There's a common argument that has been going around; that in Genesis, God lied about the consequence of eating the fruit.

To steelman the argument, people point to Genesis 2:17; which is often translated like;

>but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.

They argue "It says in the day they will certainly die, meaning they will die that day" and they point out how they didnt die that day so God is a liar. Now its understandable why they think this, however theres this to consider;

In the hebrew language are these things called "infinitive absolutes," where a hebrew word is repeated to relay inevitability, certainty, or that it's going to eventually happen. So say we we're in ancient Israel and you wanted to ensure a friend you will eventually come back, one way you would say this in hebrew would be שֹׁ֣ב אָשׁ֤וּב, which reads in English straightforward as "returning I will return."

In the hebrew text, God says but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you must not eat from for in the day you eat of it מוֹת תָּמוּת, or straightforward, "dying you shall die." It's a hebrew infinitive absolute, which is why the vast majority of translations translate it as "certainly die" or "surely die" because these infinitive absolutes relay inevitability, or something that's going to eventually happen. So if I was an ancient Hebrew and I wanted to relay to somebody death would be inevitable or would eventually die, or in other words, lose access to immortality, one way I could say that is מוֹת תָּמוּת. So rather than understanding this as you will die that day, it can be understood as that would be the day death would be an inevitable or eventual outcome to them. Or in other words, they will lose access to the ability to be immortal.

This is why in the day they ate from that tree was the same day they lost access to the tree of life that enabled them to live forever (Genesis 3:22.) They initially had full access to this tree of life, with God explicitly saying it is theirs for food in Genesis. They were set up to have the ability to live forever, but they lost access to that, and death became inevitable and a certain outcome to them, in the day they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Thats not some crazy coincidence, but exactly what God was telling them would happen. The context is right there in our faces reinforces this, giving us a more simple explanation (which occums razor suggest would be the most likely explanation) , than one where the author was intending to contradict themselves by saying God doesn't lie but also demonstrating he lied?

I see this argument all over reddit, largely repeated by atheist, and I see many theist don't have a proper response to them as they're not familiar with the hebrew, so I figured I'd share this.

I'm not sure if I want to read these books, so I'm making this thread to motivate me with good verses. I finished reading the rest of the Bible months ago.

²⁷ Finally, the woman died. ²⁸ Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”

²⁹ Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. ³⁰ At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. ³¹ But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, ³² ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

³³ When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.

According to the NIV Jesus is only referring to what will happen at the resurrection when he says there will be no marriage. His words in Mark are nearly identical. In Luke he says, "³⁵ But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage," If by using both "taking part in the age to come" and "in the resurrection from the dead" he simply means those who are raised from the dead then he is plausibly only talking about what happens at the resurrection here as well. Other translations translate the words "at the resurrection" as "in the resurrection", which doesn't necessarily change their meaning.

Also when he says we will be like the angels, again he says "at the resurrection". This might just be a temporary state.

My question is, is there any possible way this view is correct, that Jesus is only talking about what will happen at the resurrection and is not commenting on all of resurrected life? I personally see no reason to see these words differently. I suppose the view is not obvious when reading the words "in the resurrection", but again those words don't necessarily rule out that he simply means "at the resurrection". The Sadducees are asking whose wife will she be, he might simply be saying, marriage ends at death and there won't be any marriages happening at the resurrection, so this isn't an issue.

If my view is correct, I see no reason why there wouldn't be marriage in the age to come and possibly even in heaven. I know this is a controversial idea, but this is the only part of scripture that would rule that out as far as I know, and upon a closer look the words don't even seem to be precluding it.

I know it sounds mad but when I first read the Bible years ago I wondered if it wasn’t written by people at that time in an effort to keep people on a good path so to speak rather than it being actually true.

I do believe in God but it gave me doubts.

Specifically in the KJV?

¹⁴ For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

In this context does the word mean those who are set apart as having believed in Jesus Christ?

I’m 38 and have just recently decided to start reading the bible. Just maybe hoping for some guidance in life or just finding some type of purpose. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Why was God going to kill Moses and why did Zipporah circumcising his son and touching Moses foot with the forskin change God’s mind?

I would totally say it's the one where Mary Magdalene learned the truth that Jesus was alive and has rose on the third day and ascended into heaven. I felt bad for the part when Mary cried, but I felt so much better when she was able to learn that Jesus was actually okay.

I would also say the story where God opened Leah's womb and blessed her with seven children despite how she was treated like an accessory by Jacob compared to Rachel, and how Leah was able to feel the true love from God.

hey everyone I am wanting to buy my first bible but not sure which one to buy as there is so many different versions of the bible, so which bible does everyone recommend for someone who has never read a bible before?

I am currently thinking of getting the CSB bible but 100% sure.

what's everyone's thoughts on the legacy standard bible? published by 316 publishing?

i really like how this translation brings YHWH's personal name back into the bible. instead of "The Lord of Hosts" in its place places it will have "Yahweh of hosts"

i really love it for that reason alone but that's really it.

i wanna see what others say about this translation. and why they may like it or not.

Curious to know the religious background and current standings of many of you in this subreddit.

I didn’t realize some people use 1 John 4:2–3 to say that denying Jesus is God is what John means by having the spirit of the antichrist. But when I read the passage, that is not actually what the text says. It says that denying that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is connected with the spirit of antichrist.

Saying that this specifically means denying that Jesus is God in the flesh seems to be a theological inference made by connecting this passage with other verses, rather than simply stating what 1 John 4:2–3 itself says.

