Wouldn't it be unfair of God?

[LightofTruth]

I think it would be unfair of God to NOT tell Adam he had an immortal soul that would either go to be with God or go to eternal torment if Adam chose to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or not.

To be fair, God could have told Adam that by his eating of the tree he would go to eternal torment.

But God did not tell Adam that. Instead He told Adam that he would surely die and return to the dust he was made from.

Which is exactly what happened.

So, why is that many Christians tell us that Adam's soul is either with God and happy, or suffering eternal torment in misery?

Don't you think it would have been unfair of God to not tell Adam his destiny if Adam did indeed possess an immortal soul?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Great post!
All Jehovah God said was, "if you eat from the (one) tree, you will die."
That statement, alone, would require an explanation, if they didn't know what "to die" means. Apparently, they did.
How? Because they had seen animals die. It's the only logical explanation as to God's brevity regarding such an important & ubiquitous topic.

A & E, as God's son & daughter, were designed to live forever, i.e., never die. (All they needed to do, was remain obedient.)

This concept is easily gleaned from the fact, revealed in Scripture, that the immediate generations of their offspring lived such long lives, diminishing gradually through each successive generation.

That indicates a genetic trait. Interesting, eh?

Take care, my cousin

 

[Audie]

Great post!
All Jehovah God said was, "if you eat from the (one) tree, you will die."
That statement, alone, would require an explanation, if they didn't know what "to die" means. Apparently, they did.
How? Because they had seen animals die. It's the only logical explanation as to God's brevity regarding such an important & ubiquitous topic.

A & E, as God's son & daughter, were designed to live forever, i.e., never die. (All they needed to do, was remain obedient.)

This concept is easily gleaned from the fact, revealed in Scripture, that the immediate generations of their offspring lived such long lives, diminishing gradually through each successive generation.

That indicates a genetic trait. Interesting, eh?

Take care, my cousin

It would be quite the genetic trait,
all right, ifn it had some basis other than
the bible-"fact" cited as evidence.

 

[thomas t]

I disagree. God simply said "you shall surely die [if]".
I think God left it open to which death he referred.
I think he left it open to see how things develop. Would Adam regret yes or no?... that's for instance a point.
Are you Jehovah's Witness?

 

[stvdv]

Don't you think it would have been unfair of God to not tell Adam his destiny if Adam did indeed possess an immortal soul?

Does Adam possess an immortal soul
or
Does an immortal souls possess Adam

There lies the answer

 

[Onoma]

I think the concept of eating an " evil fruit " is from earlier text titled " Dialogue between a Man and His God "

Dialogue between a Man and His God - Wikipedia

Second strophe " Have I [eaten] a very evil forbidden fruit? "

Predates the Bible by at least 1,000 years and shares themes with even earlier Sumerian texts

 

[Samael_Khan]

I think it would be unfair of God to NOT tell Adam he had an immortal soul that would either go to be with God or go to eternal torment if Adam chose to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or not.

To be fair, God could have told Adam that by his eating of the tree he would go to eternal torment.

But God did not tell Adam that. Instead He told Adam that he would surely die and return to the dust he was made from.

Which is exactly what happened.

So, why is that many Christians tell us that Adam's soul is either with God and happy, or suffering eternal torment in misery?

Don't you think it would have been unfair of God to not tell Adam his destiny if Adam did indeed possess an immortal soul?

As far as I have looked into it, the ancient Israelites did not believe in an immortal soul. Ecclesiastes take on death is probably the more accurate representation of their views on the afterlife.

In the Bible the immortal soul is only mentioned later in Matthew 10:28: "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." This is most likely the influence of Greek philosophy on the author.

So I don't think that the author of the Adam story had an a literal "eternal torment" of the immortal soul in mind. It would also be unjust for God to torture Adam for eternity over mere disobedience for a few years.

What strikes me about the story is that the serpent was actually right when he told Eve that if they ate the fruit then they would be like God knowing good and evil, as God later repeats as much by saying that Adam and Eve were now like one of them, knowing good and evil. This makes sense since it is a point about who one obeys, God or themselves and their own laws. God didn't teach them the underlying principles behind why they must obey him and not themselves, so God's lack of proactive training would mean that he did not prepare them to resist disobedience. So he is partially responsible for their fall as well.

 

[Kenny]

I think it would be unfair of God to NOT tell Adam he had an immortal soul that would either go to be with God or go to eternal torment if Adam chose to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or not.

