions say otherwise. By hiding the bowl with the key in it, or by refusing to provide them the key, you effectively lock them in the room with no way out.
Isn't that cruel, by your own standard?
God put the forbidden tree right there in the garden with Adam and Eve.
Yes, He did. On purpose.
He could have not done that if he didn't want them to eat from it.
So you would have God lock up Adam and Eve in the garden, and not provide them away out of it, or make it impossible to leave?
But he did. So he fully intended them to eat from it.
If you put the bowl with the key in it in the locked room with the children, are you not providing the way out of the room?
Let's put it this way:
A man loves a woman, and desires to be with her, so he kidnaps her and takes her to his home, where he boards up the windows and doors out of the house, and tells her she cannot leave, then demands that she love him.in return. You and I would both agree that that man is mentally ill, and needs help, no? You could rightly call him a sadist and cruel, a tyrant not deserving of love.
A man loves a woman, and desires to be with her, so he woos her, trying to make her fall in love with him, but never demands it of her, and tells her that if at any point she desires to part with him, she is free to do so, and eventually, he marries her, having won her love, yet when they arrive at his home, he doesn't board up the windows and doors out of the house, and continues to tell her that she is free to leave at any time. You and I would both agree that such a relationship is wholesome and good, no?
The latter is a description of not only the tale of Genesis 1-3, but also a description of God trying to woo humanity back to him.
Heaven is the home the man in the second scenario leads his bride to.
The man symbolizes God, the God of the Bible.
God will not lock up humans in heaven with Him, and refuse to let them leave, and demand that they love Him.
Love cannot be coerced.
He could have put it out of their reach. He didn't. He drew great attention to that one tree by forbidding Adam and Eve to eat from it.
Yes, because He wanted to make it clear that if at any point they desired to part ways with Him, all they had to do was eat of the Tree.
Had He not put the Tree dead center, but instead had hidden it, or put it somewhere else in the universe, they could rightly argue that He was a sadist, locking them up with no way of leaving. That would be cruel.
That's a well known psychological method. Tell a kid not to do something and they are FAR more likely to do it.
You're referring to what is called "reverse psychology."
That is NOT what God was doing.
God was presenting Adam and Eve with a choice, obey me, and you can remain with Me, or disobey me, and you can leave Me.
Stop making excuses for God.
No one is making excuses for God.
God doesn't need excuses.
He has reasons for the things He does. Just because you reject those reasons doesn't make those reasons excuses.
He intended everything that happened,
No.
he knew it would happen, and he still did it.
No. Supra.
Utter hogwash. The serpent didn't tempt anyone.
The following passages say otherwise.
But I fear, lest somehow,
as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
www.biblegateway.com
Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 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 the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” So the Lord God said to the serpent:“Because you have done this,You are cursed more than all cattle,And more than every beast of the field;On your belly you shall go,And you shall eat dustAll the days of your life. And I will put enmityBetween you and the woman,And between your seed and her Seed;He shall bruise your head,And you shall bruise His heel.”
The Temptation and Fall of Man - Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of...
www.biblegateway.com
He simply told Adam and Eve the perfect truth which was that if they ate from the tree they would not die and would gain the knowledge of Good and Evil.
Wrong, on two counts.
The serpent spoke to Eve, not Adam,
and,
Eve incorrectly stated (though not that she was at any fault) God prohibited TOUCHING the fruit, when He had not done so. This is what the serpent used to deceive Eve, and cause man to fall.
It was true that if Adam or Eve touched the Tree or its fruit, they would not die.
The deception was that the serpent made Eve think that he was talking about eating of the tree, and not just touching.
It was a lie of omission, the serpent made, where ehe omitted the part about only not dying if they touched the tree/its fruit.
He exposed God's lie for what it was.
God did not lie.
Again stop making excuses for God.
Stop calling God a liar.
He lied, plain and simple.
No, He didn't.
You HAVE to deal with that. Stop ignoring it, stop brushing it under the carpet. Exercise critical thinking.
Right back at you.
People are forced to do such things
False.
God basically created a Roman gladiatorial arena on a planetary scale and lobbed humanity into it and has been watching the carnage ever since.
Wrong.
Again not a very nice thing to do, certainly not a benevolent action.
Not what God did.
Everything in this universe has always been here in one form or another.
False.
Birthing is merely just another transfer of the energies that are already here in the universe and have always been here. YOU are as old as the universe itself for every atom and particle in your body has been in existence from the very start. It's the law of conservation of energy. So birthing and dying are in fact misnomers. You're just talking about forms.
New-age nonsense.
Everything is a giant Lego set. You can build a castle with it or you can build a horse. You can tear down that creation any time and reassemble the bricks into something else. Do there is no death really. There is only the "death" of a given form. YOU CAN NOT DIE. Thinking you can is the greatest lie ever told by wicked religious nutjobs who delight in enslaving hearts and minds of weak-minded people. Death is not to be feared. It is merely transformation.
