petra1:
It doesn't matter. Its the meaning of the phrase that count

It mattered to you enough to what to make a case with both words, try to hard to make phrase count and mean what your preconceived idea was with them

MuttleyLaff:
Bros, paste in here an image or picture of the star of David on the Israeli flag please nah and let's peer review it together.
I am 10001% sure you didnt closely follow the thread of the post before jumping in feet first to comment about the star

The ancient nation of Israel under the guidance of Moses , the Judges and the Prophets after him (Moses), have no business with the so called 'Star of David'.
Bros, Nothing Scriptural about it.

IMHO, the Star of David is a symbol of the zionist movement.

At least Satan is using Santa and it's festival to console them!

Janosky:

Yes my Brother,Max !


All the 3 pagan spirits worshippers and triune deities devotees can NEVER have a clear cut , definite understanding of Genesis chapter 3..

They are as confused as the triune demonic spirits confusing them.

Will God's holy spirit give contrary & diverse understanding to Paul , Jesus Christ, Peter and John ?

Janosky:
The ancient nation of Israel under the guidance of Moses , the Judges and the Prophets after him (Moses), have no business with the so called 'Star of David'.
Bros, Nothing Scriptural about it.

IMHO, the Star of David is a symbol of the zionist movement.

Why not say this to sonmvayina then? Why me?

Kobojunkiee:
You have to toss that spiritual bullsheet language in the trash where it belongs in order to make sense of this here.

In the passage below, God makes clear His intentions for dealing out additional punishments after the fall of man.


Separation from God that happened to Adam and Eve as a result of their unbelief, was not a spiritual separation but a physical one that took place when God Himself barred them from coming back into the garden of Eden. How that implies "spiritual death", you would need to explain with references.

Man was driven out of the garden of Eden for a reason.... as given us above.
So what you are saying is that Adam did not walk with God by faith while he was with God in the garden of Eden, but somehow Abel and Seth figured out, all on their own, how to walk with God by faith out in the world?

Let's assume for a second that your definition of "spiritual death" is to hold, then how come God is recorded to have spoken to Abel and Cain while they were out in the world, this after the fall of man? Was God not aware of the separation that needed to exist between God and man, which you claim a result of the fall?


God was clear on His reason for imposing suffering on man after the fall - there was no mention of "spiritual" disconnection between God and man at that point - God's judgment/message seemed to have been received on the other end by man.

On Sin controlling humans, Well, I mention again Abel and Seth, who obviously seemed to be first-generation exceptions to your story there. Sin definitely took hold but the examples of such men as Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah, showed that not all offsprings of Adam were controlled by sin in the end, does it not? They were slaves to sin by birth but not all of them controlled by sin.
In terms of Judgement, what happened in Genesis 3 was the Judgement of God, was it not? God judged Adam and all those who would choose sin after Him at that point. And His judgement stands forever, does it not? The same condemnation of sin, which is death is what lives on even to this day, for all those who are born of Adam that refuse to believe in God -- the wages of sin is death.

As for your claim of eternal damnation, well, that is refuted in Genesis 3 where you are told that Adam did not eat of the tree of eternal life. Since Adam did not indeed have eternal life(eternity), there was no way for him to spend eternity in damnation. Instead, Adam perished in that day(He died less than 1000 years later) as God decreed that He would in Genesis 2 vs 17 and Genesis 3 vs 19 - God did not lie.

The bolded is Scriptural truth.
Christendom ignorantly believe that Adam will suffer in hellfire .

MuttleyLaff:
It mattered to you enough to what to make a case with both words, try to hard to make phrase count and mean what your preconceived idea was with them

The bible was clear enough for every one. Youre standing alone on your theory. If not you'll be able to site works of scholars and translations that agree with this idea of yours

petra1:
The bible was clear enough for every one. Youre standing alone on your theory. If not you'll be able to site works of scholars and translations that agree with this idea of yours

You want to pretend that you havent read the pasted in quote writing from answersingenesis.org done by Dr. Terry Mortenson on May 2, 2007; last featured November 24, 2015, hmm?

I quoted an excerpt of Dr Terry Mortenson work and left the website link for if you are interested to read further details on it

It is clear that some here are not really interested in concrete study of scripture but want to superimpose their 'theology' on scripture.

sagenaija:
It is clear that some here are not really interested in concrete study of scripture but want to superimpose their 'theology' on scripture.

It is crystal clear that except it comes from the pulpiss it would not get some, really interested in concrete factual study of scripture, they rather stick with their learned superimposed "theology" on scripture

Na wa o

MuttleyLaff:
Why not say this to sonmvayina then? Why me?

I have answered him before...

sonmvayina:
I have answered him before...

Janosky, do you hear him now. Please refocus and focus properly next time.

MuttleyLaff:
"Sin came into the world through one man, and his sin brought death with it.
As a result, death has spread to the whole human race because everyone has sinned."
- Romans 5:12

"So you see, just as death came into the world through a man,
now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man."
- 1 Corinthians 15:21

Maybe you missed that I crossed out "very suddenly" in your post. You are parking in ordinarily "muth" when the verse focused on "muth muth" Besides, "very suddenly. . ." in that Strong's Concordance excerpt, has a prepended "X" to it. The "X" means, "very suddenly. . ." when used or taken into consideration, multiples the original meaning of the word, it now is trying to associate with.



