It is not given to translators who produce a literal translation, to give an interpretation. Their job is to translate the EXACT word. What would you say is the correct English word for Pascha? In 28 of 29 times the word appears, our esteemed translators translate it as "Passover". What happened to the 29th time?
Understanding Gen 2:7
- Thread starter laymen
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Yeah. Papist pandering - maybe. But certainly Papist influence. King James commissioned this Bible (a masterpiece in my estimation), not because he was particularly holy. He commissioned it because he had an agenda - let the common folk read it and suddenly find out that the Pope was an imposter. Up to then the kings of England were subject to Rome because of the pulpit and illiteracy. Little did King James foresee that it would be change his monarchy. Fifty years later Cromwell lopped of the head of Charles 1 for claiming divine right (trying to replace one pope with another - himself).
I don't really blame those 49 translators. They were just emerging from a Roman Catholic dominated political scene, and the Bible had been locked away for 1,000 years. They otherwise did a great work.
I don't really blame those 49 translators. They were just emerging from a Roman Catholic dominated political scene, and the Bible had been locked away for 1,000 years. They otherwise did a great work.
B
He had an agenda alright , but it wasn't to bring the word to the people, there were already english Bibles. It was to destroy that anti papist leanings and notes of the Bishop's Bible; to placate the Pope. To attempt end the fighting between the Calvinists and the Papists in England and make an amalgamation of the Papists church and the church of england. He so ran the extremists aka the puritans out from England because they refused to play along.
You make a good point; however, are we not in the position of having to trust the translators for either all or none of their translation?
If we think they did a good job on 28 times, should we trust them on the 29th? If not, should we really trust them on the other 28 times?
Could there be something they knew then that we do not know now (like they did then) that caused them to translate it the way they did?
If we think they did a good job on 28 times, should we trust them on the 29th? If not, should we really trust them on the other 28 times?
Could there be something they knew then that we do not know now (like they did then) that caused them to translate it the way they did?
Anything is possible for men. But I have another view, which is entirely personal. Why has the Almighty allowed the various manuscripts that we dispute over? I mean, we have the Received Text in the Koin, we have the Alexandrian Texts, we have the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts, we have literal and we have dynamic translations, and the Romans throw in the Apocrypha for fuel to the fire. I personally believe that God has done this to cause men to study this Book far above and beyond what they would have if things were settled. A clever way, without sacrificing major truths, to get men to study ad infinitum.
Not so personal, but also my belief, is God's Word at the mouth of the most fearsome king ever known in Daniel 4:35.
"And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?"
In among all the variety of texts, God, in His sovereign ability to uphold His councils in heaven and on earth, has preserved and distributed His Word for His sake and men's. It behooves men to study them all, and then make a choice. My choice is the Received Texts. But I do admit being open to the Alexandrian in some Books, especially Revelation. That is, I study them all, and have chosen, as base, the Received Texts. I do not claim, like some, that the TRANSLATION is perfect, but I do believe that with enough humble, prayerful study, most of the anomalies can be solved.
It is remarkable though, that the Reformation was anchored largely on the Received Texts, while the recovery of the great truths of Christ's Second Coming and the Millennium were anchored on the Nestle-Aland - roughly speaking.
Not so personal, but also my belief, is God's Word at the mouth of the most fearsome king ever known in Daniel 4:35.
"And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?"
In among all the variety of texts, God, in His sovereign ability to uphold His councils in heaven and on earth, has preserved and distributed His Word for His sake and men's. It behooves men to study them all, and then make a choice. My choice is the Received Texts. But I do admit being open to the Alexandrian in some Books, especially Revelation. That is, I study them all, and have chosen, as base, the Received Texts. I do not claim, like some, that the TRANSLATION is perfect, but I do believe that with enough humble, prayerful study, most of the anomalies can be solved.
It is remarkable though, that the Reformation was anchored largely on the Received Texts, while the recovery of the great truths of Christ's Second Coming and the Millennium were anchored on the Nestle-Aland - roughly speaking.
Obviously you have misjudged the translators of the KJV. They were fully aware of all the shenanigans of the Roman Catholic Church, and addressed that issue in detail:
The Unwillingness of Our Chief Adversaries, that the Scriptures Should Be Divulged in the Mother Tongue, etc.
Now the Church of Rome would seem at the length to bear a motherly affection towards her children, and to allow them the Scriptures in their mother tongue: but indeed it is a gift, not deserving to be called a gift, an unprofitable gift: they must first get a licence in writing before they may use them, and to get that, they must approve themselves to their Confessor, that is, to be such as are, if not frozen in the dregs, yet soured with the leaven of their superstition. Howbeit, it seemed too much to Clement the Eighth that there should be any Licence granted to have them in the vulgar tongue, and therefore he overruleth and frustrateth the grant of Pius the Fourth.
