Why do US Christian fundamentalists want a theocracy?

[blü 2]

I answered you, but again I shall rephrase. Did the serpent tell Eve she would die?

The relevant text reads:

Genesis 2
15 [God said] 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 die."
Genesis 3:
1 ... [The snake] said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?"
2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die.
5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."​

Eve and the Snake are plainly talking about the words God spoke, and those include the words I've emphasized above.

Eve ate of the fruit and did not die in the day that she ate of it, just as the Snake said.

I also wonder if you believe the account in Genesis regarding Adam and Eve.

Do I think it's an accurate report of an event in history? No, of course not. The evidence against that is overwhelming.

But the bible is of interest as any ancient text is of interest, and what it says deserves to be understood according to the intention of its authors. Which is why we're having this discussion.

By the way, you didn't tell me ─

whether you agree that since Eve was denied knowledge of good and evil, she was incapable of forming an intention to do evil, hence was incapable of sin, until AFTER she'd eaten the fruit (noting too that sin is never mentioned in the Garden story)

and that this was because of the course of action God had chosen

and whether you think it's a very good thing for mankind that humans can distinguish good and evil

and therefore we ought to celebrate Eve (and, come to think of it,. thank the Snake).

 

[YoursTrue]

The relevant text reads:

Genesis 2
15 [God said] 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 die."
Genesis 3:
1 ... [The snake] said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?"
2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die.
5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."​

Eve and the Snake are plainly talking about the words God spoke, and those include the words I've emphasized above.

Eve ate of the fruit and did not die in the day that she ate of it, just as the Snake said.
Do I think it's an accurate report of an event in history? No, of course not. The evidence against that is overwhelming.

But the bible is of interest as any ancient text is of interest, and what it says deserves to be understood according to the intention of its authors. Which is why we're having this discussion.

By the way, you didn't tell me ─

whether you agree that since Eve was denied knowledge of good and evil, she was incapable of forming an intention to do evil, hence was incapable of sin, until AFTER she'd eaten the fruit (noting too that sin is never mentioned in the Garden story)

and that this was because of the course of action God had chosen

and whether you think it's a very good thing for mankind that humans can distinguish good and evil

and therefore we ought to celebrate Eve (and, come to think of it,. thank the Snake).

The serpent said she would not die. He lied. Since you believe that the serpent, later identified as the Devil, told Eve the truth, perhaps another time you can discuss more about decision-making.

 

[YoursTrue]

The relevant text reads:

Genesis 2
15 [God said] 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 die."
Genesis 3:
1 ... [The snake] said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?"
2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die.
5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."​

Eve and the Snake are plainly talking about the words God spoke, and those include the words I've emphasized above.

Eve ate of the fruit and did not die in the day that she ate of it, just as the Snake said.
Do I think it's an accurate report of an event in history? No, of course not. The evidence against that is overwhelming.

But the bible is of interest as any ancient text is of interest, and what it says deserves to be understood according to the intention of its authors. Which is why we're having this discussion.

By the way, you didn't tell me ─

whether you agree that since Eve was denied knowledge of good and evil, she was incapable of forming an intention to do evil, hence was incapable of sin, until AFTER she'd eaten the fruit (noting too that sin is never mentioned in the Garden story)

and that this was because of the course of action God had chosen

and whether you think it's a very good thing for mankind that humans can distinguish good and evil

and therefore we ought to celebrate Eve (and, come to think of it,. thank the Snake).

Also we all have inborn consciences. Not all consciences though are exercised for goodness.

 

[blü 2]

The serpent said she would not die. He lied. Since you believe that the serpent, later identified as the Devil, told Eve the truth, perhaps another time you can discuss more about decision-making.

This is just your insistence on wishing your own interpretation on the text. The mention of dying at all is entirely dependent on the words God used, and those words include dying THE SAME DAY.