You need to become familiar with Hebrew infinitive absolute construct

The scripture clearly states that through one man death came into the world. From reading Romans 5:12 & 1 Corinthians 15:21, what death do you think Genesis 2:17 is talking of and that true to form, did so happen to man?

I believe you are conflating two different concepts:
1) An Infinitive absolute verb form paired together with the finite verb of the same root word as a way of expressing the certainty of an action (That is: repeating the same root word twice with one of them being an infinitive absolute inorder to lay emphasis).

2) Infinitive construct used with certain prepositions like "ke(כְּ/as)" to denote the commencement of an action or use the infinitive absolute of the specific root "halowk (הלךְ/going)" to convey a sense of continuance of the action of the main verb.

This two concepts are different and convey different meanings.

Basically when a word is repeated twice with one being in an infinitive absolute verb form and the other,a finite verb form, the infinitive absolute acts as an adverb in expressing intensity, certainty or completeness of the main verb. Hence in most cases, translation would use words like "surely", "definitely", "certainly", "without doubt" etc to try an convey what the text is saying.

E.g .
Gen 37:33 "Joseph has surely(or without doubt) been torn to pieces" ( here we have the word taraph(to tear) repeated twice "taroph toraph". The infinitive absolute verb form followed by the finite verb form to convey the conviction in Jacobs mind that without a doubt, Joseph has been torn to pieces.

Same concept is conveyed in Gen 2:17 the word "die" is repeated twice in the form of "dying" and die "moth tamuth" and is translated as "surely die" to convey the certainty that in the very day they eat of the fruit, they will surely die(not that they would be in a state of dying).

The link you posted from answersingenesis also agrees with petra1 that in that very day, Adam and Eve died( spiritually).


A popular example of the other usage(2) in my write-up is Judges 14:9, where you have the infinitive absolute "halowk(going)" used with the verb "akal(to eat) to express a continuing action of eating.
"He took some of it in his hands and went going and-eating".
Translated as: "He scraped it out into his hands and went on, eating as he went".

jamesid29:
[s]I believe you are conflating two different concepts:
1) An Infinitive absolute verb form paired together with the finite verb of the same root word as a way of expressing the certainty of an action (That is: repeating the same root word twice with one of them being an infinitive absolute inorder to lay emphasis).

2) Infinitive construct used with certain prepositions like "ke(כְּ/as)" to denote the commencement of an action or use the infinitive absolute of the specific root "halowk (הלךְ/going)" to convey a sense of continuance of the action of the main verb.

This two concepts are different and convey different meanings.

Basically when a word is repeated twice with one being in an infinitive absolute verb form and the other,a finite verb form, the infinitive absolute acts as an adverb in expressing intensity, certainty or completeness of the main verb. Hence in most cases, translation would use words like "surely", "definitely", "certainly", "without doubt" etc to try an convey what the text is saying.

E.g .
Gen 37:33 "Joseph has surely(or without doubt) been torn to pieces" ( here we have the word taraph(to tear) repeated twice "taroph toraph". The infinitive absolute verb form followed by the finite verb form to convey the conviction in Jacobs mind that without a doubt, Joseph has been torn to pieces.

Same concept is conveyed in Gen 2:17 the word "die" is repeated twice in the form of "dying" and die "moth tamuth" and is translated as "surely die" to convey the certainty that in the very day they eat of the fruit, they will surely die(not that they would be in a state of dying).

The link you posted from answersingenesis also agrees with petra1 that in that very day, Adam and Eve died( spiritually).

A popular example of the other usage(2) in my write-up is Judges 14:9, where you have the infinitive absolute "halowk(going)" used with the verb "akal(to eat) to express a continuing action of eating.
"He took some of it in his hands and went going and-eating".
Translated as: "He scraped it out into his hands and went on, eating as he went". [/s]

[img]https://media./images/f879ac0258098623c7d587d6cd057b4f/tenor.gif[/img]
Some just have eyes but don't see

When was the intensity, certainty or completeness of the main verb then? Did it end with spiritual death alone, hmm?

Did death stop with spiritual death or physical death, in Adam's case, did some 930 years catching up, in order to make Genesis 2:17's prophecy be fulfilled and complete?

"¹⁶And the LORD God commanded him,
“You may eat freely from every tree of the garden,
¹⁷but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil;
for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die."
- Genesis 2:16-17

"³⁶Then the king sent and called for Shimei, and said to him,
“Build yourself a house in Jerusalem and dwell there, and do not go out from there anywhere.
³⁷For it shall be, on the day you go out and cross the Brook Kidron,
know for certain you shall surely die; your blood shall be on your own head.”
- 1 Kings 2:36-37,

Instead of you unashamedly proof texting with Genesis 37:33, why didnt you attempt making a point with using 1 Kings 2:36-37, lmso?. After all 1 Kings 2:36-37 is a mirror of Genesis 2:17, but of course, you would have dug yourself into a hole if you did because as you ought to know, context is king, lmso. Smh sigh.

answersingenesis.org
by Dr. Terry Mortenson
on May 2, 2007; last featured November 24, 2015

So, from all this we conclude that, the construction “dying you shall die” and beyôm in Genesis 2:17 do not require us, to conclude that God was warning that, “the very day you eat from the tree is the exact same day that you will die physically.”

The Hebrew wording of Genesis 2:17 allows for a time lapse between the instantaneous spiritual death on that sad day of disobedience and the later physical death (which certainly did happen, just as God said, but for Adam it was 930 years later).