So much are they afraid of the light of the Scripture, (Lucifugae Scripturarum, as Tertulian speaketh) that they will not trust the people with it, no not as it is set forth by their own sworn men, no not with the Licence of their own Bishops and Inquisitors. Yea, so unwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the people's understanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confess, that we forced them to translate it into English against their wills.
This seemeth to argue a bad cause, or a bad conscience, or both. Sure we are, that it is not he that hath good gold, that is afraid to bring it to the touchstone, but he that hath the counterfeit; neither is it the true man that shunneth the light, but the malefactor, lest his deeds should be reproved [John 3:20]: neither is it the plain-dealing Merchant that is unwilling to have the weights, or the meteyard brought in place, but he that useth deceit. But we will let them alone for this fault, and return to translation...
...Was their Translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people? Yea, why did the Catholics (meaning Popish Romanists) always go in jeopardy, for refusing to go to hear it? Nay, if it must be translated into English, Catholics are fittest to do it. They have learning, and they know when a thing is well, they can manum de tabula...
For what varieties have they, and what alterations have they made, not only of their Service books, Portesses and Breviaries, but also of their Latin Translation? The Service book supposed to be made by S. Ambrose (Officium Ambrosianum) was a great while in special use and request; but Pope Hadrian calling a Council with the aid of Charles the Emperor, abolished it, yea, burnt it, and commanded the Service book of Saint Gregory universally to be used.
Well, Officium Gregorianum gets by this means to be in credit, but doth it continue without change or altering? No, the very Roman Service was of two fashions, the New fashion, and the Old, (the one used in one Church, the other in another) as is to be seen in Pamelius a Romanist, his Preface, before Micrologus. the same Pamelius reporteth out Radulphus de Rivo, that about the year of our Lord, 1277, Pope Nicolas the Third removed out of the Churches of Rome, the more ancient books (of Service) and brought into use the Missals of the Friers Minorites, and commanded them to be observed there; insomuch that about an hundred years after, when the above name Radulphus happened to be at Rome, he found all the books to be new, (of the new stamp).
Neither were there this chopping and changing in the more ancient times only, but also of late: Pius Quintus himself confesseth, that every Bishopric almost had a peculiar kind of service, most unlike to that which others had: which moved him to abolish all other Breviaries, though never so ancient, and privileged and published by Bishops in their Dioceses, and to establish and ratify that only which was of his own setting forth, in the year 1568.
Now when the father of their Church, who gladly would heal the sore of the daughter of his people softly and slightly, and make the best of it, findeth so great fault with them for their odds and jarring; we hope the children have no great cause to vaunt of their uniformity. But the difference that appeareth between our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us: O tandem maior parcas insane minori: they that are less sound themselves, ought not to object infirmities to others.
If we should tell them that Valla, Stapulensis, Erasmus, and Vives found fault with their vulgar Translation, and consequently wished the same to be mended, or a new one to be made, they would answer peradventure, that we produced their enemies for witnesses against them; albeit, they were in no other sort enemies, than as S. Paul was to the Galatians, for telling them the truth [Gal 4:16]: and it were to be wished, that they had dared to tell it them plainlier and oftener.
But what will they say to this, that Pope Leo the Tenth allowed Erasmus' Translation of the New Testament, so much different from the vulgar, by his Apostolic Letter and Bull; that the same Leo exhorted Pagnine to translate the whole Bible, and bare whatsoever charges was necessary for the work? Surely, as the Apostle reasoneth to the Hebrews, that if the former Law and Testament had been sufficient, there had been no need of the latter: [Heb 7:11 and 8:7] so we may say, that if the old vulgar had been at all points allowable, to small purpose had labour and charges been undergone, about framing of a new.
If they say, it was one Pope's private opinion, and that he consulted only himself; then we are able to go further with them, and to aver, that more of their chief men of all sorts, even their own Trent champions Paiva and Vega, and their own Inquisitors, Hieronymus ab Oleastro, and their own Bishop Isidorus Clarius, and their own Cardinal Thomas a Vio Caietan, do either make new Translations themselves, or follow new ones of other men's making, or note the vulgar Interpreter for halting; none of them fear to dissent from him, nor yet to except against him.
And call they this an uniform tenor of text and judgment about the text, so many of their Worthies disclaiming the now received conceit? Nay, we will yet come nearer the quick: doth not their Paris edition differ from the Lovaine, and Hentenius his from them both, and yet all of them allowed by authority?
