MaxInDHouse:

It's because you allow what's happening around you to determine your feelings, wise people live as if there's no tomorrow but once you're eyeing big big things when all you can get it garri and ẹpa, that's when you become weighed down. Take life as it comes and you'll always feel good about yourself.
That's what wise people do!

First

Nobody allows what cannot be prevented

I am not eyeing what you call big big things


You don't know how I feel concerning myself or how I see myself


Off course


I have taken life as it comes by stating it is absurd since it appears as something absurd



But your belief in Jehovah doesn't help matters when you address me

HellVictorinho:

First
Nobody allows what cannot be prevented
I am not eyeing what you call big big things
You don't know how I feel concerning myself or how I see myself
Off course
I have taken life as it comes by stating it is absurd since it appears as something absurd
But your belief in Jehovah doesn't help matters when you address me

You're deceiving yourself!
If you take life as it comes you will know that anything either good or bad can happen to anybody so why crying as if you're the only one in the system?
My belief in my own God only works for those who are looking for how they can contribute to the success we envisage.
So i'm not addressing you rather it's you that's quoting me as if everyone should become homeless like you.
Please stop quoting me if you don't appreciate yourself!

MaxInDHouse:

You're deceiving yourself!
If you take life as it comes you will know that anything either good or bad can happen to anybody so why crying as if you're the only one in the system?
My belief in my own God only works for those who are looking for how they can contribute to the success we envisage.
So i'm not addressing you rather it's you that's quoting me as if everyone should become homeless like you.
Please stop quoting me if you don't appreciate yourself!

You are not capable of determining whether I appreciate myself or not!!!!


You have stated from the beginning that you can never be of any help to anyone except a member of your family like your children or siblings or parents!!!!!




Who says I am the only one in this goddamn arena called Earth??




I don't have to be the only one in order to seek/deserve help!!!!!




Indeed
You claim to envisage Bla Bla Bla but the world remains in shambles!!!!!

HellVictorinho:

You are wrong!


Feelings are never chosen

So, your woeful feelings were not chosen by you?

Are you that pitifully powerless and helpless then that your feelings are not under your control?

HellVictorinho:


You are not capable of determining whether I appreciate myself or not!!!!

A lot of people have shown the capability of being able to determine you don't appreciate yourself, or others for that matter.

You've told us numerous times yourself how meaningless your existence is, which is not what a person who appreciates themselves would ever say.

budaatum:


So, your woeful feelings were not chosen by you?

Are you that pitifully powerless and helpless then that your feelings are not under your control?

No mood is chosen by anyone



You can only choose how to demonstrate or show or express it

Two people can be happy but that doesn't mean they will be doing the same thing

budaatum:


A lot of people have shown the capability of being able to determine you don't appreciate yourself, or others for that matter.

You've told us numerous times yourself how meaningless your existence is, which is not what a person who appreciates themselves would ever say.

Lies

budaatum:


A lot of people have shown the capability of being able to determine you don't appreciate yourself, or others for that matter.

You've told us numerous times yourself how meaningless your existence is, which is not what a person who appreciates themselves would ever say.

Lies

HellVictorinho:


No mood is chosen by anyone.

You should learn to speak for yourself. I choose to be happy despite all your attempts to negatively affect my mood.

budaatum:


You should learn to speak for yourself. I choose to be happy despite all your attempts to negatively affect my mood.

You are just pleased with the situation between us



You didn't choose to be that


But you think it's a choice because something in your leads to such claim


You didn't choose to have such a thing in your head

budaatum:


You should learn to speak for yourself. I choose to be happy despite all your attempts to negatively affect my mood.

Even if you claim to know it's a choice

It's still as a result of movements in your head that you never chose

HellVictorinho:

You are just pleased with the situation between us.

I didn't know there was a situation between us. As far as I'm concerned you are very insignificant.

HellVictorinho:


Even if you claim to know it's a choice

It's still as a result of movements in your head that you never chose

You must think buda is irresponsible like you who has no control over your own existence. I'm sure you've seen buda begging for daily bread like you do.

budaatum:


Your posts are not seeking solutions to your problems, Hell. They are in fact posts where you ignore your problems and blame buda and everyone else instead as if it is buda who introduced our mother to the person that lied to her when she was a teenager and gave her belle for seven of us children to pop out amidst poverty etc!