And Adam and Eve were always going to die. In the first place, they understood the concept of death when God mentioned it in [his] warning. If there was no death around in those days, the concept of death would have been entirely alien and they wouldn't have had a clue. Second, if they were already immortal, there would have been no need for God to chuck them out of the Garden for the express ─ and only ─ purpose of preventing them from becoming immortal:

Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" ─ 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.​

Nowhere in the story does it say death then entered the world. This idea doesn't arise until the late 2nd century BCE. (It doesn't originate with Paul.)

(Incidentally, I have no personal dog in this fight. It would make no difference at all to me if the Garden story complied exactly with your wishes. But it manifestly doesn't, hence this discussion.)

Also we all have inborn consciences. Not all consciences though are exercised for goodness.

The genetic component of our morality has been and is the subject of considerable study. We've evolved as gregarious primates and our moral tendencies conform with that ─ first, as mammals we have infant nurture and protection. Then dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth / virtue through self-denial. We also have empathy, probably as the result of mirror neurons, and as you say, a conscience, the sense that some of our moral statements have universal application (though everyone's list of those statements is different, as is one's own at different times of one's life). The rest of our morality comes from our upbringing, culture, education and experience ─ how to behave when dining together, how to meet members of your own or opposite sex, and family, relatives, tribesmen, strangers and foreigners, the rules of excretion, and so on.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Looks like we're reading from the same page.

Wouldn't that mean you have a lot of trouble with Paul?

Lol! No, not at all!

1 Corinthians 8:5-6; 1 Corinthians 11:3. Also, in many of his letters, his introduction began with separating God from the “Lord Jesus Christ.” Yes, mentioning them both, but (in most) making a clear distinction.

If you would, can you post some passages, where you feel Paul’s writings would present a problem?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And Adam and Eve were always going to die. In the first place, they understood the concept of death when God mentioned it in [his] warning. If there was no death around in those days, the concept of death would have been entirely alien and they wouldn't have had a clue.

They knew because they had seen animals dying. Interestingly, this understanding that God wouldn’t need to explain what death is, agrees with Ecclesiastes 3:19-20. And our (JW’s) understanding of what results from death — in reality, complete and utter inactivity — is in harmony with this.

But isnt it you who’s mentioned your wife feels the presence of..... entities? (To put it simply.) Or am I confusing you w/ another poster?

 

[blü 2]

Lol! No, not at all!

1 Corinthians 8:5-6; 1 Corinthians 11:3. Also, in many of his letters, his introduction began with separating God from the “Lord Jesus Christ.” Yes, mentioning them both, but (in most) making a clear distinction.

If you would, can you post some passages, where you feel Paul’s writings would present a problem?

The whole idea of selling Christianity to the pagans, and the abandonment of the covenant of circumcision, would be a good place to start, especially as a ─ ahm ─ remodeling of the covenant in a manner totally opaque to Jewish thought and indeed to mine. It isn't something supported anywhere by Jesus, so far as I can see.

Of course the result was the good luck of Christianity to resonate with some of the pagans all the way up to Constantine's mom, and with the backing of Empire they went on to world success. Even so, Christianity never took off among the Jews (except later at spearpoint during the various pogroms and inquisitions).

So if success is the criterion, Paul's a winner; but at some cost to the integrity of the original thought. And that line about the prophet having no honor in his home town comes to mind.

They knew because they had seen animals dying.

To be fair to the story, it doesn't say that. It doesn't even imply it, or include animals in their diet; not till Abel had grown up and taken to herding do we get a thought of dead critters.

Interestingly, this understanding that God wouldn’t need to explain what death is, agrees with Ecclesiastes 3:19-20. And our (JW’s) understanding of what results from death — in reality, complete and utter inactivity — is in harmony with this.

Our family custom is cremation, so atomically speaking, we might get to float around for a bit afterwards. But yes, Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 is a perception I completely agree with.

But isnt it you who’s mentioned your wife feels the presence of..... entities? (To put it simply.) Or am I confusing you w/ another poster?

No, not me. My wife was never concerned with things of that kind.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is just your insistence on wishing your own interpretation on the text. The mention of dying at all is entirely dependent on the words God used, and those words include dying THE SAME DAY.
....