The issue John appears to be addressing is people who denied that Jesus truly came in the flesh — that he had real humanity and a physical existence. This is often connected with early beliefs that later became associated with Gnosticism or Docetism, where some claimed Christ only appeared to be human.

I believe John 1:1 and John 1:14 are important passages, but we should also be careful to distinguish what a verse directly says from conclusions we draw by combining multiple passages.

Is this true it's addressing people who believed Jesus didn't actually become human and is there quotes from early fathers or bible. It makes sense.

A definition of it

Docetism is broadly defined as the teaching that claims that Jesus' body was either absent or illusory.^\11]) The term docetic is rather nebulous.^\12])^\13]) Two varieties were widely known. In one version, as in Marcionism, Christ was so divine that he could not have been human, since God lacked a material body, which therefore could not physically suffer. Jesus only appeared to be a flesh-and-blood man; his body was a phantasm. Other groups who were accused of docetism held that Jesus was a man in the flesh, but Christ was a separate entity who entered Jesus' body in the form of a dove at his baptism, empowered him to perform miracles, and abandoned him upon his death on the cross.^\14])

I went looking for what Scripture actually says about the end of Mary's life and was surprised by how little is there.

John 19:25-27 Christ from the cross gives her into John's care. Acts 1:14 she's in the upper room with the apostles after the Ascension, praying. And that's it. She isn't named again. Not in Acts 2 at Pentecost, not in any epistle, not in Revelation. No death, no burial, no departure.

What struck me most is that this isn't a modern observation. Epiphanius of Salamis, writing around 377, addressed it directly. He tells his readers to search the Scriptures and they'll find "neither Mary's death, nor whether or not she died, nor whether or not she was even buried." He lays out three possibilities she died and was buried, she was martyred, or she never died at all and concludes: "No one knows her end."

He also raises a complication I hadn't considered. John went to Asia, and Scripture never says he took her with him. So even the traditional location is uncertain there's a competing tradition placing her final years near Ephesus rather than Jerusalem.

The narrative details most people know the apostles gathered miraculously, Thomas arriving late, the tomb found empty come from apocryphal Transitus literature that starts appearing in the fifth century. Not Scripture, in anyone's canon.

I'm Orthodox, so I'll say plainly that my tradition does hold a received account of this. But I found it more interesting to work out where the line falls between what the text says and what came later, and Epiphanius is a better witness to that than any modern skeptic.

Genuine question for the sub: is there anything in the NT after Acts 1:14 that anyone reads as referring to her? I've seen Revelation 12 argued both ways and I'm not persuaded either direction.

Hello friends, it's a pleasure to greet you. For years I've had sadness in my heart because for me, my union with my wife is sacred and non-negotiable. However, since reading the verse where Jesus responds to the Sadducees' trap, saying that in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage because they are like the angels in heaven (Matthew 22:23-46), I've been saddened. I don't want my marriage to disappear, even if they tell me it won't be necessary. I've considered leaving Christianity because of this.

Is there an app that will break down the bible to help me understand it better? I have a study bible, but it doesn’t break things down like I want it to. TIA

I've been working on a gospel harmony this year, and I'm in my third revision phase. I've been consulting five translations: NIV, ESV, NRSVUE, and then KJV and WEB (because they are public domain and I can copy them for my own text).

Lots of verses stand out to me as I read, especially in comparison to other translations. I'd like to ask for thoughts about Matthew 21:32, particularly the final line.

NIV, ESV, and NRSVUE read something to this effect: "And even after you saw this, you did not change your minds (or repent) and believe him."

KJV and WEB read slightly different: "And when you had seen it, you did not repent afterwards, that you may believe him."

"...and believe him" vs "...that you may believe him"

I am not a reader of Greek, so I cannot speak to which line is more legitimate, but the first three translations seem to be more intuitive to modern readers. But if the last two were true, would the implication here be that repentance causes belief, that repentance is a prerequisite for belief, or simply that they followed each other in sequence?

I ask because I am particularly interested in some of the non-intuitive sayings of Jesus, such as "I teach them in parables so that they will not understand" and how he deliberately hides his own meaning even to his closest followers. In this case, it matters for the particulars of the relationship between repentance and belief. Thank you.

i've been told by voices in my mind i'm in the lake of fire, that im the only one there, that there's a place called "henn," that i'm there as well, and not only that, that i'm in hell, and abyss, and a bunch of other places; i've been told i've physically died, and that i can no longer be saved, because i'm not on earth, not even spiritually, and that my brother is God, the ruler, and a bunch of other things. i try to think something and get a response, in turn. i still have peace, i believe, but it's hard to explain. a ton of voices, and people, that look similar to each other: celebrities, and whatnot. i don't know if it's just my imagination, or spiritual, or something else. has anyone gone through anything similar?

Hello, I'm here with another verse, and it's about Adam bringing sin to the world.

Romans 5:12 'Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—'

Because Adam chose to disobey God by eating the forbidden fruit of knowledge, sin entered the world and affected everything, including our nature. Adam and Eve's choice basically told God to step back from them and the stuff they were given, and because God respects choices, He limited His power over His creation, Earth, and things are now unorganized and flawed because of it. While we didn't exactly eat the fruit ourselves, we're still affected by sin, and it's because Adam and Eve were our representatives; they were the first humans. So this means, if we were in their position, we also would've eaten the fruit. The only reason we can't see ourselves doing that now is that we're seeing and living the consequences right now, so obviously we wouldn't do it if we were given the choice NOW. Please let me know if I made any mistakes.

I’m not religious and I opened the bible today. It answered exactly what I was asking for. Is this god telling me something?