You must do the work to lift yourself from the curse of Hell and not just succumb to burning in hell!

budaatum:


I didn't know there was a situation between us. As far as I'm concerned you are very insignificant.

You don't have to see me as significant in order for a situation to exist


The situation is an exposure


Your expression of the effect of the exposure doesn't change what I have said about you


Both of us have derogatory views towards each other


Yours is 'Hell is insignificant'

Mine is 'Budaatum is one of the most insincere and deceptive hypocrites on Earth'



I actually like the situation between us




The worst you can do is kill me or say what will lead someone or some people to kill me or condemn me



But I don't even want you to change anymore


Let it be known that we did all we could to ensure people don't respect us

HellVictorinho:


Let it be known that we did all we could to ensure people don't respect us.

So you admit you are responsible for the feelings of disrespect people have about you?

Progress!

budaatum:


You must think buda is irresponsible like you who has no control over your own existence. I'm sure you've seen buda begging for daily bread like you do.

You are just twisting , diverting and turning my statements upside down




That is all you can do

So that people will condemn me




That's what shows the situation between us


An exposure of two fighters to each other



Where's your gun?



Perhaps, you have thugs in your cliq


R i.p to your essence


Killing me won't uplift your conscience


Listen to Pac and feed me back but don't expect me to say what's wack

Furrrk what you think of B.I.G and every other rapper to ever exist!

You praise people with money no matter
how they make it yet speak of love with hypocrisy


How's that funny?


I will rather be a baboon instead of your brother since you're worse than a mutherfucker in Osama

I will rather shake Hushpuppi's hands than eat at your table

You are filled with pride

Mocking people in vain


Take your speech to your grave in the absence of a gain



You will still die a shameless noisemaker on Nairaland who celebrates the disorder in the world


No matter what remains

I mean what you have heard

budaatum:


So you admit you are responsible for the feelings of disrespect people have about you?

Progress!

You refuse to be responsible so you twist my statements



You are the reason why people may not respect me

budaatum:


So you admit you are responsible for the feelings of disrespect people have about you?

Progress!

You want people to disrespect me


I want people to disrespect you


That's the point


So far
Some bastards have been brainwashed by you towards disrespecting me


But your lies don't make you special

Hell, you don't need me wanting anything about you. You doing a swell job all by yourself.

HellVictorinho:



You want people to disrespect me


I want people to disrespect you


That's the point


So far
Some bastards have been brainwashed by you towards disrespecting me


But your lies don't make you special

budaatum:

And, first, I'd like to point out to you that we are exchanging understanding. I'm not one to be told what to think since I have a mind of my own and know how to use it.

We all miss things, so pointing out something someone might have missed is not trying to tell them what to think. Rather it's just showing them a piece of information they might not have taken into consideration while parsing the issue.

Now, if I tell you to "multiply, fill the earth and so on", I feel certain you'd see it as an instruction.

This statement already shows that you are already reading something foreign into the text. It really doesn't matter what I, as a 21st century person thinks the statement ought to mean, what matters is what the original Author of the text intended it to mean.

As I implied in my previous replies, whenever we try to impose our own lens onto the text, we inevitable read something foreign into it.
So except you can show using the text that the verb "barak - to bless" can have a lexical range that includes "instruction" and could be what the original author intended and how the first audience would have understood it, what you or I believe it should mean is really not that relevant.

Just to buttress the point a little, I think it's worth remembering that all literature is written against the backdrop of the culture in which it is written. This is very important, because to read any text with a different cultural context is to most likely read something into it that was not intended by the author. To illustrate this:Let's say I write something to you and say "Mehn, that flew by me". You automatically get what I mean cos we share the same cultural river. But someone living in the year 2500 CE can easily read our Nairaland chat of today and misunderstand that statement to mean we were talking about actual flying cars, because he/she is swimming in a different cultural river.
Another example would be, when during the blm protest, Trump said "When the looting start, the shooting starts". Everyone was up in arms screaming racism. I didn't get what was racist about the statement until I did a bit more digging because I swim in a different cultural river from the black Americans living in the state.