As Scripture consistently teaches, both kinds of death (spiritual and physical) are the consequence of Adam’s rebellion.

https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/genesis-2-17-you-shall-surely-die/

MuttleyLaff:
"Sin came into the world through one man, and his sin brought death with it.
As a result, death has spread to the whole human race because everyone has sinned."
- Romans 5:12

"So you see, just as death came into the world through a man,
now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man."
- 1 Corinthians 15:21

Maybe you missed that I crossed out "very suddenly" in your post. You are parking in ordinarily "muth" when the verse focused on "muth muth" Besides, "very suddenly. . ." in that Strong's Concordance excerpt, has a prepended "X" to it. The "X" means, "very suddenly. . ." when used or taken into consideration, multiples the original meaning of the word, it now is trying to associate with.

You need to become familiar with Hebrew infinitive absolute construct

The scripture clearly states that through one man death came into the world. From reading Romans 5:12 & 1 Corinthians 15:21, what death do you think Genesis 2:17 is talking of and that true to form, did so happen to man?

jamesid29:

I believe you are conflating two different concepts:
1) An Infinitive absolute verb form paired together with the finite verb of the same root word as a way of expressing the certainty of an action (That is: repeating the same root word twice with one of them being an infinitive absolute inorder to lay emphasis).

2) Infinitive construct used with certain prepositions like "ke(כְּ/as)" to denote the commencement of an action or use the infinitive absolute of the specific root "halowk (הלךְ/going)" to convey a sense of continuance of the action of the main verb.

This two concepts are different and convey different meanings.

Basically when a word is repeated twice with one being in an infinitive absolute verb form and the other,a finite verb form, the infinitive absolute acts as an adverb in expressing intensity, certainty or completeness of the main verb. Hence in most cases, translation would use words like "surely", "definitely", "certainly", "without doubt" etc to try an convey what the text is saying.

E.g .
Gen 37:33 "Joseph has surely(or without doubt) been torn to pieces" ( here we have the word taraph(to tear) repeated twice "taroph toraph". The infinitive absolute verb form followed by the finite verb form to convey the conviction in Jacobs mind that without a doubt, Joseph has been torn to pieces.

Same concept is conveyed in Gen 2:17 the word "die" is repeated twice in the form of "dying" and die "moth tamuth" and is translated as "surely die" to convey the certainty that in the very day they eat of the fruit, they will surely die(not that they would be in a state of dying).

The link you posted from answersingenesis also agrees with petra1 that in that very day, Adam and Eve died( spiritually).


A popular example of the other usage(2) in my write-up is Judges 14:9, where you have the infinitive absolute "halowk(going)" used with the verb "akal(to eat) to express a continuing action of eating.
"He took some of it in his hands and went going and-eating".
Translated as: "He scraped it out into his hands and went on, eating as he went".

This is beautiful

petra1:
This is beautiful

[img]https://media./images/0faa65b5e8e648d47104de35dc383f2a/tenor.gif[/img]

MuttleyLaff:
[img]https://media./images/f879ac0258098623c7d587d6cd057b4f/tenor.gif[/img]
Some just have eyes but don't see

When was the intensity, certainty or completeness of the main verb then? Did it end with spiritual death alone, hmm?

Did death stop with spiritual death or physical death, in Adam's case, did some 930 years catching up, in order to make Genesis 2:17's prophecy be fulfilled and complete?

"¹⁶And the LORD God commanded him,
“You may eat freely from every tree of the garden,
¹⁷but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil;
for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die."
- Genesis 2:16-17

"³⁶Then the king sent and called for Shimei, and said to him,
“Build yourself a house in Jerusalem and dwell there, and do not go out from there anywhere.
³⁷For it shall be, on the day you go out and cross the Brook Kidron,
know for certain you shall surely die; your blood shall be on your own head.”
- 1 Kings 2:36-37,

Instead of you unashamedly proof texting with Genesis 37:33, why didnt you attempt making a point with using 1 Kings 2:36-37, lmso?. After all 1 Kings 2:36-37 is a mirror of Genesis 2:17, but of course, you would have dug yourself into a hole if you did because as you ought to know, context is king, lmso. Smh sigh.

Probably you didn't get what my post was about.
My post was about how the Hebrew grammar works because you were conflating different concepts,which inevitable skewed your interpretation of the text. I wasn't actually wading much into the theological conversation.

Infinitive absolute is a very flexible non-finite verbal form and it can function as many different things (an adverb, a finite verb, a verbal complement, a noun etc) and all this different forms convey different meanings in the text it is used.
When it is paired with a finite verb of the same root(repetition), it functions as an adverb to lay emphasis on a word or express certainty of verbal action. This is a common usage in the OT and my usage of Gen 37:33 was to show one example of its usage and not to make a theological connection.
As you noted, 1kings 2:37 is another example:
For on the day you go out and cross the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall die. Your blood shall be on your own head.”
Basically during Solomon's consolidation of power, Shimei's life was spared because of the oath David made to him but there was one condition; He is confined to Jerusalem. If he dares go out of Jerusalem and crosses the brook Kidron, without a doubt, he would be killed and his blood would be on his own hands not on Solomon's. That was what eventually happened. He left Jerusalem, he was caught and was executed.
Here again, dying you would die was making emphasis to express the certainty of an action. If he was caught outside of Jerusalem, he would be executed without a doubt.