To be fair, God could have told Adam that by his eating of the tree he would go to eternal torment.

But God did not tell Adam that. Instead He told Adam that he would surely die and return to the dust he was made from.

Which is exactly what happened.

So, why is that many Christians tell us that Adam's soul is either with God and happy, or suffering eternal torment in misery?

Don't you think it would have been unfair of God to not tell Adam his destiny if Adam did indeed possess an immortal soul?

That is assuming that God didn't tell him the consequences. In that God instituted a remedy in Genesis 3:15 and sealed it with a blood covenant, God also told Adam that there is a path that doesn't lead to eternal torment.

Caveat - the word "death" is plural in the Hebrew thus the reality that God did share the totality of the consequences.

As you said, God would be unjust (unfair) not to do so... therefore, since God is not unjust but just, we can assume that God did. (Remember, God walked and talked with Adam in the cool of the evening so His conversation were more than what we read in Genesis 2 & 3

 

[stvdv]

it would be unfair of God to NOT tell

Wouldn't it be unfair of God?

How we have defined God, it seems to me that God is beyond "fair" and "unfair" duality

 

[Bird123]

I think it would be unfair of God to NOT tell Adam he had an immortal soul that would either go to be with God or go to eternal torment if Adam chose to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or not.

To be fair, God could have told Adam that by his eating of the tree he would go to eternal torment.

But God did not tell Adam that. Instead He told Adam that he would surely die and return to the dust he was made from.

Which is exactly what happened.

So, why is that many Christians tell us that Adam's soul is either with God and happy, or suffering eternal torment in misery?

Don't you think it would have been unfair of God to not tell Adam his destiny if Adam did indeed possess an immortal soul?

Adam and Eve is just a story. It is not true reality. It is not God. With this in mind, a story can be written with multiple endings. Multiple endings would be the attempt to make the entire audience happy.

If you are attempting to make everything in the story add up perfectly, you must demand a rewrite. It would also help if the writer was not so dependent on beliefs.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Deeje]

Does Adam possess an immortal soul
or
Does an immortal souls possess Adam

There lies the answer

I believe that the answer to both questions is....NO.

 

[LightofTruth]

I disagree. God simply said "you shall surely die [if]".
I think God left it open to which death he referred.
I think he left it open to see how things develop. Would Adam regret yes or no?... that's for instance a point.
Are you Jehovah's Witness?

I'm not JW.
I'm one who believes death means dead and alive means living,

 

[LightofTruth]

Caveat - the word "death" is plural in the Hebrew...

Are you sure about that?

Qal Perfect3masculine singular

Strong's Hebrew: 4191. מוּת (muth) -- to die (biblehub.com)

 

[thomas t]

As far as I have looked into it, the ancient Israelites did not believe in an immortal soul. Ecclesiastes take on death is probably the more accurate representation of their views on the afterlife.

In the Bible the immortal soul is only mentioned later in Matthew 10:28: "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." This is most likely the influence of Greek philosophy on the author.

So I don't think that the author of the Adam story had an a literal "eternal torment" of the immortal soul in mind. It would also be unjust for God to torture Adam for eternity over mere disobedience for a few years.

What strikes me about the story is that the serpent was actually right when he told Eve that if they ate the fruit then they would be like God knowing good and evil, as God later repeats as much by saying that Adam and Eve were now like one of them, knowing good and evil. This makes sense since it is a point about who one obeys, God or themselves and their own laws. God didn't teach them the underlying principles behind why they must obey him and not themselves, so God's lack of proactive training would mean that he did not prepare them to resist disobedience. So he is partially responsible for their fall as well.

Actually, God is not responsible for their fall, I think.
If anything was unclear to Adam, he could have asked.

I also take this story as being literally true, btw.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Actually, God is not responsible for their fall, I think.
If anything was unclear to Adam, he could have asked.

I also take this story as being literally true, btw.

Maybe Adam didn't think of it? A lot of what we think of is because of being influence by others in society. How we think is built off people's thoughts in the present and the past.

Now I don't believe that the bible is true. But it is obvious, if it is true, that the majority of the lives of the people in the Bible and the discussions that they had is not recorded. But I am not basing what I say off what I do not know. I am just reading it like I would any other book.

 

[Kenny]

Are you sure about that?

Qal Perfect3masculine singular

Strong's Hebrew: 4191. מוּת (muth) -- to die (biblehub.com)

A word's meaning can be adjusted as it is placed in context.

