God the original liar?

[MMS]

lol im flattered you actually listened to it. i was just messing with ya

if you can point me to some good scripture i'd appreciate it. i promise i am open minded! i want to know god, but theres so many damn hustlers out there you gotta be careful.

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 19 - King James Version

And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your...

www.biblegateway.com

What you mean to type is: I want to walk with God.

Spoiler

Genesis 4:26

26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.

The amazing name Enosh: meaning and etymology

An indepth look at the meaning and etymology of the awesome name Enosh. We'll discuss the original Hebrew, plus the words and names Enosh is related to, plus the occurences of this name in the Bible.

www.abarim-publications.com

 

[MMS]

I don't think you need anyone or anything to have a greater connection to the creator/spirit/soul..."God" however is a specific energy tied to a specific culture and religion

@MMS Do you ever take days off

The hidden message of Aladdin



The first thief is the real one

Allah Is The Most Patient | About Islam

Allah is Patient and Wise. I made a Du’a to know the truth – but it was three years before I picked up the Quran to read it. If I had read it three years...

aboutislam.net

 

[LeaveMyHairLineAlone]

is this the same guy who killed every firstborn child in egypt, but tells women they can't get an abortion

God the OG incel

 

[boogers]

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 19 - King James Version

And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your...

www.biblegateway.com

What you mean to type is: I want to walk with God.

Spoiler

Genesis 4:26

26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.

The amazing name Enosh: meaning and etymology

An indepth look at the meaning and etymology of the awesome name Enosh. We'll discuss the original Hebrew, plus the words and names Enosh is related to, plus the occurences of this name in the Bible.

www.abarim-publications.com

okay that trailer was WILD lol

ill pass on the nu-metal song lol. but if you would like to link me your favorite bits of scripture i'll delve into it. i've been thinking about reading the bible again. i dont really have anything memorized, but its a great read

 

[newworldafro]

you worship ogun...that weak ass nikka couldn't even keep the white man from enslaving and subjugating his ancient adherents even wit home court advantage...and y'all quick to call on his "strength" to handle white folks in modern times... ...fukk out my mentions, goofy....

Deity Wars

 

[Ohene]

good on you wanting to learn Scripture, breh, but don't let your excitement lead you to errant discernment and incomplete conclusions...

when reading Scripture it's important to do a word search on every word so we get the complete context of the original language...

the Hebrew root word for "die" is מות (mûṯ; pronounced mooth), which means "to die, to kill, to be dead", but we have to look at the form of the word that is used and compare it to where the word is used in the same form elsewhere in scripture to understand the context....

the form of the word die used here is מ֥וֹת, and when we look at other instances of this form used in scripture we can see what context it's used in...

we can see that "die" in this context is used 31 total times throughout Scripture, but it doesn't mean too drop dead on the spot...it's prescriptively used to "assign" the judgement of death...and that's exactly what we see...

in the moment Adam & Eve ate the fruit, they subjected themselves to the judgement of death and disqualified themselves from eternal life...YAH never forbade them to eat from the tree of life, which would have granted them immortality, but their folly resulted in their loss of access to the tree of life, and the garden of eden as a whole, and their eventual physical death...

good rebuttal

 

[MMS]

okay that trailer was WILD lol

ill pass on the nu-metal song lol. but if you would like to link me your favorite bits of scripture i'll delve into it. i've been thinking about reading the bible again. i dont really have anything memorized, but its a great read

So to understand why I posted that with the story of Lot (followed by the statement of "I want to walk with God")

is that the "men of Sodom and Gomorrah" wanted to know men and women alike. But in the ancient sense to know something was to understand it from beginning to end perhaps literally and allegorically

To me it is better to not know everything, it is better to believe in monotheism and to trust in the one who formed you before your mother and father did.

@Koichos Is this a proper analogy of this?

