If you kill only part of an individual you have not killed that person. Period.

A long time ago I learned that the more I refused to accept the obvious the less credibility I was left with.

When they took Christ down from the cross, His body was dead and lifeless. When they laid Him in the tomb, His body was still dead and lifeless.

Christ was dead.

God said, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 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 surely die."

Adam and Eve both knew the command. It was simple enough to understand: Don't eat that fruit. Don't you think that it was an act of their wills to disregard God's word and eat the fruit? Or were they deceived into thinking that God didn't really say that?

I don't think they doubted God's command to abstain from that fruit. The command was clear, and Satan didn't even try to deny it. Though Eve didn't understand all the issues, she was sharp enough to understand the requirement.

What he did deceive Eve on was the consequence of disregarding God's command. God said, "You will die." Satan directly contradicted that. And Eve bought the lie. (Not that her deception made the death any less inevitable.)

Don't eat it - she willfully rebelled.

You will die - she was deceived.

I see no problem with both happening.

Those are equivalent. You cannot have one without the other.

Chastisement/stripes/wounds, peace/healed -> death, salvation. Some see it, some don't.

Anyway, you didn't answer my questions.


Why? Where did that rule come from?

Asygo, the rule comes from the same reasoning that says a prophecy should be stated before the event happens. It is easy to make a causal relationship between two events after they have occured.

You are referring to the body He took upon Himself, right? I don't suppose you realize that you and I don't take on bodies. If you think God died on that tree then go right on believing it.

Asygo, where was Eve when the command not to eat of the tree was given?

In that case, you are misapplying the reasoning. Foresight and hindsight do not work under the same rules. For example, just because I don't tell a toddler in advance that fire is hot, if he sticks his hand in it, he will get burned anyway. Lack of foreknowledge does not impact causality. Or do you believe the misguided saying, "What you don't know won't hurt you"?

If you are proposing that foresight and hindsight are based on the same rules, then show why that should be.

In Adam's rib cage, according to Gen 2. But she must have had a good teacher, because she knew it by Gen 3.