Not at all as you see it and misunderstand the text. God the Almighty told Adam he would surely DIE if he ate the fruit. Doesn't matter within a 24-hour period or not. Or before sundown or however you figure it. Because it is written, "And 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.” The sentence was passed the day Adam ate from the tree. Whether you believe it or not (and you apparently don't believe that is what happened), Adam DIED. See, he is dead. He died as a result of eating of that fruit. In the day, out of the day, on the day -- you make of that what you will. But God said Adam WILL die if he ate from that tree and Adam did die. Perhaps you don't know that a day can mean much more than a 24-hour period, or perhaps daylight...etc. Satan lied. He said Eve would NOT die. He lied. She died, and Adam died.

 

[blü 2]

Not at all as you see it and misunderstand the text. God the Almighty told Adam he would surely DIE if he ate the fruit.

That simply misrepresents what the text plainly says : "for in the day that you eat of it you shall die". Genesis 2:18, check it out for yourself.

Doesn't matter within a 24-hour period or not. Or before sundown or however you figure it. Because it is written, "And 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.”

See? You're pretending not to see what you already know.

The sentence was passed the day Adam ate from the tree.

I say the text says nothing of the kind. Quote me the part of the Garden story that you rely on.

Whether you believe it or not (and you apparently don't believe that is what happened), Adam DIED.

He did NOT die in the day that he ate of it.

And he was always going to die whether he ate the fruit or not. This ─ why do I have to repeat everything? ─ is plainly stated in Genesis 3:22-23:

Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" ─ therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden.​

See? Adam is NOT going to live forever UNLESS he eats from the tree of life. So God makes sure that doesn't happen. Read the whole of the Garden story from start to finish. NOWHERE does it mention

sin,
original sin,
the Fall of man ,
death entering the world,
'spiritual death', or
the need for a redeemer.​

The ONLY reason God kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden is the one I've quoted above.

The reading that you're urging is not found in the text, and if my memory is correct was invented among Alexandrian Jews in the last decade or two of the second century BCE. It's a clunky attempt at a retrofit, it's a great pity Paul mentioned it, and it's a great pity Augustine (of Hippo) ran with it. It preaches that humans are born guilty, a most manipulative concept and widely so used.

 

[YoursTrue]

That simply misrepresents what the text plainly says : "for in the day that you eat of it you shall die". Genesis 2:18, check it out for yourself.
See? You're pretending not to see what you already know.
I say the text says nothing of the kind. Quote me the part of the Garden story that you rely on.
He did NOT die in the day that he ate of it.

Yes, he did. But you don't understand the text. Whether you like it or not, he was as good as dead on that day, or 'in' the day, however one looks at it. In or on really doesn't make a big difference to those with understanding. God said he would die 'in' or 'on' that day he ate from the forbidden fruit, depending on or upon the translator. And die he surely did. Satan said he would not die. He lied. Both Adam and Eve died. Also, if someone gets a deadly disease for which there is no cure, the DAY he contracts it, he is set to DIE. He WILL die. From that day onward. I guess you don't understand, but -- that's how it goes. If a court order tells a person on the day he leaves the house he will be arrested, first he has to leave the house, and then he WILL be arrested. Be well.

 

[YoursTrue]

That simply misrepresents what the text plainly says : "for in the day that you eat of it you shall die". Genesis 2:18, check it out for yourself.
See? You're pretending not to see what you already know.
I say the text says nothing of the kind. Quote me the part of the Garden story that you rely on.
He did NOT die in the day that he ate of it.

And he was always going to die whether he ate the fruit or not. This ─ why do I have to repeat everything? ─ is plainly stated in Genesis 3:22-23:

Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" ─ therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden.​

See? Adam is NOT going to live forever UNLESS he eats from the tree of life. So God makes sure that doesn't happen. Read the whole of the Garden story from start to finish. NOWHERE does it mention

sin,
original sin,
the Fall of man ,
death entering the world,
'spiritual death', or
the need for a redeemer.​

The ONLY reason God kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden is the one I've quoted above.