Bet (letter) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Genesis Rabbah points out that the letter is closed on three sides and open on one; this is indicate that one can investigate what happened after creation, but not what happened before it, or what is above the heavens or below the earth.

https://www.thecoli.com/threads/when-g-d-touches-you-it-hurts.1041456/#post-53173216

 

[Ohene]

The argument about the root word mûṯ being used elsewhere in Scripture is fine in theory, but it doesn’t really address the issue here. Sure, מות can mean different things depending on the context, but in Genesis 2:17, the phrase “mot tamut” is paired with “on the day” (beyom) tying the consequence to a specific time frame. This isn’t just a vague warning of eventual mortality...it’s a direct statement about what will happen on that day. Pointing to other uses of the root word elsewhere doesn’t override the immediate context here, which clearly links death on the day of eating the fruit. If God meant to say, “You’ll eventually die,” or “You’ll be judged and lose access to eternal life,” why didn’t He just say that? Instead, the warning is clear: “On the day you eat from it, you will certainly die.” This isn’t about understanding the root word in general, it’s about what this specific passage says.

Later theological ideas like “judgment of death” are attempts to patch up what’s written to fit a broader doctrine. But if we’re sticking to what’s explicitly in the text, the serpent’s words align with the outcome far better than God’s warning does. Here’s my issue: what authority do they have to redefine what God clearly said? Adding extra interpretations undermines the clarity of the original statement. The serpent’s words, “You will not certainly die,” actually align with what happens—they didn’t die that day, their eyes were opened, and they gained knowledge. Meanwhile, God’s warning doesn’t match the immediate outcome. If we’re supposed to take God’s word seriously, why are we adding all these extra layers to it? Just let the text speak for itself... that's how I feel.

I appreciate the thoughtful response.

good response

 

[JoelB]

good on you wanting to learn Scripture, breh, but don't let your excitement lead you to errant discernment and incomplete conclusions...

when reading Scripture it's important to do a word search on every word so we get the complete context of the original language...

the Hebrew root word for "die" is מות (mûṯ; pronounced mooth), which means "to die, to kill, to be dead", but we have to look at the form of the word that is used and compare it to where the word is used in the same form elsewhere in scripture to understand the context....

the form of the word die used here is מ֥וֹת, and when we look at other instances of this form used in scripture we can see what context it's used in...

we can see that "die" in this context is used 31 total times throughout Scripture, but it doesn't mean too drop dead on the spot...it's prescriptively used to "assign" the judgement of death...and that's exactly what we see...

in the moment Adam & Eve ate the fruit, they subjected themselves to the judgement of death and disqualified themselves from eternal life...YAH never forbade them to eat from the tree of life, which would have granted them immortality, but their folly resulted in their loss of access to the tree of life, and the garden of eden as a whole, and their eventual physical death...

the LOGOS software finally made it to thecoli

Everyone should have an account...they give a free eBook + audiobook monthly.

 

[The Realist Perspective]

Not only is מוֺתֿ תָּמוּתֿ purely idiomatic, but the surrounding text is set in poetic language rather than plain prose and the reason translations appear so clumsy.


Death was not an immediate result in either narrative because that is not what the verb pair conveys.


The explanation I gave is pure p'sha6 (the straightforward meaning of the text).


Your translation is 100% literal, but also 100% wrong. And the consequences were immediate because all בְּיוֺם indicates is that their subjectivity begins then.


It is not ‘my’ take; it is the Hebrew understanding of the text.


Only if you rely on translations and ignore what the original text says.

You’re saying “mot tamut” is purely idiomatic and doesn’t mean immediate death but where’s the proof? If this is based on a “Hebrew understanding,” then show me the evidence, any type of ancient Jewish sources, writings from Moses’ time, Midrash, Talmud, something concrete that backs up this claim. Otherwise, it’s just interpretation. Without legit writings to explain this phrasing as “a walking death” or “subjectivity beginning,” you’re just building on the text, not pulling from it.


You also say my plain reading is “100% literal and 100% wrong,” but what makes your interpretation definitive? The text literally pairs beyom (“on the day”) with mot tamut (“dying you will die”), and that’s clear. If this doesn’t mean what it plainly says, immediacy of death, then again, prove it. If God meant something symbolic, gradual, or about a shift in subjectivity, God would have explicitly phrased it that way, as he had in many other parts of the bible. Adding all these extra layers is no more than reading something into the text that simply isn’t there.