Nay, doth not Sixtus Quintus confess, that certain Catholics (he meaneth certain of his own side) were in such an humor of translating the Scriptures into Latin, that Satan taking occasion by them, though they thought of no such matter, did strive what he could, out of so uncertain and manifold a variety of Translations, so to mingle all things, that nothing might seem to be left certain and firm in them, etc.?
Nay, further, did not the same Sixtus ordain by an inviolable decree, and that with the counsel and consent of his Cardinals, that the Latin edition of the old and new Testament, which the Council of Trent would have to be authentic, is the same without controversy which he then set forth, being diligently corrected and printed in the Printing-house of Vatican? Thus Sixtus in his Preface before his Bible.
And yet Clement the Eighth his immediate successor, publisheth another edition of the Bible, containing in it infinite differences from that of Sixtus, (and many of them weighty and material) and yet this must be authentic by all means. What is to have the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with Yea or Nay, if this be not? Again, what is sweet harmony and consent, if this be?..
The Unwillingness of Our Chief Adversaries, that the Scriptures Should Be Divulged in the Mother Tongue, etc.
Now the Church of Rome would seem at the length to bear a motherly affection towards her children, and to allow them the Scriptures in their mother tongue: but indeed it is a gift, not deserving to be called a gift, an unprofitable gift: they must first get a licence in writing before they may use them, and to get that, they must approve themselves to their Confessor, that is, to be such as are, if not frozen in the dregs, yet soured with the leaven of their superstition. Howbeit, it seemed too much to Clement the Eighth that there should be any Licence granted to have them in the vulgar tongue, and therefore he overruleth and frustrateth the grant of Pius the Fourth.
So much are they afraid of the light of the Scripture, (Lucifugae Scripturarum, as Tertulian speaketh) that they will not trust the people with it, no not as it is set forth by their own sworn men, no not with the Licence of their own Bishops and Inquisitors. Yea, so unwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the people's understanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confess, that we forced them to translate it into English against their wills.
This seemeth to argue a bad cause, or a bad conscience, or both. Sure we are, that it is not he that hath good gold, that is afraid to bring it to the touchstone, but he that hath the counterfeit; neither is it the true man that shunneth the light, but the malefactor, lest his deeds should be reproved [John 3:20]: neither is it the plain-dealing Merchant that is unwilling to have the weights, or the meteyard brought in place, but he that useth deceit. But we will let them alone for this fault, and return to translation...
...Was their Translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people? Yea, why did the Catholics (meaning Popish Romanists) always go in jeopardy, for refusing to go to hear it? Nay, if it must be translated into English, Catholics are fittest to do it. They have learning, and they know when a thing is well, they can manum de tabula...
For what varieties have they, and what alterations have they made, not only of their Service books, Portesses and Breviaries, but also of their Latin Translation? The Service book supposed to be made by S. Ambrose (Officium Ambrosianum) was a great while in special use and request; but Pope Hadrian calling a Council with the aid of Charles the Emperor, abolished it, yea, burnt it, and commanded the Service book of Saint Gregory universally to be used.
Well, Officium Gregorianum gets by this means to be in credit, but doth it continue without change or altering? No, the very Roman Service was of two fashions, the New fashion, and the Old, (the one used in one Church, the other in another) as is to be seen in Pamelius a Romanist, his Preface, before Micrologus. the same Pamelius reporteth out Radulphus de Rivo, that about the year of our Lord, 1277, Pope Nicolas the Third removed out of the Churches of Rome, the more ancient books (of Service) and brought into use the Missals of the Friers Minorites, and commanded them to be observed there; insomuch that about an hundred years after, when the above name Radulphus happened to be at Rome, he found all the books to be new, (of the new stamp).
Neither were there this chopping and changing in the more ancient times only, but also of late: Pius Quintus himself confesseth, that every Bishopric almost had a peculiar kind of service, most unlike to that which others had: which moved him to abolish all other Breviaries, though never so ancient, and privileged and published by Bishops in their Dioceses, and to establish and ratify that only which was of his own setting forth, in the year 1568.
Now when the father of their Church, who gladly would heal the sore of the daughter of his people softly and slightly, and make the best of it, findeth so great fault with them for their odds and jarring; we hope the children have no great cause to vaunt of their uniformity. But the difference that appeareth between our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us: O tandem maior parcas insane minori: they that are less sound themselves, ought not to object infirmities to others.
If we should tell them that Valla, Stapulensis, Erasmus, and Vives found fault with their vulgar Translation, and consequently wished the same to be mended, or a new one to be made, they would answer peradventure, that we produced their enemies for witnesses against them; albeit, they were in no other sort enemies, than as S. Paul was to the Galatians, for telling them the truth [Gal 4:16]: and it were to be wished, that they had dared to tell it them plainlier and oftener.