Another example would be Gen 2:16: "from-every tree-of the garden eating you may eat". Translated as And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden - ESV; Other modern translations use "freely" here for stylistic reasons and the way English works, but the concept and rendering is the same.
There are many more examples of this way of laying emphasis or expressing certainty in the Hebrew Bible.
You can easily


As for the link you posted. I think you should read it fully to understand the point the man was trying to make. He was expressing two connected thoughts..
His first point is that the "dying you shall die" is used to convey the certainty of their death because thats how the
Hebrew construct work. First he posit that the certainty occured as a spiritual death(separation from God) immediately they eat the fruit as petra1 posited and physical death came later as a result of this.
His point was that we shouldn't take " beyôm (in that very day)" to mean a literal 24hrs day because " beyôm (בְּיוֹם)" can mean an extended period of time. he sighted other passages where the phrase "beyôm " didn't mean a 24hr period. So he is using two concepts to make his point.

Like almost all theologians or scholars, he agrees that the certainty of spiritual death happened the day they earth the fruit. He is definitely not arguing that an infinitive absolute verb form functioning as an emphasis means any other thing than laying emphasis.
This is thean extract from the beginning of the article

The phrase “you shall surely die” can be literally translated from the Hebrew biblical text as “dying you shall die.” In the Hebrew phrase we find the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb (you shall die) with the infinitive absolute form of the same verb (dying). This presence of the infinitive absolute intensifies the meaning of the imperfect verb (hence the usual translation of “you shall surely die”). This grammatical construction is quite common in the Old Testament, not just with this verb but others also, and does indicate (or intensify) the certainty of the action. [/b]The scholarly reference work by Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Conner, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), gives many Biblical examples of this,1 and they say that “the precise nuance of intensification [of the verbal meaning] must be discovered from the broader context.”2 [b]Clearly in the context of Genesis 3, Adam and Eve died spiritually instantly—they were separated from God and hid themselves. Their relationship with God was broken.

Then he goes on to argue that physical death came as a result of Adam's sin also but he tries to make the argument that the certainty of the physical death was not time bound and he uses the phrase beyôm to tie it together.
In this part, He is interacting with the Young earth , old earth debate of whether there was already physical death before humanity's sin. If you are an old earth creationist, you have to agree that there was already physical death on earth before Adam's sin but if you are an young earth creationist, physical death on earth was as a result of Adam's sin.
Maybe you should try reading the article fully to try understanding what arguments are really being made.

Personally, I don't really buy his arguments, as I believe other people have been able to tie together this tension of where the origin of physical death starts alot better and that is more faithful to the text.
But like I said, I am not really interacting with the theological conversation but just bringing your attention to your misunderstanding of the Hebrew grammar.

In the Hebrew phrase we find the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb (you shall die) with the infinitive absolute form of the same verb (dying). [b]This presence of the infinitive absolute intensifies the meaning of the imperfect verb (hence the usual translation of “you shall surely die”). This grammatical construction is quite common in the Old Testament, not just with this verb but others also, and does indicate (or intensify) the certainty of the action. --- This is a direct quotation from the link you posted and how the article author himself defines how an infinitive absolute verb form paired with a finite verb form of the same root function.

Again pls read the article in full so you don't misrepresent what the author is conveying.

EFULEFU1:
Genesis 3:4-5,22

[4]Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.
[5]For God knows that in the day you eat of it [b]your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and ev[/b]il.”


[22]Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—


1 Timothy 2:14
[14]And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

As for the serpents major offence, I believe it was inserting himself between God and His creation. The serpent by twisting God's command, inserted Himself as a god unto man, and man without much hesitation, believed the serpent's words over God's.

jamesid29:
Probably you didn't get what my post was about.
My post was about how the Hebrew grammar works because you were conflating different concepts,which inevitable skewed your interpretation of the text. I wasn't actually wading much into the theological conversation.

Infinitive absolute is a very flexible non-finite verbal form and it can function as many different things (an adverb, a finite verb, a verbal complement, a noun etc) and all this different forms convey different meanings in the text it is used.
When it is paired with a finite verb of the same root(repetition), it functions as an adverb to lay emphasis on a word or express certainty of verbal action. This is a common usage in the OT and my usage of Gen 37:33 was to show one example of its usage and not to make a theological connection.
As you noted, 1kings 2:37 is another example:
For on the day you go out and cross the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall die. Your blood shall be on your own head.”
Basically during Solomon's consolidation of power, Shimei's life was spared because of the oath David made to him but there was one condition; He is confined to Jerusalem. If he dares go out of Jerusalem and crosses the brook Kidron, without a doubt, he would be killed and his blood would be on his own hands not on Solomon's. That was what eventually happened. He left Jerusalem, he was caught and was executed.
Here again, dying you would die was making emphasis to express the certainty of an action. If he was caught outside of Jerusalem, he would be executed without a doubt.

Another example would be Gen 2:16: "from-every tree-of the garden eating you may eat". Translated as And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden - ESV; Other modern translations use "freely" here for stylistic reasons and the way English works, but the concept and rendering is the same.
There are many more examples of this way of laying emphasis or expressing certainty in the Hebrew Bible.
You can easily

As for the link you posted. I think you should read it fully to understand the point the man was trying to make. He was expressing two connected thoughts..
His first point is that the "dying you shall die" is used to convey the certainty of their death because thats how the
Hebrew construct work. First he posit that the certainty occured as a spiritual death(separation from God) immediately they eat the fruit as petra1 posited and physical death came later as a result of this.
His point was that we shouldn't take " beyôm (in that very day)" to mean a literal 24hrs day because " beyôm (בְּיוֹם)" can mean an extended period of time. he sighted other passages where the phrase "beyôm " didn't mean a 24hr period. So he is using two concepts to make his point.