I’m engaging with the Hebrew directly. But if you’re going to argue against the plain reading, you need to bring evidence. Show me the sources. Otherwise, you're just making guesses about what it could mean rather than sticking to what the text actually says, which is supposed to be the word of God Himself.

 

[Taadow]

Now looking at this, who was actually telling the truth? God or the serpent? Clearly the serpent, because

1. "...on the day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
2. "You will not certainly die."

Both of these are the truth of what happened.

Nope.

1. Their eyes were opened, and they did gain a bit of knowledge - but they did not become knowledgeable to the point
of equality to The Most High. The Deceiver (as the Originator of lying) knows the best way to lie is the mix it with some truth.


2. They certainly did die on that day. They were in what Genesis calls the "7th (creative) day" - and we still are now.

As some have already pointed out - The Creative "Days" of Genesis are not 24-hour periods; They are Eras.
Just as we speak of time idiomatically today. For example - Your Grandparents tell you how things were different in their "day",
and you know they don't mean a 24-hour period.

So one may say "this earth has been around for a lot longer than recorded history", yep.
That does not conflict with the Biblical record.














Bonus: To your point: since we are not given exact durations in this account, we do not know exactly how much time elapsed
during the time between Eve consuming the fruit and Adam consuming it. Part of the reason that Adam may have eaten it is
Eve ate and told him that she didn't die (yet) because she had that same thought process as OP.



Bonus 2: ...what we DO however learn (if we dwell on it) was that there was a(n again undefined) period of time where
Eve had more "advanced knowledge" than Adam. Knowing what we do about women and men today, how do you (this is for anybody here)
think that may have affected things between Adam and Eve during that time?

 

[Koichos]

You’re saying “mot tamut” is purely idiomatic and doesn’t mean immediate death but where’s the proof? If this is based on a “Hebrew understanding,” then show me the evidence, any type of ancient Jewish sources, writings from Moses’ time, Midrash, Talmud, something concrete that backs up this claim. Otherwise, it’s just interpretation. Without legit writings to explain this phrasing as “a walking death” or “subjectivity beginning,” you’re just building on the text, not pulling from it.

See the Ramba"n’s second note on B'reshyt 2:17 (...ד"ה בעת שתאכל ממנו).

You also say my plain reading is “100% literal and 100% wrong,” but what makes your interpretation definitive? The text literally pairs beyom (“on the day”) with mot tamut (“dying you will die”), and that’s clear. If this doesn’t mean what it plainly says, immediacy of death, then again, prove it. If God meant something symbolic, gradual, or about a shift in subjectivity, God would have explicitly phrased it that way, as he had in many other parts of the bible. Adding all these extra layers is no more than reading something into the text that simply isn’t there.

I’m engaging with the Hebrew directly. But if you’re going to argue against the plain reading, you need to bring evidence. Show me the sources. Otherwise, you're just making guesses about what it could mean rather than sticking to what the text actually says, which is supposed to be the word of God Himself.

pit´οm attah m'dabbér et ‘hasafah hab'rurah’ - taggid li: éfοh lamăd'ta?

 

[MMS]

You’re saying “mot tamut” is purely idiomatic and doesn’t mean immediate death but where’s the proof? If this is based on a “Hebrew understanding,” then show me the evidence, any type of ancient Jewish sources, writings from Moses’ time, Midrash, Talmud, something concrete that backs up this claim. Otherwise, it’s just interpretation. Without legit writings to explain this phrasing as “a walking death” or “subjectivity beginning,” you’re just building on the text, not pulling from it.


You also say my plain reading is “100% literal and 100% wrong,” but what makes your interpretation definitive? The text literally pairs beyom (“on the day”) with mot tamut (“dying you will die”), and that’s clear. If this doesn’t mean what it plainly says, immediacy of death, then again, prove it. If God meant something symbolic, gradual, or about a shift in subjectivity, God would have explicitly phrased it that way, as he had in many other parts of the bible. Adding all these extra layers is no more than reading something into the text that simply isn’t there.