But what will they say to this, that Pope Leo the Tenth allowed Erasmus' Translation of the New Testament, so much different from the vulgar, by his Apostolic Letter and Bull; that the same Leo exhorted Pagnine to translate the whole Bible, and bare whatsoever charges was necessary for the work? Surely, as the Apostle reasoneth to the Hebrews, that if the former Law and Testament had been sufficient, there had been no need of the latter: [Heb 7:11 and 8:7] so we may say, that if the old vulgar had been at all points allowable, to small purpose had labour and charges been undergone, about framing of a new.
If they say, it was one Pope's private opinion, and that he consulted only himself; then we are able to go further with them, and to aver, that more of their chief men of all sorts, even their own Trent champions Paiva and Vega, and their own Inquisitors, Hieronymus ab Oleastro, and their own Bishop Isidorus Clarius, and their own Cardinal Thomas a Vio Caietan, do either make new Translations themselves, or follow new ones of other men's making, or note the vulgar Interpreter for halting; none of them fear to dissent from him, nor yet to except against him.
And call they this an uniform tenor of text and judgment about the text, so many of their Worthies disclaiming the now received conceit? Nay, we will yet come nearer the quick: doth not their Paris edition differ from the Lovaine, and Hentenius his from them both, and yet all of them allowed by authority?
Nay, doth not Sixtus Quintus confess, that certain Catholics (he meaneth certain of his own side) were in such an humor of translating the Scriptures into Latin, that Satan taking occasion by them, though they thought of no such matter, did strive what he could, out of so uncertain and manifold a variety of Translations, so to mingle all things, that nothing might seem to be left certain and firm in them, etc.?
Nay, further, did not the same Sixtus ordain by an inviolable decree, and that with the counsel and consent of his Cardinals, that the Latin edition of the old and new Testament, which the Council of Trent would have to be authentic, is the same without controversy which he then set forth, being diligently corrected and printed in the Printing-house of Vatican? Thus Sixtus in his Preface before his Bible.
And yet Clement the Eighth his immediate successor, publisheth another edition of the Bible, containing in it infinite differences from that of Sixtus, (and many of them weighty and material) and yet this must be authentic by all means. What is to have the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with Yea or Nay, if this be not? Again, what is sweet harmony and consent, if this be?..
This is not under discussion, but I thank you for taking the time and effort to publish it. My position was that the translators themselves were emerging from the dark ages and certain influence remained. It does so today. Otherwise, why do we dispute over other things? I propose certain things and document it. Other oppose it. Why? Is the documentation inadequate? No. But they learned other things and are still influenced by them. You see it yourself - being well schooled in scripture. I was raised a Catholic. It took five, sometimes ten years to shed a wrong belief.
Perhaps 90% of posters on this Forum will celebrate Christmas. Why? It is neither commanded in scripture nor recorded. It is Babylonian Myth, and forbidden to Israel in Jeremiah 10 as, "the ways of the heathen". Even the shortest Internet study will show the pagan origins of Christmas. But Christians celebrate it, and get mad when it is pointed out that their cherished festivities have nothing to do with the birth of Christ, but that honor Ra, the sun-god. That ... is remaining influence 400 years after the Reformation, never mind 1604 AD.
If you are still not sure, ask yourself; On what basis did the Translators say that Paul was caught "UP" to Paradise. Not only was Paradise down, for Christ FIRST DESCENDED to the heart of the earth (Matt.12:40; Eph.4:9), but the Greek word "harpazo" shows movement BUT NOT DIRECTION. It is rendered correctly in Acts 8:39. And then, the translators correctly translated "Oikonomia" as "Dispensation", but scholars all over think that that means a period of time. On what basis? "Oikonomia", from which we get ECONOMY, means "household management" in which a mother DISPENSES food to her household, or a government DISPENSES with the collected taxes.
Influence of past things .... plenty around.
Perhaps 90% of posters on this Forum will celebrate Christmas. Why? It is neither commanded in scripture nor recorded. It is Babylonian Myth, and forbidden to Israel in Jeremiah 10 as, "the ways of the heathen". Even the shortest Internet study will show the pagan origins of Christmas. But Christians celebrate it, and get mad when it is pointed out that their cherished festivities have nothing to do with the birth of Christ, but that honor Ra, the sun-god. That ... is remaining influence 400 years after the Reformation, never mind 1604 AD.