The reading that you're urging is not found in the text, and if my memory is correct was invented among Alexandrian Jews in the last decade or two of the second century BCE. It's a clunky attempt at a retrofit, it's a great pity Paul mentioned it, and it's a great pity Augustine (of Hippo) ran with it. It preaches that humans are born guilty, a most manipulative concept and widely so used.

I'm not urging any reading; it's really for people with common sense and understanding. Adam, Eve, and Jesus were NOT "born guilty," as you put it. Whether you like it or not, sin brings about -- death.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, he did. But you don't understand the text. Whether you like it or not, he was as good as dead on that day

It's true that you repeatedly assert that.

It's also true that the text says nothing of the kind.

Satan said he would not die.

A double error ─ first you identify the Snake with Satan, which is not in the text (and indeed in the Tanakh Satan is one of God's courtiers eg as in Job); and second you insist on perverting the meaning of the Snake's words.

Of course, you're free to believe anything you want, import as many ideas from many centuries later and try to retrofit them onto the text, a strong Christian tradition that starts with Paul and reaches full bloom with the gospel writers, who invent unhistorical stories like the taxation census so they can get their fictional infant Jesus to Bethlehem so he can (in the story anyway) "fulfill" Micah 5:2; and the unhistorical 'massacre of the innocents' so he can (in the story anyway) flee to Egypt and thus come out of Egypt to "fulfill" Hosea 11.1, and so on through a long long list. My golly, the poor old Tanakh takes a belting at the hands of the Christians! And this business with the Garden story is just another example.

I guess you don't understand, but -- that's how it goes. If a court order tells a person on the day he leaves the house he will be arrested, first he has to leave the house, and then he WILL be arrested. Be well.

The text says nothing of the kind.

The text says something completely different.

The text does not say what Paul says it does.

The text never once mentions sin, original sin, the 'fall of man', death entering the world, 'spiritual death', or the need of a redeemer.

Instead it says Adam and Eve got booted out of the Garden to prevent them from being becoming immortal and thus a rival of God (Genesis 3:22-23).

But you live in a free country, so I respect your right not to let the facts get in the way of what you want to believe.

I'm not urging any reading; it's really for people with common sense and understanding. Adam, Eve, and Jesus were NOT "born guilty," as you put it. Whether you like it or not, sin brings about -- death.

Whether I like it or not, evolution brings about death. Sin has nothing to do with it. Creatures incapable of sin have been dying on earth for some 3.7 billion years, for goodness sake!

 

[YoursTrue]

It's true that you repeatedly assert that.

It's also true that the text says nothing of the kind.
A double error ─ first you identify the Snake with Satan, which is not in the text (and indeed in the Tanakh Satan is one of God's courtiers eg as in Job); and second you insist on perverting the meaning of the Snake's words.

Of course, you're free to believe anything you want, import as many ideas from many centuries later and try to retrofit them onto the text, a strong Christian tradition that starts with Paul and reaches full bloom with the gospel writers, who invent unhistorical stories like the taxation census so they can get their fictional infant Jesus to Bethlehem so he can (in the story anyway) "fulfill" Micah 5:2; and the unhistorical 'massacre of the innocents' so he can (in the story anyway) flee to Egypt and thus come out of Egypt to "fulfill" Hosea 11.1, and so on through a long long list. My golly, the poor old Tanakh takes a belting at the hands of the Christians! And this business with the Garden story is just another example.
The text says nothing of the kind.

The text says something completely different.

The text does not say what Paul says it does.

The text never once mentions sin, original sin, the 'fall of man', death entering the world, 'spiritual death', or the need of a redeemer.

Instead it says Adam and Eve got booted out of the Garden to prevent them from being becoming immortal and thus a rival of God (Genesis 3:22-23).

But you live in a free country, so I respect your right not to let the facts get in the way of what you want to believe.
Whether I like it or not, evolution brings about death. Sin has nothing to do with it. Creatures incapable of sin have been dying on earth for some 3.7 billion years, for goodness sake!