Thou shalt surely die.] twmt twm moth tamuth; Literally, a death thou shalt die; or, dying thou shalt die. Thou shalt not only die spiritually, by losing the life of God, but from that moment thou shalt become mortal, and shalt continue in a dying state till thou die. This we find literally accomplished; every moment of man's life may be considered as an act of dying, till soul and body are separated. Other meanings have been given of this passage, but they are in general either fanciful or incorrect.
-Adam Clarke's commentary on Gen. 2:17
2 - Adam Clarke Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

The reason he just didn't drop dead right there is because there are different deaths as pertained to scriptural references.

The moment he ate the fruit, he was separated from God - a spiritual death
After separation from God, he mind and thinking began to be corrupted - a soul death
Years later his body died - physical death

or

In dying, he will die. The application is plural.

 

[LightofTruth]

A word's meaning can be adjusted as it is placed in context.

Thou shalt surely die.] twmt twm moth tamuth; Literally, a death thou shalt die; or, dying thou shalt die. Thou shalt not only die spiritually, by losing the life of God, but from that moment thou shalt become mortal, and shalt continue in a dying state till thou die. This we find literally accomplished; every moment of man's life may be considered as an act of dying, till soul and body are separated. Other meanings have been given of this passage, but they are in general either fanciful or incorrect.
-Adam Clarke's commentary on Gen. 2:17
2 - Adam Clarke Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

The reason he just didn't drop dead right there is because there are different deaths as pertained to scriptural references.

The moment he ate the fruit, he was separated from God - a spiritual death
After separation from God, he mind and thinking began to be corrupted - a soul death
Years later his body died - physical death

or

In dying, he will die. The application is plural.

To die spiritually is an invention of man. The Bible never says anything about Adam or anyone else as dying spiritually.
When Adam ate of the tree he was sentenced to death....on that very day, Adam came under the death sentence.
And all who are born into this world are under the same death sentence as Adam.

That death sentence says that Adam was dust(made from the earth) and to dust he would return. And the spirit or breath of life that animated the man of dust returns to God.

We thank God, through Jesus, that there is to be a resurrection of the dead whereby faithful ones in Christ will receive eternal life. And if there was no resurrection of the dead, then the faith of the Christian would be in vane or worthless as Paul says. That's because, if the dead do not rise, they say dead and in the grave.

 

[Kenny]

To die spiritually is an invention of man. The Bible never says anything about Adam or anyone else as dying spiritually.
When Adam ate of the tree he was sentenced to death....on that very day, Adam came under the death sentence.
And all who are born into this world are under the same death sentence as Adam.

That death sentence says that Adam was dust(made from the earth) and to dust he would return. And the spirit or breath of life that animated the man of dust returns to God.

We thank God, through Jesus, that there is to be a resurrection of the dead whereby faithful ones in Christ will receive eternal life. And if there was no resurrection of the dead, then the faith of the Christian would be in vane or worthless as Paul says. That's because, if the dead do not rise, they say dead and in the grave.

It depends on one's interpretation of death. Anything separated from God is a type of death.

I agree with all the other positions you mentioned but I would still hold that when one's spirit is separated from the God of life, his/her spirit may still be eternal but living a life of death. Thus... we must be born-again by the Spirit of God to become spiritually alive.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It would be quite the genetic trait,
all right, ifn it had some basis other than
the bible-"fact" cited as evidence.

Yes, that would be great!
Although I think these ancients were like us, I believe they just aged slower.
We could have already discovered some of their remains (in old graves, etc.), but we wouldn't be able to estimate their true age.

I think Ötzi might have been one. (Living prior to the Flood, with its temperate climate... I'm serious! He just wasn't dressed appropriately for being found in a glacier!)
Although he seems to have been between 50-60 years old after DNA analysis and dental examination, I think due to people's slower aging process, he could very well have been between 500-600 years old. Now, please don't think this view is backed by JW publications, I've never read about Ötzi in WT literature, at least I don't recall. This is solely my pov.

My point is, we couldn't tell one way or the other, whether someone who lived back then was 30 or 300. The parameters of today would not apply back then.

'The present is NOT the key to the past', in many ways.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It depends on one's interpretation of death. Anything separated from God is a type of death.

That is true.

In Genesis 3:19, God laid out the penalty, and explains it as 'returning to the ground'....definitely a physical death.

Before his rebellion, Adam wouldn't have experienced death of any kind. The penalty was stated, but no explanation of it was given. Going back to the OP's OP.... Heehee.

Take care, my cousin.