That's one of the reasons translating from one language to another is hard. Because you're not just translating words, you are also translating cultures.

Anyway that's a long winded way of saying, what you and I think a statement is saying doesn't really matter that much. What matters is what the author intended and how the original audience would have understood it.

Evidence also suggests that if you obey the instruction to "multiply, fill the earth and so on" you will be blessed and if you don't you won't be blessed.

Could you show where such a condition was set?

Unfortunately the be "blessed" is placed first so that connection is missed. America, China, Europe, for example, "multiply, fill the earth and so on" and are blessed, financially at least. Nigeria does not "multiply, fill the earth and so on" enough, so is not blessed. You might note this from all the wailing on Nairaland or check the average lifespan of the countries mentioned and compare it to Nigeria's.

Can you substantiate this using the text of the bible or the cultural context from the around the time period or cultural river?

Many would agree with you, but Adam was clearly naked and kept ignorant and was working for slave wages of food and board.

Why do you think being naked is a bad thing? Just being curious.

What would constitute a slave's wage of food for an ancient Jewish reader?

And if you could indulge my question, pls how do you think an Israelite would have understood the garden of Eden?

Neither he nor Eve were "multiply, fill the earth and so on" while they were tending the Garden of Eden.

Before knowing if they were indeed partakers of the blessing of " multiply,fill the earth and so on", we would first have to understand what it means. Because so far, it seems you have a different view of what this blessing entails.

'Bend the earthly resources to your use and need', which can only be done after acquiring knowledge about the earth. Those who do not eat fruits of knowledge can not "subdue the earth" nor can they "rule over it".

So how were they able to tend the garden and take care of the animals within it, if they had no knowledge had not yet acquired this knowledge you mentioned?

Different people at different times have understood the entire book differently, even amongst the Jews different understandings existed, but the first few chapters of Genesis in particular are of significant importance, most especially the story of the Garden of Eden, since it is the key to the entire Book.

Some have used the ideas in the text to enslave others. The Catholic Church, for instance, kept the Bible in a language the people could not read, which allowed the Church to (enslave, exploit), dictate to people. The slave owners in America followed it literally in keeping their slaves ignorant so they could easily be controlled. The makers of our own Nigerian almanjeris use the same principle to enslave almanjeris by insisting the Quran remain in a language its readers can not understand, and our education system follows suite though not intentionally. We are taught to work in the Garden of Eden instead of to "multiply, fill the earth and so on". It's why we are so unblessed (poor).

Jesus, on the other hand went about opening people's eyes and fed them fruits of knowledge, for only those who eat that fruit can possibly "multiply, fill the earth and so on", while those who don't eat the fruits of knowledge would be enslaved to those who do. He said, "don't you know you are gods", which is what you'd be if you realise you are created in God's image to "multiply, fill the earth and so on" instead of being put to work in the tiny Garden of Eden.

I specifically mentioned the Jews and Jesus for a reason. The context of the Bible is not determined by the Catholic church, Luther and the reformation, 21st century christians or 19th century slave owners.
The cultural context of the Bible is determined by the cultural river in which it was written in. And also since the entire bible points to Jesus, He's interpretation of what is written carries presidence over any of our ideas.

So if I may ask again, How do you think an ancient Jew of let's say Moses's time would have understood "to subdue the earth and to rule over it meant?
And how do you think Jesus in particular understood these texts?

In your previous you said "Many people have been studying(not just reading) these texts as far back as the second temple period(That's still thousands of years, granting the most liberal dating). And they have come out with an harmony across the text".

From the above I am assuming you are implying that one should therefore accept what they say instead of using your own God given heart and soul and mind and being, which I think would contradict the instruction Christ gave to ask and knock and seek for yourself, and would put to question the need for him to have sent you the Holy Spirit to minister to you since you can simply accept what you are told by the "Many people have been studying" for "thousands of years".

You assumed wrong sir/ma'am.
You told the other poster that there was a contradiction between genesis 1 & 2 and only by turning off one's brain and mind can one simply believe contradictions.

My statement was whether you really believe all the people spanning thousands of years spread across the globe who have dedicated their lives in studying this text and don't see a contradiction were simply turning off their brains and minds.