You sound an awful lot like the one who deceived Eve in the Garden, saying "You shall not surely die..."
Get thee hence, Satan.
No, it's not all allegorical.
Sometimes in the Bible Jesus himself is the allegory.
Indeed. Yet that doesn't mean that Jesus Himself was allegorical.
Or are you one of those weirdos who claims that Jesus didn't actually exist?
You have to have the "eyes to see and ears to hear" that he spoke of. Otherwise you will interpet the text incorrectly.
"Listen to the truth that I've discovered that no one else has!"
So cliche...
This is a very standard defacto Christian adage that I learned as a child. When indoctrinated it seems to make much sense.
It's called Pascal's Wager.
Look it up.
Unfortunately it is horribly wrong. You have lots to lose.
If God is real, then not doing what He says will result in eternal damnation.
If God is not real, ignoring for a moment the fact that nothing should exist if that were true, then there is certainly no afterlife, and thus, no reason not to just live as one pleases, with no fear of any lasting consequences, becasue what will you care, you'll be dead and gone.
Reason being that indoctrination prevents you from critical thinking which in turn prevents you from searching for answers in certain directions and places.
Have you ever considered the possibility that you've been indoctrinated against God?
So you're wandering blissfully along believeing an absolute pile of codswallop which you think will prevent your "death" and your disastrous accompanying theory is that even if that's wrong you will have lived a good life, enjoyed contenedness and been good to people around you. The truth is you're decaying, ageing and heading for "death". The only way to prevent that is . . .
To repent and ask God, who is life, to give you a new life.
He won't do it unless you ask Him to.
John 6:53-58:"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."
Jesus spoke the truth.
Unless you partake of Him, you will perish
"The gate is narrow and few there are that find it. "
Indeed, and you seem very, VERY lost.
How could that statement ever gel with the concept of salvation for all human beings on Earth? That's a nonsense.
Just because God provides salvation for all humans on earth, doesn't mean all humans want to be saved.
That's the "finding" bit.
You have EVERYTHING TO LOSE by shutting down your innate critical thinking and human brain and shackling it with religious nonsense peddled by a corrupt Church.
Says the one preaching nonsense.
NOT the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
If you think the tree represented smething else then you are treating it as allegorical not literal. Make your mind up. Was the story literal or allegorical?
The tree of life was a literal tree in the garden.
The next time it is seen in scripture is in Revelation.
Utter cobblers. The tree represented the "knowledge of good and evil" which was the same knowledge that God had.
Supra.
No they just had an innate thirst for knowledge which all humans have BY DESIGN.
No one says otherwise.
But the fact remains, God, the Creator, said "do not eat of the Tree." Adam disobeyed, and therefore brought sin into the world, and death through sin.
God lied to them saying that they would die teh same day if they ate from the tree.
God did not lie to them.
God did not say "they would die the same day."
God said "in the day you eat of it, dying you shall die."
Meaning, their death would be an ongoing process, until they died physically, "in the day they ate of the Tree."
"In the day" does not mean "ON the day."
"Day" here is figurative. The context determines the meaning of the word, and in this context, it means "an age." When it is used figuratively, as is the case here, it is "a space of time defined by an associated term," and in this case, "that you eat."
Thus: [in the day] [that you eat] [of it] [dying] [you shall die]
"Dying you shall die" happens in the future age, not a specific day, and not only on that day, where Adam has eaten of the tree, whenever that occurs.
Adam and Eve are still alive?
The fact is they DID die, in more ways than one, though not at the same time.
Of what it means to disobey God.
I.E., that rebelling against God results in death.
That's it. God wasn't pleased about that and punished them for wanting more knowledge, for daring to want to learn more.
No. God punished man for disobeying Him, when He said "do not eat of the Tree."
God is not mocked.
There it is, black and white. God's lie.
God did not lie.
In the day that Adam ate of the tree, he died.
You might at best consider it a white lie, a type of coercion to prevent them eating from the tree, but it was a lie nonetheless.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
You're in denial which is the right response for an indoctrinated person. The serpent told the exact truth. The serpent said "you will not die" and "you will gain knowledge". Both statements were totally true. God's statement was a falsehood.
Supra.
We are merely a form and we've been millions of other forms before being a human form. There is no death. It's impossible. There is only loss of form.
More new-age nonsense
Tell me, with all your faults, weaknesses and vulnerabilities do you really think the human form is the pinnacle of existence? Or do you think there might be better form designs out there?
Pinnacle of existence? No.
Pinnacle of creation? Yes. God gave man dominion over the earth.
I welcome all your opinions. It's a slow process and a difficult one to shed conditioned psychological traits. I've been there, done it, escaped. You can too. If not, your form is going to perish.
Most of your posts are you arguing with faulty theology, rather than what the Bible actually says.