Like almost all theologians or scholars, he agrees that the certainty of spiritual death happened the day they earth the fruit. He is definitely not arguing that an infinitive absolute verb form functioning as an emphasis means any other thing than laying emphasis.
This is thean extract from the beginning of the article

The phrase “you shall surely die” can be literally translated from the Hebrew biblical text as “dying you shall die.” In the Hebrew phrase we find the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb (you shall die) with the infinitive absolute form of the same verb (dying). This presence of the infinitive absolute intensifies the meaning of the imperfect verb (hence the usual translation of “you shall surely die”). This grammatical construction is quite common in the Old Testament, not just with this verb but others also, and does indicate (or intensify) the certainty of the action. [/b]The scholarly reference work by Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Conner, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), gives many Biblical examples of this,1 and they say that “the precise nuance of intensification [of the verbal meaning] must be discovered from the broader context.”2 [b]Clearly in the context of Genesis 3, Adam and Eve died spiritually instantly—they were separated from God and hid themselves. Their relationship with God was broken.

Then he goes on to argue that physical death came as a result of Adam's sin also but he tries to make the argument that the certainty of the physical death was not time bound and he uses the phrase beyôm to tie it together.
In this part, He is interacting with the Young earth , old earth debate of whether there was already physical death before humanity's sin. If you are an old earth creationist, you have to agree that there was already physical death on earth before Adam's sin but if you are an young earth creationist, physical death on earth was as a result of Adam's sin.
Maybe you should try reading the article fully to try understanding what arguments are really being made.

Personally, I don't really buy his arguments, as I believe other people have been able to tie together this tension of where the origin of physical death starts alot better and that is more faithful to the text.
But like I said, I am not really interacting with the theological conversation but just bringing your attention to your misunderstanding of the Hebrew grammar.

In the Hebrew phrase we find the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb (you shall die) with the infinitive absolute form of the same verb (dying). [b]This presence of the infinitive absolute intensifies the meaning of the imperfect verb (hence the usual translation of “you shall surely die”). This grammatical construction is quite common in the Old Testament, not just with this verb but others also, and does indicate (or intensify) the certainty of the action. --- This is a direct quotation from the link you posted and how the article author himself defines how an infinitive absolute verb form paired with a finite verb form of the same root function.

Again pls read the article in full so you don't misrepresent what the author is conveying.

"So you see, just as death came into the world through a man,
now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man."
- 1 Corinthians 15:21

I defo did get what your post was about, lmso. KMFT. You need to, in thorough manner slowly re-read Dr. Terry Mortenson's article instead of jumping on thread, feet first and throwing wild crazy punches.

You must be feigning shortsightedness, so that you wouldnt have to acknowledge how Dr. Terry Mortenson brought his article to an end with the below excerpt

"So, from all this we conclude that, the construction “dying you shall die” and beyôm in Genesis 2:17 do not require us, to conclude that God was warning that, “the very day you eat from the tree is the exact same day that you will die physically.” "

Now, Mr-big-plank-of-wood-in-your-own-eyes, please summarily write in one sentence, stretch it, to two, if you want, exactly what Dr. Terry Mortenson, the writer penned on answersingenesis.org, then equally summarise in one sentence capturing all my points, what I posted or what the real points of my POV are.

I dont know what came over you, that gave you the impression I didnt from start to end read Dr. Terry Mortenson's article before making my comment. I didnt conflate anything except for what in your imagination you were spoiling to pick bones with, lmso.

"You need to become familiar with Hebrew infinitive absolute construct" is what I typed. There is no plural there because all I was doing was advising Petra1 to become familiar with "Hebrew infinitive absolute" grammar. That's all. Now how you managed to split this up into "conflating different concepts" is pitiably laughable.

Seeing that you tried commenting on Genesis 2:16-17 and 1 Kings 2:36-37 why dont you tell:
1/ What kind of death did A&E die in Genesis 2:16-17 and what kind of death, referencing 1 Kings 2:36-37, did Shimei die off?.
2/ What kind of death did Shimei die of, for leaving Jerusalem, huh? Did Shimei die a spiritual death?
3/ If Petra1 says Genesis 2:16-17 denotes a spiritual death because of the "You will not surely die." phrase why because of 1 Kings 2:36-37, isnt spiritual death too applicable to Shimei then. Smh sigh.

MuttleyLaff:
"So you see, just as death came into the world through a man,
now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man."
- 1 Corinthians 15:21

I defo did get what your post was about, lmso. KMFT. You need to, in thorough manner slowly re-read Dr. Terry Mortenson's article instead of jumping on thread, feet first and throwing wild crazy punches.

You must be feigning shortsightedness, so that you wouldnt have to acknowledge how Dr. Terry Mortenson brought his article to an end with the below excerpt

"So, from all this we conclude that, the construction “dying you shall die” and beyôm in Genesis 2:17 do not require us, to conclude that God was warning that, “the very day you eat from the tree is the exact same day that you will die physically.” "

Like I said earlier, the article you are pointing to doesn't agree with your understanding of infinitive absolute when used as an adverb to make emphasis(repetition of words twice).
Here are the statements I'm interacting with:

MuttleyLaff:
Yes, in the original text, when God said, "thou shall surely die", the remark has the meaning translated as, you will die a slow death, you definitely will begin the process of deterioration.