I made no assertion of whether they were right or wrong. It was simply a question of, do you really think these people including the gospel writers simple turned off their brains or do you think they were reading the text differently from how you were reading it and rather than finding a contradiction, they found a tension and harmony?
It was never a assertion of whether anyone was right or wrong.

I'll use an example to illustrate. Within the last few decades, there's been a growing number of Jesus mythicists amongst the general public. Even though almost no real historian save for Richard Carrier believes this to be true, there's a still a substantial amount of everyday people who believe Jesus is a mythical figure.
So I looked into their claims to know if there was any merit to it. I didnt just assume that they all didn't know what they were saying or they had no basis for believing what they believe.

Everyone has a basis for why they believe what they believe? That's never the question in my own understanding. The real question is, do their rationals have enough explanatory power to be the best possible explanation out of all the others.

Do note that Jesus spent a considerably amount of time being challenged by "Many people have been studying" for "thousands of years", and warned that they give stones instead of bread, hence, woe to them. He himself was crucified for using his own God given heart and soul and mind and being instead of accepting what he was told by the "Many people have been studying" for "thousands of years".

Okay so, Jesus's main opponents were the Pharisees. This group only emerged sometime during the intertestamental period(sometime during the 160s bce) , so that's not thousands of years.
Jesus' main challenge was against the oral tradition (the unwritten Torah).
Basically this were set of laws that were believed to have been given to Moses but we're not written down. This laws sort to regulate the Jewish people above and beyond what the Torah itself allowed.

Interestingly when challenged, Jesus usually pointed back to the first 2chapters of the Bible to counter them with " In the beginning" or pointed back to the Hebrew bible with statements like " isn't it written".

And that is exactly what I'm asking you to do. I'm asking you if you can substantiate your claims with the text itself. If what you are saying can be sustained by the bible itself without reading your own perspectives(as much as possible), I'm really willing to engage. There's always room for seeing something new.

I'm off to sleep. Will read your response when I wake up. And thanks tons for your patience and time.

No problems sir/ma'am. Mondays can be hectic sometimes. Hope your Monday was good

budaatum:
Hell, you don't need me wanting anything about you. You doing a swell job all by yourself.

Denying it is not disproving it

jamesid29:

As I implied in my previous replies, whenever we try to impose our own lens onto the text, we inevitable read something foreign into it.

Foreign, is what you call it. You will need to find it in you to forgive me for insisting on using my own brain and mind. It's what Jesus did and why he was crucified. People tend to want others to accept what they are told instead of recognising others have a brain of their own. Its probably why some are called sheep.

HellVictorinho:


Denying it is not disproving it

I agree. Insisting as you do is not proving it neither.

Read jamesid29's post below. You'd love the bit where he implies one must not use one's own mind to understand what one reads.

Jamesid29, I forgot to ask. Did Adam and Eve surely die on the day that they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

I ask because that's what is taught.

budaatum:


Foreign, is what you call it. You will need to find it in you to forgive me for insisting on using my own brain and mind. It's what Jesus did and why he was crucified. People tend to want others to accept what they are told instead of recognising others have a brain of their own. Its probably why some are called sheep.

If this is what you got from everything I wrote, I'm afraid you misunderstood most of what I said

budaatum:


I agree. Insisting as you do is not proving it neither.

Read jamesid29's post below. You'd love the bit where he implies one must not use one's own mind to understand what one reads.

Spits on your mind.......

jamesid29:

If this is what you got from everything I wrote, I'm afraid you misunderstood most of what I said

You seem to not be able to accept that I can read a text and have an understanding of my own. Its why you insist my understanding is foreign, while failing to recognise Jesus' understanding too was foreign to the people of his time hence their reason for arguing with him so much.

You also asked me to "show using the text that the verb ""barak - to bless" can have a lexical range that includes "instruction"", which is not what I said, since the instruction is what I said would bring about the blessing. Or do you want me to spend my time showing you that those who get off their ass and obey the instruction to "multiply and rule" and so on would be blessed when you yourself ought to know that is the case? Did you not spend your day multiplying and ruling so you would be blessed, James? Would you be blessed if you had sat on your ass all day?

I've said my bit. If it does not suit you, I'm good with that. One thing I'm certain of is you'd know much less about what we are discussing if you had not consumed the fruits of knowledge that you have consumed. And last time I checked, it was the lack of knowledge which is ignorance that kills, and not knowledge.

