On the Use of the Exact Form (×ÖĽ×֚ת):
I appreciate your point about using scripture to interpret scripture and focusing on the exact form of the word ×ÖĽ×֚ת (mot) as itâs used elsewhere. However, context is always king, and while the form might align with how itâs used in other passages, this specific verse in Genesis 2:17 is unique because it explicitly ties âmot tamutâ to the phrase âon the dayâ (beyom). The pairing of death with a specific timeframe gives the verse an immediacy that cannot be ignored or redefined by pointing to broader usage in other contexts.
The Definition of Death:
You suggest Iâm imposing a narrow definition of death (as immediate physical death) onto the text. But thatâs exactly what the verse implies. If God intended âdeathâ to mean âinheritance of mortalityâ or âspiritual separation,â why use phrasing that explicitly specifies âon the dayâ? It would have been far clearer to say,
âYou will become mortalâ or
âYou will be judged and lose access to eternal life.â Instead, the text presents a direct cause-and-effect: eat the fruit, and on that very day, you die.
The Logical Argument (How Humanity Would Continue):
Your argument about humanity needing to continue and therefore requiring Adam and Eve to survive assumes a theological framework not stated in the text. If humanityâs survival depended on their continued existence, why give such a definitive and immediate warning in the first place? This line of reasoning doesnât address the contradictionâit sidesteps it with a broader interpretation of Godâs intentions. My point is that we should stick to what the text actually says rather than justifying the outcome with assumptions about what God
must have meant.
Serpentâs Words vs. Godâs Warning:
The serpentâs words in Genesis 3:4,
âYou will not certainly die,â align more closely with the narrative outcome. Adam and Eve do not physically die on the day they eat the fruit. Instead:
- Their eyes are opened.
- They gain knowledge of good and evil.
- They are eventually expelled from the Garden, losing access to the Tree of Life.
Meanwhile, Godâs warning in Genesis 2:17 does not match the immediate outcome. Adding interpretations like âspiritual deathâ or âjudgment of deathâ are attempts to reconcile this, but those interpretations are not explicitly present in the text.
Ultimately:
While I respect your argument about using the form of the word ×ÖĽ×֚ת, my issue isnât with the word itself but with how itâs used in Genesis 2:17 alongside âon the day.â The text, as written, suggests immediacy. If weâre adding extra meanings like âspiritual deathâ or âinheritance of mortality,â weâre doing exactly what you accuse me of: interpreting beyond whatâs explicitly stated. To me, the serpentâs words align better with the outcome of the story, and Godâs warning, as written, remains unfulfilled as it is written. If weâre taking the Bible as Godâs word, we need to let the text speak for itself without adding layers to justify what doesnât match or make sense.
that vid can be found in this thread