MuttleyLaff:

The Hebrew words "muth, muth", used in Genesis 2:17 above, often as equally seen above, is usually translated as "surely die" or literally, as "you will certainly die" when actually, in a Hebraic manner of speaking, it correctly, indicates the sense and understanding of beginning of dying.

"Muth, muth," in fact, conveys a meaning of and gives, an awareness of entered death (i.e. have a sense of gradual or slow death starting), hence why and how, it is, we die by the second, we are in fact, slowly dying.

MuttleyLaff:

The Hebrew words "muth, muth", used in Genesis 2:17 above, when translated from meaning "to die", says "for in the day that you eat of it, you will begin to die" and that is exactly what happened, in that A&E surely did begin to die.

There's nothing in the verse nor chapter that put forward a consideration of spiritual death.

All this are incorrect statements because that is not what the Hebrew grammar is conveying and that's definitely not what the article you are linking to is saying.
Like I said in my previous post, I am not interacting with your theological conversation. If you don't agree with the fact that they died spiritually that day, that's fine; You just have to come up with the type of death that happened that day(cos obviously they didn't drop dead physically). Or you can alternatively try to exegete that "beyôm" doesn't necessarily mean " in that day" literally and that it could be taken as anyday in the future in which God decides. That's another way of going about it(And that's the way your article went, even though I do not find his arguments convincing as there were a few unexplained positions taken e.g;He takes "beyôm" literally for the spiritual death but not literally for the physical death, but does not give any real reason why the switch up.... But again that's a different conversation & not the one we are having).

What you cannot do though is use the Hebrew grammar in the text to say they entered into a "state of dying", or a state of slow/gradual death, or that it means they will die a slow death(begin the process of deterioration).
That's not what "muth tamuth" means and that's not how infinitive absolutes in that form functions boss.
"Muth tamuth" just means,the certainty of their death is assured but as I pointed out above, you can play around with the "in that day(beyôm)" part and make the claim that it's not meant to be taking literally and God even though He has already decreed the certainty of their death, would in his sovereignty decide which day He would take their life.
But as I also said earlier though, personally I don't buy that line of argument and I believe there are better arguments that are more faithful to the text and explain better how physical death entered into the world. But in all fairness,its also not a bad argument.

MuttleyLaff:
"You need to become familiar with Hebrew infinitive absolute construct" is what I typed. There is no plural there because all I was doing was advising Petra1 to become familiar with "Hebrew infinitive absolute" grammar. That's all. Now how you managed to split this up into "conflating different concepts" is pitiably laughable.

And that's what I was bringing to your attention. Not that you were totally wrong with your understanding but that You were conflating the different functions of infinitive absolute. A) Infinitive Absolute used to express certainty of a verbal action ,when paired with a finite verb of the same root(i.e same word repetition but one functioning as an adverb as a way of laying emphasis on the certainty of an action/word)
B) Infinitive absolute used to express progression or continuance of verbal action, when used with the specific root "halowk (הלךְ/going)".

MuttleyLaff:

Seeing that you tried commenting on Genesis 2:16-17 and 1 Kings 2:36-37 why dont you tell:
1/ What kind of death did A&E die in Genesis 2:16-17 and what kind of death, referencing 1 Kings 2:36-37, did Shimei die off?.
2/ What kind of death did Shimei die of, for leaving Jerusalem, huh? Did Shimei die a spiritual death?
3/ If Petra1 says Genesis 2:16-17 denotes a spiritual death because of the "You will not surely die." phrase why because of 1 Kings 2:36-37, isnt spiritual death too applicable to Shimei then. Smh sigh.

I believe you are not still getting my point,but It's fine bro.
I think I also need to work on my art of rhetoric(part of vision 2021 lol).

Happy New year bro. And may we be here again in good health and joyous peace by this time next year.

jamesid29:

Like I said earlier, the article you are pointing to doesn't agree with your understanding of infinitive absolute when used as an adverb to make emphasis(repetition of words twice).
Here are the statements I'm interacting with:





All this are incorrect statements because that is not what the Hebrew grammar is conveying and that's definitely not what the article you are linking to is saying.
Like I said in my previous post, I am not interacting with your theological conversation. If you don't agree with the fact that they died spiritually that day, that's fine; You just have to come up with the type of death that happened that day(cos obviously they didn't drop dead physically). Or you can alternatively try to exegete that "beyôm" doesn't necessarily mean " in that day" literally and that it could be taken as anyday in the future in which God decides. That's another way of going about it(And that's the way your article went, even though I do not find his arguments convincing as there were a few unexplained positions taken e.g;He takes "beyôm" literally for the spiritual death but not literally for the physical death, but does not give any real reason why the switch up.... But again that's a different conversation & not the one we are having).