Do let me know if you believe or think Adam and Eve surely died on the day that they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It is what "Many people have been studying(not just reading) these texts as far back as the second temple period(That's still thousands of years, granting the most liberal dating)" have taught despite the text clearly stating otherwise.

jamesid29:

We all miss things, so pointing out something someone might have missed is not trying to tell them what to think. Rather it's just showing them a piece of information they might not have taken into consideration while parsing the issue.

The above, by the way, is why I have given your post short shrift. Rather than engage with what I've written, you've assumed I missed something, then you go on to tell me what I should believe. It's the same thing that was done to Adam in the Garden of Eden and why he stupidly daily went past the tree of the fruit of the tree knowledge of good and evil without plucking to eat to test if it is true or not that he would surely die on the day he ate it or not.

Its also why I've asked if he died on the day he ate the fruit or not. It would show if you are brave enough to accept what you see with your own eyes or accept what "Many people have been studying(not just reading) these texts as far back as the second temple period" tell you to believe despite what you can clearly read for yourself.

budaatum:


The above, by the way, is why I have given your post short shrift. Rather than engage with what I've written, you've assumed I missed something, then you go on to tell me what I should believe. It's the same thing that was done to Adam in the Garden of Eden and why he stupidly daily went past the tree of the fruit of the tree knowledge of good and evil without plucking to eat to test if it is true or not that he would surely die on the day he ate it or not.

Its also why I've asked if he died on the day he ate the fruit or not. It would show if you are brave enough to accept what you see with your own eyes or accept what "Many people have been studying(not just reading) these texts as far back as the second temple period" tell you to believe despite what you can clearly read for yourself.

LoL, you seem to be so hung up on your own personal interpretation of what I wrote about " Many people have been studying the text", rather than admit it wasn't I meant and you assumed wrongly. I'm guessing it's alot easier to hang into your assumption because it fit a certain narrative you much prefer.

It seems to me, it's the same approach you take with interpreting the bible also.

Anyway it's all good. I was actually writing up my take on Adam and Eve and the death sentence before seeing all your multiple post hammering on an assumption that I've stated was wrong without even trying to engage with any off the real ideas I raised.
I'm kind of guessing it's not going to be worth going through with it but I might as well just right something even though I assume you would rather not engage with it.

Surprising though.

jamesid29:

LoL, you seem to be so hung up on your own personal interpretation of what I wrote about " Many people have been studying the text", rather than admit it wasn't I meant and you assumed wrongly. I'm guessing it's alot easier to hang into your assumption because it fit a certain narrative you much prefer.

I guess you've missed my point all along. Pay attention.

My first post, which I reposted in response to you specifically stated, "I'll only be able to respond from what I read". Does that not show you that I, buda, am very very extremely hung on my own personal understanding of the text in question? You, however, miss that point then ask me about what "Many people have been studying(not just reading) these texts as far back as the second temple period(That's still thousands of years, granting the most liberal dating)"!

In Genesis 1, God, I read, created (hu)makind and told them to multiply and rule over the earth and the sea. In Genesis 2 Adam and Eve are created and told to work in a Garden. Is the Garden of Eden the earth and the sea that humankind in Genesis 1 is told to rule over? Can humans rule over the earth and the sea if they do not eat the fruits of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

You then wish to argue if "rule and multiply" is an instruction, and if those who obey it would be blessed while those who don't would not be blessed! Would you prosper if you don't obey the instruction to rule and multiply or don't you just consider the food you ate today to be the blessing due the fact that you multiplied and ruled?

Yes, I prefer my understanding to that of "Many people have been studying(not just reading) these texts as far back as the second temple period(That's still thousands of years, granting the most liberal dating)". As you'd gather from my first post in this thread if you understood it, I'd rather be knowledge and wisdom seeking Eve than ignorant naked enslaved Adam. But most of all I'd rather be rule and multiply humankind than Adam or Eve, and you sir are equally free to choose which you wish to be regardless of my "narrative", for it would be hypocritical and contradictory of me to say you must abandon your narrative and accept mine.

