(April 25, 2012 at 12:29 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 24, 2012 at 9:42 pm)Drich Wrote: So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died...
In the English it seems that Adam's total existence was 930 years. But when we look at the Hebrew the word that is translated "lived" is:Chaya it means:1) to live, have life, remain alive, sustain life etc... (In short imortal life)...When they were exiled they were given "Chay" which means a Mortal life, of plants, of animals, dependent on water.

There is no prefix or suffix for the primary root Het-Yod-He, transliterated as 'chayah', that distinguishes between mortal and immortal life.

how about this: Man made in the image of God is not created with eternal life, but finds it after eating from the tree of life. and after eating from the tree of knoweledge his eternal life is taken from him.


Gen 2
8 The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four riverheads. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good. Bdellium and the onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which goes around the whole land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Hiddekel;[b] it is the one which goes toward the east of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.

15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

(April 25, 2012 at 12:51 am)Drich Wrote:

(April 25, 2012 at 12:29 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 24, 2012 at 9:42 pm)Drich Wrote: So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died...
In the English it seems that Adam's total existence was 930 years. But when we look at the Hebrew the word that is translated "lived" is:Chaya it means:1) to live, have life, remain alive, sustain life etc... (In short imortal life)...When they were exiled they were given "Chay" which means a Mortal life, of plants, of animals, dependent on water.

There is no prefix or suffix for the primary root Het-Yod-He, transliterated as 'chayah', that distinguishes between mortal and immortal life.

All definitions are provided by: Strong's blue letter bible, lexicon and concordance. If you believe you have a leg up on this reference material then please feel free to contact the editor responsible.

I'll get back to what you originally wrote soon, but on Strongs... What version are you using? I've always got the impression that Strongs is a bit dated unless you're using modern updated versions.

This thread simply shows that there has never been a theist who thinks that his/her particular brand of bullshit is bullshit.

(April 25, 2012 at 12:56 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote:

(April 25, 2012 at 12:51 am)Drich Wrote:

(April 25, 2012 at 12:29 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 24, 2012 at 9:42 pm)Drich Wrote: So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died...
In the English it seems that Adam's total existence was 930 years. But when we look at the Hebrew the word that is translated "lived" is:Chaya it means:1) to live, have life, remain alive, sustain life etc... (In short imortal life)...When they were exiled they were given "Chay" which means a Mortal life, of plants, of animals, dependent on water.

There is no prefix or suffix for the primary root Het-Yod-He, transliterated as 'chayah', that distinguishes between mortal and immortal life.

All definitions are provided by: Strong's blue letter bible, lexicon and concordance. If you believe you have a leg up on this reference material then please feel free to contact the editor responsible.

I'll get back to what you originally wrote soon, but on Strongs... What version are you using? I've always got the impression that Strongs is a bit dated unless you're using modern updated versions.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/

---

(April 25, 2012 at 1:49 am)Minimalist Wrote: This thread simply shows that there has never been a theist who thinks that his/her particular brand of bullshit is bullshit.

That is why I started my thread on denominations. There I admit that none of us are completely right in what we believe.

(April 24, 2012 at 9:42 pm)Drich Wrote: So to recap:
God created Man and woman and placed them in the garden. They could have been there a day before eating the forbidden fruit or they could have been there the 900 million bazillion years the scientist believe it took to evolve. Why? because there is no recorded time time between: "In the beginning" and the fall of man. Only speculation because we can count the generations back 6000 or so years.

When in fact all we can really say is that man has been out of the Garden 6000 or so years. We know the Garden was a sanctuary, and that God kept Man created in His image there for an undisclosed amount of time. This does not means the rest of the world did not have to evolve as the undeniable fossil record proves.

Something very important to note this is NOT "Gap theory" or Creation theory as made popular in the 17 century. Even though the empty term Gap Creation theory can apply, as far as I know this is something very new.

(This is creation gap theory:What is the "Gap Theory?" • ChristianAnswers.Net
In short between genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there is a whole nother version of creation story. The problem here is there is added or filler material between the two accounts. )

Why is it important to distance this theory from Gap creation theory?? Because it combines the unmolested Genesis account AS RECORDED IN THE BIBLE, with the evolutionary data we have discovered and can not other wise reconcile. Without Adding anything to scripture or taking anything away. This also explains several other creation "paradoxes" that atheist tend to use to disprove the genesis account.

I have only taken the face value account of Genesis and lined the holes up with the holes in the evolutionary account of origins and they fit together perfectly.

This is a very blatant attempt at shoehorning genesis in to evolution. how did man both evolve and get created at the same time?

Genesis is just a story, not even original, it was plagiarized from the Sumerians.

(April 25, 2012 at 8:21 am)infamouscheater Wrote: This is a very blatant attempt at shoehorning genesis in to evolution. how did man both evolve and get created at the same time?

Genesis is just a story, not even original, it was plagiarized from the Sumerians.

If you reread the first 1/2 of my orginal post you will find your answers.

Surely you mean that he'll find your answers. Your answers have been consistently unsatisfying.

(April 24, 2012 at 9:42 pm)Drich Wrote: All definitions are provided by: Strong's blue letter bible, lexicon and concordance. If you believe you have a leg up on this reference material then please feel free to contact the editor responsible...IWhat version are you using? I've always got the impression that Strongs is a bit dated unless you're using modern updated versions.

Sources:
Zondervan NASB Exhaustive Concordance 1981
"The Vocabulary Guide to Biblical Hebrew" by Van Pelt and Pratico
Lightcatcher Interlinear Genesis

I can't show the pointing but the 5 most common foms of 'chayah' are as follows:

Het-Yod-He = to live (Q); to live intensely (Pi), caused to live (Hi)
Het-Yod = living (adj) living
Het-Yod-Yod-Mem = lifetime
Het-Yod-He (fs constr) = animal, beast
Het-Yod-Hee (3ms suff) = life

So god noticed the evolution of man and plucked him from the earth and said you look like me and deserve a soul?

(April 25, 2012 at 12:51 am)Drich Wrote: how about this: Man made in the image of God is not created with eternal life, but finds it after eating from the tree of life and after eating from the tree of knowledge his eternal life is taken from him.

The text does not exclude this interpretation. I don’t see it as very compelling, though. Most likely because I’m an adoptionist and the original sin/penal substitution dynamic is not a part of my theology. So it’s not important to me whether its literal or not.
It seems to me that your approach supports the doctrine or penal substitution, but I am curious how a literal interpretation informs your life. I understand the Reformed position that because of sin, people die, and need to appease the wrath of the Father. That means the message of the Adam and Eve story is not to disobey God, which seems pretty basic and not very helpful.
In an allegorical interpretation I see that when we look to our own sense perceptions for spiritual knowledge (symbolized by the tree) and confirm (eating to make part of self) the resulting thoughts into our behavior (the fruit) then we are led astray. That seems to be a much richer and useful message.