What you cannot do though is use the Hebrew grammar in the text to say they entered into a "state of dying", or a state of slow/gradual death, or that it means they will die a slow death(begin the process of deterioration).
That's not what "muth tamuth" means and that's not how infinitive absolutes in that form functions boss.
"Muth tamuth" just means,the certainty of their death is assured but as I pointed out above, you can play around with the "in that day(beyôm)" part and make the claim that it's not meant to be taking literally and God even though He has already decreed the certainty of their death, would in his sovereignty decide which day He would take their life.
But as I also said earlier though, personally I don't buy that line of argument and I believe there are better arguments that are more faithful to the text and explain better how physical death entered into the world. But in all fairness,its also not a bad argument.


And that's what I was bringing to your attention. Not that you were totally wrong with your understanding but that You were conflating the different functions of infinitive absolute. A) Infinitive Absolute used to express certainty of a verbal action ,when paired with a finite verb of the same root(i.e same word repetition but one functioning as an adverb as a way of laying emphasis on the certainty of an action/word)
B) Infinitive absolute used to express progression or continuance of verbal action, when used with the specific root "halowk (הלךְ/going)".


I believe you are not still getting my point,but It's fine bro.
I think I also need to work on my art of rhetoric(part of vision 2021 lol).

Happy New year bro. And may we be here again in good health and joyous peace by this time next year.

This is excellent

MuttleyLaff:

---

---

---

"¹⁶And the LORD God commanded him,
“You may eat freely from every tree of the garden,
¹⁷but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil;
for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die."
- Genesis 2:16-17

@petra1, @livingchrist and particularly @EFULEFU1

You should be familiar of this ''You surely will not die!'' ''grain/straw and stick'' or '''chicken/fish and bone'' Genesis 3:4 message to Eve:
Is the Genesis 3:4 message, an absolute truth or a pseudo truth statement?

Since after the fall from grace to grass, and from that moment on, we are born, our mortality (i.e. the state of being subject to death) clock, starts to tick down.

The Hebrew words "muth, muth", used in Genesis 2:17 above, often as equally seen above, is usually translated as "surely die" or literally, as "you will certainly die" when actually, in a Hebraic manner of speaking, it correctly, indicates the sense and understanding of beginning of dying.

"Muth, muth," in fact, conveys a meaning of and gives, an awareness of entered death (i.e. have a sense of gradual or slow death starting), hence why and how, it is, we die by the second, we are in fact, slowly dying. It will interest you to know that, one million cells in your body, die every second. That means in one day, approximately 1.2 kg of cells in your body dies. We surely are dying, unlike not surely die, as what the serpent would want Eve to believe

@EFULEFU1, where lies the serpent's deception in Genesis 3:4-5 &/or 22, is that, the serpent failed to admit that, eating of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, points in the direction of death, (i.e. to die) as that is what "surely die" means.

To die, (i.e. "muth, muth'') is the result, for eating, off the TKGE and so, slowly but surely, Adam and Eve did approach death, unlike the lie fashioned by the crafty serpent and sold to Eve.

@petra1 & @livingchrist, God wasn't explicit, about the kind of death, He was talking off, so petra1 now saying "God was talking about spiritual death" is sheer outright eisegesis with bells on.

Spiritual death, is instantaneous. It occurs immediately, whereas, physical death, though the process has started, it is delayed. It is slow, its dragged out and often is over a long time period, lmso.

Physical death, often continues on, over a long time before eventually one finally once and for all, drops dead or sleep and die, lmso. Adam lived to be 930 years old, before the grim reaper finally caught up and came knocking on his door

---

---

---

jamesid29:
Like I said earlier, the article you are pointing to doesn't agree with your understanding of infinitive absolute when used as an adverb to make emphasis(repetition of words twice).
Here are the statements I'm interacting with:

All this are incorrect statements because that is not what the Hebrew grammar is conveying and that's definitely not what the article you are linking to is saying.
Like I said in my previous post, I am not interacting with your theological conversation. If you don't agree with the fact that they died spiritually that day, that's fine; You just have to come up with the type of death that happened that day(cos obviously they didn't drop dead physically). Or you can alternatively try to exegete that "beyôm" doesn't necessarily mean " in that day" literally and that it could be taken as anyday in the future in which God decides. That's another way of going about it(And that's the way your article went, even though I do not find his arguments convincing as there were a few unexplained positions taken e.g;He takes "beyôm" literally for the spiritual death but not literally for the physical death, but does not give any real reason why the switch up.... But again that's a different conversation & not the one we are having).

What you cannot do though is use the Hebrew grammar in the text to say they entered into a "state of dying", or a state of slow/gradual death, or that it means they will die a slow death(begin the process of deterioration).
That's not what "muth tamuth" means and that's not how infinitive absolutes in that form functions boss.
"Muth tamuth" just means,the certainty of their death is assured but as I pointed out above, you can play around with the "in that day(beyôm)" part and make the claim that it's not meant to be taking literally and God even though He has already decreed the certainty of their death, would in his sovereignty decide which day He would take their life.
But as I also said earlier though, personally I don't buy that line of argument and I believe there are better arguments that are more faithful to the text and explain better how physical death entered into the world. But in all fairness,its also not a bad argument.

And that's what I was bringing to your attention. Not that you were totally wrong with your understanding but that You were conflating the different functions of infinitive absolute. A) Infinitive Absolute used to express certainty of a verbal action ,when paired with a finite verb of the same root(i.e same word repetition but one functioning as an adverb as a way of laying emphasis on the certainty of an action/word)
B) Infinitive absolute used to express progression or continuance of verbal action, when used with the specific root "halowk (הלךְ/going)".