Do note that you do not need to tell me if Adam and Eve surely died on the day that they ate if you do not want to. I'm really interested to know though if you accept what "Many people have been studying(not just reading) these texts as far back as the second temple period(That's still thousands of years, granting the most liberal dating)" or if you can accept what you can see with your own two eyes, for that is what our discussion here boils down to.

budaatum:


I guess you've missed my point all along. Pay attention.

My first post, which I reposted in response to you specifically stated, "I'll only be able to respond from what I read". Does that not show you that I, buda, am very very extremely hung on my own personal understanding of the text in question? You, however, miss that point then ask me about what "Many people have been studying(not just reading) these texts as far back as the second temple period(That's still thousands of years, granting the most liberal dating)"!

In Genesis 1, God, I read, created (hu)makind and told them to multiply and rule over the earth and the sea. In Genesis 2 Adam and Eve are created and told to work in a Garden. Is the Garden of Eden the earth and the sea that humankind in Genesis 1 is told to rule over? Can humans rule over the earth and the sea if they do not eat the fruits of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

You then wish to argue if "rule and multiply" is an instruction, and if those who obey it would be blessed while those who don't would not be blessed! Would you prosper if you don't obey the instruction to rule and multiply or don't you just consider the food you ate today to be the blessing due the fact that you multiplied and ruled?

Yes, I prefer my understanding to that of "Many people have been studying(not just reading) these texts as far back as the second temple period(That's still thousands of years, granting the most liberal dating)". As you'd gather from my first post in this thread if you understood it, I'd rather be knowledge and wisdom seeking Eve than ignorant naked enslaved Adam. But most of all I'd rather be rule and multiply humankind than Adam or Eve, and you sir are equally free to choose which you wish to be regardless of my "narrative", for it would be hypocritical and contradictory of me to say you must abandon your narrative and accept mine.

Do note that you do not need to tell me if Adam and Eve surely died on the day that they ate if you do not want to. I'm really interested to know though if you accept what "Many people have been studying(not just reading) these texts as far back as the second temple period(That's still thousands of years, granting the most liberal dating)" or if you can accept what you can see with your own two eyes, for that is what our discussion here boils down to.

LoL, ok sir/ma'am.

budaatum:
Jamesid29, I forgot to ask. Did Adam and Eve surely die on the day that they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

I ask because that's what is taught.

Ha, the good ol kinda gotcha question

I think the first thing I'll like to say is, taught by whom?

Anyway to get to what I think you're asking. Did Adam & Eve die that day or did the author just kinda make a mistake and nobody thought to take that out throughout the history of the transmission of the text?

So kinda of a long explanation for a relatively short answer but I'll try to keep it as brief as possible.

For starters we will need to understand what death meant to an ancient person and what Eden would have meant to ancient Jew.

I'll start with the second question first.
Eden to ancient Jew is where Heaven and Earth meets. This was God's central base;His abode with humans;the place where humanity gets to be with the Divine. The interlocking of God's space and man's space
This is one of the reasons the author takes time to present Eden as this lush garden with precious stones, rivers and all that. You see this motif picked up by later biblical author like Isaiah, Ezekiel and so on who call Eden the garden of God. Eden was the God's Earthly temple where he dwelt with Man.(Gen 3:8, Gen 2)
This fits with the cultural river of the ANE and other cultures of the time. The Abode of the gods was this lush paradise of which people who lived most of their lives with not much could only dream about ; surely the gods lived in all luxury.
What was different about the Jewish understanding though was that unlike their neighbors who thought the gods live in this lush paradise but created humanity as slaves to take up the task the gods didn't want to do, Isreal's conception of God was that He created this lush paradise for man to inhabit with him and enjoy all it's goodness, including the tree of life.
The garden was The temple where man was to enjoy a personal relationship with God and to multiply and extend this garden to the whole earth; the nexus point. We see the Eden motif play a huge role in Revelation as the place where we are all going back to when we chose life.
The bible can thought of as the Epic of Eden(From Eden back to Eden)

Only one thing was excluded from man though; The responsibility to determine good and evil on their own terms.

Another thing to point out is; Man was not created immortal. There won't have been a need to have a tree of life in the garden. So man's eternal life was not a given, but was dependent on something.