We may have had gods, or at least supernatural beliefs, for well over 100,000 years. We know for sure of gods from 9,000 or so years ago. Yahweh only comes on the scene about 3500 years, as a tribal god in the Canaanite pantheon, but [he] too evolves, so that around the time of the Babylonian captivity [he]'s a monogod, and 2000 years ago he has a Christian version who at Paul's urging abandons the covenant, and in the 4th century becomes triune ─ and so on. What next?

Let me put it to you this way about what God told Adam. (See if you understand.) There is a disease for which there is no cure known. That is transmissible spongiform encephalopathy. It takes from months to years to kill a person from the moment of infection. From, on, or in the day a person is infected, he will surely die. See if you understand that.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's true that you repeatedly assert that.

It's also true that the text says nothing of the kind.
A double error ─ first you identify the Snake with Satan, which is not in the text (and indeed in the Tanakh Satan is one of God's courtiers eg as in Job); and second you insist on perverting the meaning of the Snake's words.

Of course, you're free to believe anything you want, import as many ideas from many centuries later and try to retrofit them onto the text, a strong Christian tradition that starts with Paul and reaches full bloom with the gospel writers, who invent unhistorical stories like the taxation census so they can get their fictional infant Jesus to Bethlehem so he can (in the story anyway) "fulfill" Micah 5:2; and the unhistorical 'massacre of the innocents' so he can (in the story anyway) flee to Egypt and thus come out of Egypt to "fulfill" Hosea 11.1, and so on through a long long list. My golly, the poor old Tanakh takes a belting at the hands of the Christians! And this business with the Garden story is just another example.
The text says nothing of the kind.

The text says something completely different.

The text does not say what Paul says it does.

The text never once mentions sin, original sin, the 'fall of man', death entering the world, 'spiritual death', or the need of a redeemer.

Instead it says Adam and Eve got booted out of the Garden to prevent them from being becoming immortal and thus a rival of God (Genesis 3:22-23).

But you live in a free country, so I respect your right not to let the facts get in the way of what you want to believe.
Whether I like it or not, evolution brings about death. Sin has nothing to do with it. Creatures incapable of sin have been dying on earth for some 3.7 billion years, for goodness sake!

However long "creatures" have been dying has nothing to do with Adam and Eve's dying, EXCEPT THAT they knew that other "creatures" died. How do I know this? Common sense tells me that, and the Bible indicates such. To me it does, maybe not to you. But the first two humans did not have to die. Eve was deceived. She really believed that she would not die. But die she did. Since you discount virtually everything in the Bible, I bid you to have a nice day. However, as long as you keep saying that they did not die THAT DAY, I will tell you they incurred the death penalty THAT DAY, just like they caught a death-dealing disease from which they were not cured. By decree. There was no reversal of the outcome. Further subjects may be approached, but since you don't want to understand basics, what use going on?

 

[YoursTrue]

It's true that you repeatedly assert that.

It's also true that the text says nothing of the kind.
A double error ─ first you identify the Snake with Satan, which is not in the text (and indeed in the Tanakh Satan is one of God's courtiers eg as in Job); and second you insist on perverting the meaning of the Snake's words.

Of course, you're free to believe anything you want, import as many ideas from many centuries later and try to retrofit them onto the text, a strong Christian tradition that starts with Paul and reaches full bloom with the gospel writers, who invent unhistorical stories like the taxation census so they can get their fictional infant Jesus to Bethlehem so he can (in the story anyway) "fulfill" Micah 5:2; and the unhistorical 'massacre of the innocents' so he can (in the story anyway) flee to Egypt and thus come out of Egypt to "fulfill" Hosea 11.1, and so on through a long long list. My golly, the poor old Tanakh takes a belting at the hands of the Christians! And this business with the Garden story is just another example.
The text says nothing of the kind.

The text says something completely different.

The text does not say what Paul says it does.

The text never once mentions sin, original sin, the 'fall of man', death entering the world, 'spiritual death', or the need of a redeemer.

Instead it says Adam and Eve got booted out of the Garden to prevent them from being becoming immortal and thus a rival of God (Genesis 3:22-23).