I’m engaging with the Hebrew directly. But if you’re going to argue against the plain reading, you need to bring evidence. Show me the sources. Otherwise, you're just making guesses about what it could mean rather than sticking to what the text actually says, which is supposed to be the word of God Himself.

in Egypt Mwt or Mot corresponds with the word Mother and Tamwt or Tamot would mean "Great Mother" or Great Death

to them a mother was both a tomb/death and the one who births them.

so interestingly the term Elohim is described as the "feminine plural" form of El.

So if you read between the lines you have to go to Exodus 1 to understand what this could mean

Exodus 1:15-22

15 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:

16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.

17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.

18 And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?

19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.

20 Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.

21 And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.

22 And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.

midwives are often considered inbetween mothers to children for women who cannot nurse...but also were associated with feminine surgeries...

So the hebrews building houses for the midwives could be interpreted as building something for the midwives that makes them like a seed (preserving them) as otherwise the only being who would preserve them is the Pharaoh who does not know Joseph. That also means that Pi-ramesses and Pithom could be the houses being referred (House of Ramesses and House of Atum). So it would read as "mother of Ramesses" and "Mother of Atum"

Iusaaset - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Spoiler

but then again perhaps there is another alternative interpretation

Surah Yusuf - 1-111 - Quran.com

Read and listen to Surah Yusuf. The Surah was revealed in Mecca, ordered 12 in the Quran. The Surah title means "Joseph" in English and consists of 11...

quran.com

 

[Koichos]

Genesis 4:26

26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.

That is a reference to the beginnings of idolatry! Shortly after Enοsh’s birth it became common to call idols by God’s shem ham'fοrash (His ‘Explicit Name’):

וּלְשֵׁ֤תֿ גַּם־הוּא֙ יֻלַּדֿ־בֵּ֔ן וַיִּקְרָ֥א אֶתֿ־שְׁמ֖וֹ אֱנ֑וֹשׁ אָ֣ז הוּחַ֔ל לִקְרֹ֖א בְּשֵׁ֥ם יְיָֽ׃​

And a son was also born to Shet - to him, too - and he named him Enοsh; then, calling on Adοnai’s Name became desecrated [i.e., ‘it was at that time that Man began calling idols by the Explicit Name’]. (B'reshyt 4:26)

As Rash"i notes there, the verb הוּחַל huhal is connected with ‘desecrating’ (חֻלִּין hullin):

.אָז הוּחַל: לְשׁוֹן חֻלִּין—לִקְְרֹא אֶת שְׁמוֹת הָאָדָם וְאֶת שְׁמוֹת הָעֲצַבִּים בִּשְׁמוֹ שֶׁלְּ־הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לַעֲשׂוֹתָן עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְלִקְרוֹתָן אֱלָֹֹהוּת​

‘Then it became desecrated [to call by Adοnai’s Name]’: the word הוּחַל huhal is connected with desecration—it means that then (after the birth of Enοsh) they had begun to name people and idols using the Name of the Holy One - oh, how blessed He is! making them objects of idolatrous worship and calling them ‘gods’.

so interestingly the term Elohim is described as the "feminine plural" form of El.

אֵל el is the singular form of אֵלִים elim (masc. pl.)
אֱלוֹהַּ elō'aH is the singular form of אֱלֹהִים elοhim (masc. pl.)

Masculine plural ending: ־ִים -im
Feminine plural ending: ־וֺת -οt

אֱלֹהִים elοhim is plural in form (־ִים) even though it is usually singular in meaning (with over 1,100 instances governing an explicitly singular verb-inflection).

This is similar to the case of the phrase וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים vayyōmer elοhim ('and Gοd said') in B'reshyt 1:3, in which a Hebrew speaker can tell at once that אֱלֹהִים is a singular noun because the verb וַיֹּאמֶר vayyōmer is a singular form and cannot be used with a plural subject. (The plural form would have to be וַיֹּאמְרוּ vayyōm'ru.)