So we need to jump forward to see how other biblical authors understood the concept of life and life everlasting....
It turns out Jesus and the New testament authors have a lot to say about life and about life everlasting.
Jesus spoke alot about life. How do you think he understood it and he's role in it?
It also turns out the the new testament authors also had a lot to say about death and the death which came to all men through the sin of Adam..
And apparently, It also turns out that Jesus and the NT authors did distinguish between one type of death from another. And we as Christians are told not to fear one type of death but we should avoid not being part of the other one at all cost.
What do you think they meant by all these?

And least I forget, the new testament also potrays Jesus as the New Adam. The one who got it right. The first Adam brought death onto all men while the second Adam brought life. What ideas do you think the NT was riffing off?

Let's jump a bit back to the old testament authors.
The Hebrew bible doesn't say alot about life everlasting except in a few places, but like their neighbors, the Isrealites also didn't think people just ceased to exist after bodily death. They had a concept of a holding ground ("Sheol". But all through the Hebrew bible, whenever the authors talked about Sheol, it was spoken about as a place you really don't want to be.
Why do you think that is?

So if we answer these questions using the cultural lens of the bible as much as possible, what do you think would have been telegraphed to the mind of an Ancient Isrealite when in Genesis 3 the schisms happened between God's space and man's space?
How do you think they would have understood the event of Man being removed from the Garden?

Also if you read closely, the text of Genesis does seem to imply that, even though they were out of the garden, they did still stay within it's vicinity for a while. We can imply this by looking at the story of Cain and Abel where God told Cain that sin was crouching at the door(Gen 4:7 and there's a lexical link with the "desire" as with Gen 3:16). The question is, the door of where. It can imply the door spoken here is the Garden's own( since this is the only place in the story so far that has a barrier of keeping things out). If this is correct (a big If), were they making the offering at the entrance of the garden? Where they hoping to get back in the garden? Afteral that's the story arc of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation; From the the garden, back to the garden.... Just a food for thought though.
The main question is, why is getting back to the garden so important that it's one of the main story arc of the Bible?



Just as an aside: You referenced Gen 5 and the genealogy written in it.
For starters it's worth pointing out that deep bible history(pre flood history and Babel stories i.e genesis 1- 11) share a lot of common motifs with the culture around them.
This is to be expected, as this history is meant to potray humanity in general and not just Isreal's history.
Even though it shares some common themes with it's neighbors, it also shares some very stark differences that would have stood out to an ancient person swimming in that same cultural river.

One of those common but contrasting themes is in Genesis 5.
Gen 5 share similarities with the Sumerian king list(pre flood and post flood kings some who ruled for long periods of time some into the thousand of years). There's some very striking similarities between the two list, i.e the long life span of the pre flood kings, the 8 number of preflood kings(this matches with the genealogy of gen 5 if you drop Adam and Noah. The kinglist does not include the the first man and the hero of the flood), the 7th king who share similarities with the the 7patriach of the biblical genealogy ( Enoch) and so on. Essentially things that may imply both list where talking about the same people.
But just as there are similarities, there are also some striking difference. But the one I would like to point out is the " All the days of so& so was x years and he died".
This is striking because the Sumerian list omits the death part. This would have stood out to an ancient person who was familiar with the both list.
The bible is first and foremost a theological book and everything the authors wrote has a theological angle to it.
So for us who are outside the cultural river of the biblical authors, we see the genealogy and the emphasis on the "he died" and we just quickly skip through it as boring. But for an ancient Isrealite who just read the first four chapters of Genesis and his familiar with other list where the pre flood patriarchs lived long life without the mention of death, what do you think the emphasis on " And he died" by the biblical author would have telegraphed?

So do you think the two deaths mentioned by Jesus and the NT authors were captured in the first couple of pages of Genesis or you think the author made a mistake?

Anyway,Kind of a long explanation to a short answer but that's just the nature of reading the bible in my opinion. It's always way more interesting than we tend to see at first glance.

Based on your previous replies, I really doubt you would take a step back to reason with the ideas I wrote but it's all good.
I'd already started putting a few things down so I might as well just post this. Would have loved to expanciate on a few points but hopefully this writeup would suffice as summary of my views on it.

Anyway, have a goodnight and don't mind my typos. Kinda been a long day