But you live in a free country, so I respect your right not to let the facts get in the way of what you want to believe.
Whether I like it or not, evolution brings about death. Sin has nothing to do with it. Creatures incapable of sin have been dying on earth for some 3.7 billion years, for goodness sake!

Yes, the text mentions a redeemer at the beginning. Furthermore, it doesn't need to mention 'sin' at the beginning. Consider it willful disobedience. Nothing like that injunction was given to the animals, or what you consider forms leading to humans.

 

[blü 2]

However long "creatures" have been dying has nothing to do with Adam and Eve's dying, EXCEPT THAT they knew that other "creatures" died. How do I know this? Common sense tells me that, and the Bible indicates such.

Ah so you and Paul meant to say "Death for humans entered the world," right?

The text says nothing of the kind, the need to keep them from the tree of life refutes it, the failure to mention sin (&c &c) at any point, mean that whatever your source, it ain't Genesis.

Eve was deceived.

As I keep pointing out, Eve is the true moral giant in this story, the one who brings mankind the knowledge of good and evil. How can bringing humans knowledge of good and evil possibly be a sin? Even allowing that it can't be a sin because God had denied both her and Adam knowledge of good and evil, making it impossible for them to sin anyway.

She really believed that she would not die.

And just like the Snake said, she didn't die. That didn't happen till years later.

Since you discount virtually everything in the Bible, I bid you to have a nice day.

An odd remark ─ I'm the only one here who's actually concerned with what it says, instead of what Paul might think it ought to say.

since you don't want to understand basics

You stole my line!

what use going on?

Go well. Live long and prosper.

And never pass up a chance to think critically.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, the text mentions a redeemer at the beginning. Furthermore, it doesn't need to mention 'sin' at the beginning. Consider it willful disobedience. Nothing like that injunction was given to the animals, or what you consider forms leading to humans.

Funny that all of that's from Paul and none of it is from Genesis.

But ─ so it goes.

 

[YoursTrue]

Funny that all of that's from Paul and none of it is from Genesis.

But ─ so it goes.

Death followed 'on' or 'in' the day one contracts a deadly illness, such as Adam and Eve were told by God they WOULD die on or in the day they disobeyed, and Satan (yes, the serpent was identified later on as the Devil) lied to Eve, although the outcome for them was irreversible from that day onward. They died. Satan said they would not. But they did. That's the topic I'm going to stick with now, you may move on to other topics. But since you don't see the reality of the basics here, again, all I can say is: good day, or good night, whichever is in your time zone.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

See? Adam is NOT going to live forever UNLESS he eats from the tree of life. So God makes sure that doesn't happen

This decree was given after he rebelled, not before. Big difference.

They were designed, as children of God & made in His image, to live everlastingly. (Their rebellion, changed that.) This idea of living forever, which I state again that they lost, is seen in the long life spans of their offspring of successive generations. Such long lives, gradually diminished; that by Moses’ day, lifespans were greatly reduced.....Moses & Aaron were recorded to live only 120 years; Joshua, from about the next generation, only lived 110 years.

Read the whole of the Garden story from start to finish. NOWHERE does it mention
sin,
original sin,
the Fall of man ,
death entering the world,
'spiritual death', or
the need for a redeemer.

The prophet Daniel believed the Garden story, wouldn’t you say?
Regarding this, Daniel 9 speaks volumes. Vs. 24 is about ‘making an end of sin.” Pointing forward to the real meaning and purpose behind the Messiah’s coming.

Peace, my cousin.

 

[blü 2]

Death followed 'on' or 'in' the day one contracts a deadly illness, such as Adam and Eve were told by God they WOULD die on or in the day they disobeyed, and Satan (yes, the serpent was identified later on as the Devil) lied to Eve, although the outcome for them was irreversible from that day onward. They died. Satan said they would not. But they did. That's the topic I'm going to stick with now, you may move on to other topics. But since you don't see the reality of the basics here, again, all I can say is: good day, or good night, whichever is in your time zone.

Only problem is, NONE of that is in Genesis.

It's all Christian retrofitting nonsense.