I believe you are not still getting my point,but It's fine bro.
I think I also need to work on my art of rhetoric(part of vision 2021 lol).

Happy New year bro. And may we be here again in good health and joyous peace by this time next year.

Brother I do get your point, but what you dont want to realise is that you are labouring a moot point.

Where did you read or see me, not agreeing to a spiritual death bro, hmm? Did I not type from the onset that, they died a spiritual death with physical death catching up, like 930 years in Adam's case, hmm? Its you reading more into me saying ""You need to become familiar with Hebrew infinitive absolute construct" and revved up to make a meal out of it. You dont know what my understanding of infinitive absolute is because I never gave explanations about it. All I did was give advice to become familiar with it, lmso.

Here, lets cut to the chase. I would love to see your sincere, honest and truthful responses to the below easy peasy lemon squeezy innocent, harmless, straightforward simple three questions:
1/ What kind of death did A&E die in Genesis 2:16-17 and what kind of death, referencing 1 Kings 2:36-37, did Shimei die off?.
2/ What kind of death did Shimei die of, for leaving Jerusalem, huh? Did Shimei die a spiritual death?
3/ If Petra1 says Genesis 2:16-17 denotes a spiritual death because of the "You will not surely die." phrase why because of 1 Kings 2:36-37, isnt spiritual death too applicable to Shimei then.

Happy New year to you bro, your family and all things that's generally yours. May you excel, go above and beyond the limits of your God given grace, power, gift(s), strength and potential(s).

MuttleyLaff:

---

---

---

Brother I do get your point, but what you dont want to realise is that you are labouring a moot point.

Where did you read or see me, not agreeing to a spiritual death bro, hmm? Did I not type from the onset that, they died a spiritual death with physical death catching up, like 930 years in Adam's case, hmm? Its you reading more into me saying ""You need to become familiar with Hebrew infinitive absolute construct" and revved up to make a meal out of it. You dont know what my understanding of infinitive absolute is because I never gave explanations about it. All I did was give advice to become familiar with it, lmso.

You clearly said, "muth tamuth" indicates the sense and understanding of beginning of dying or sense of gradual or slow death starting). That is an incorrect understanding of the hebrew grammar.

Here, lets cut to the chase. I would love to see your sincere, honest and truthful responses to the below easy peasy lemon squeezy innocent, harmless, straightforward simple three questions:
1/ What kind of death did A&E die in Genesis 2:16-17 and what kind of death, referencing 1 Kings 2:36-37, did Shimei die off?.
2/ What kind of death did Shimei die of, for leaving Jerusalem, huh? Did Shimei die a spiritual death?
3/ If Petra1 says Genesis 2:16-17 denotes a spiritual death because of the "You will not surely die." phrase why because of 1 Kings 2:36-37, isnt spiritual death too applicable to Shimei then.

It seems you don't still get the point being made if you're still asking these questions .. But It is well bro.

Happy New year to you bro, your family and all things that's generally yours. May you excel, go above and beyond the limits of your God given grace, power, gift(s), strength and potential(s)

we be here again in good health and joyous peace by this time next year.

Thanks bro..

petra1:


This is excellent

Thank you sir. Happy New year to you boss

jamesid29:
You clearly said, "muth tamuth" indicates the sense and understanding of beginning of dying or sense of gradual or slow death starting). That is an incorrect understanding of the hebrew grammar.

It seems you don't still get the point being made if you're still asking these questions .. But It is well bro.

Brother with all due respect, I make no apology for making that comment. I clearly said what you quoted me saying and even said quite a lot more than that sir.

I clearly see you making your focus on much ado about nothing. My point remains that the Hebrew phrase "muth tamuth" means "to die" where "to" in the "to die" phrase is expressing a direction of death and/or to draw ones last breath (e.g. as like Shimei's case in 1 Kings 2:36-37)

You seem to agree with Petra1 that Genesis 2:17 is emphatically and exclusively speaking of spiritual death and no more death after it. Tut-tut-tut.

1 Kings 2:36-37, to a certain degree, is a mirror image of Genesis 2:17, but notice my context is king cautionary "watch it" plea. Tbh, I think you're better off commenting on "Where Lies The Serpents Deception? Genesis 3" and shedding illuminating light on the question for us all learn from you instead of focusing on my lowly humble submission and saying I have an incorrect understanding of the Hebrew grammar.

jamesid29:
Thanks bro..

I sincerely really did mean it

MuttleyLaff:
Brother with all due respect, I make no apology for making that comment. I clearly said what you quoted me saying and even said quite a lot more than that sir.

It's all good bro

I clearly see you making your focus on much ado about nothing. My point remains that the Hebrew phrase "muth tamuth" means "to die" where "to" in the "to die" phrase is expressing a direction of death and/or to draw ones last breath (e.g. as like Shimei's case in 1 Kings 2:36-37)

You seem to agree with Petra1 that Genesis 2:17 is emphatically and exclusively speaking of spiritual death and no more death after it. Tut-tut-tut.

1 Kings 2:36-37, to a certain degree, is a mirror image of Genesis 2:17, but notice my context is king cautionary "watch it" plea. Tbh, I think you're better off commenting on "Where Lies The Serpents Deception? Genesis 3" and shedding illuminating light on the question for us all learn from you instead of focusing on my lowly humble submission and saying I have an incorrect understanding of the Hebrew grammar.

I sincerely really did mean it

It's all good bro...
Wishing you a wonderful New year also