If you are still not sure, ask yourself; On what basis did the Translators say that Paul was caught "UP" to Paradise. Not only was Paradise down, for Christ FIRST DESCENDED to the heart of the earth (Matt.12:40; Eph.4:9), but the Greek word "harpazo" shows movement BUT NOT DIRECTION. It is rendered correctly in Acts 8:39. And then, the translators correctly translated "Oikonomia" as "Dispensation", but scholars all over think that that means a period of time. On what basis? "Oikonomia", from which we get ECONOMY, means "household management" in which a mother DISPENSES food to her household, or a government DISPENSES with the collected taxes.
Influence of past things .... plenty around.
It is written that no man has ascended to heaven except he who has descended from heaven.
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. John 3:13
Nothing suggests that Jesus was descending to paradise, he merely told the malefactor that day he shall be with him in paradise, or at least he was until he went to bed that night.
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. Ps 139:8
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. John 3:13
Nothing suggests that Jesus was descending to paradise, he merely told the malefactor that day he shall be with him in paradise, or at least he was until he went to bed that night.
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. Ps 139:8
-
1
- Show all
See if we can agree.
The two malefactors were still alive as sunset approached. They had their legs broken to induce shock and subsequent death, and would have been removed from their crosses before sunset. Both of the bodies where probably buried or burned. Their spirits went to God (Eccl.3:21, 12:7), and their SOULS, like Jesus', went to Hades. At least one of them went to the same place as Jesus. Like Luke 15, it seems that Hades has at least two sections divided by a chasm. In Luke 15 one section is called Abraham's Bosom, and is a place of "comfort". There are now two options left. (i) Jesus, by His presence, opened a third section of Hades called "Paradise", or (ii) Jesus renamed Abraham's Bosom. Whatever, both are in Hades, in the heart of the earth - DOWN.
The malefactor who was with Jesus in Paradise, which is in Hades, went there because He acknowledged Jesus as a legitimate King. So did David in the Psalms. According to Acts 2:26-34, David is still in Hades (i) 50 days after Christ's resurrection, and (ii) 10 days after Christ ascended to heaven. If the same criteria were applied to David, as was to the malefactor, David is in Paradise - which must then be in Hades. Since Acts 2 says that David has not ascended, Hades, with Paradise as part of it, is DOWN.
In 1st Corinthians Chapter 15, the most comprehensive Chapter on resurrection, it says in verse 23 that those who are the Lord's will RISE only AT HIS COMING. The malefactor, if he is counted as the Lord's, will RISE from Paradise only when the Lord Jesus COMES. You can only RISE if you are BELOW. Paradise must be DOWN.
An impartial jury, and an honest detective, would find Hades, with Paradise as part of it, DOWN.
- In Matthew 12:40 our Lord says that He will die and spend three days in "the heart of the earth"
- In Ephesians 4:9 it says that our Lord Jesus FIRST DESCENDED before He ascended
- In John 20:17 He, the RISEN Lord, said He had not YET ascended to His father
- In Psalm 16:10 and Acts 2:27 & 31 it maintains that the Soul of Jesus was in Hades, but was not held there
- The Biblical, and Jewish day starts at sunset
- The Law of Moses said that a man left on a wooden edifice after the day's end brought a curse on the land (Deut.21:22-23)
The two malefactors were still alive as sunset approached. They had their legs broken to induce shock and subsequent death, and would have been removed from their crosses before sunset. Both of the bodies where probably buried or burned. Their spirits went to God (Eccl.3:21, 12:7), and their SOULS, like Jesus', went to Hades. At least one of them went to the same place as Jesus. Like Luke 15, it seems that Hades has at least two sections divided by a chasm. In Luke 15 one section is called Abraham's Bosom, and is a place of "comfort". There are now two options left. (i) Jesus, by His presence, opened a third section of Hades called "Paradise", or (ii) Jesus renamed Abraham's Bosom. Whatever, both are in Hades, in the heart of the earth - DOWN.
The malefactor who was with Jesus in Paradise, which is in Hades, went there because He acknowledged Jesus as a legitimate King. So did David in the Psalms. According to Acts 2:26-34, David is still in Hades (i) 50 days after Christ's resurrection, and (ii) 10 days after Christ ascended to heaven. If the same criteria were applied to David, as was to the malefactor, David is in Paradise - which must then be in Hades. Since Acts 2 says that David has not ascended, Hades, with Paradise as part of it, is DOWN.
In 1st Corinthians Chapter 15, the most comprehensive Chapter on resurrection, it says in verse 23 that those who are the Lord's will RISE only AT HIS COMING. The malefactor, if he is counted as the Lord's, will RISE from Paradise only when the Lord Jesus COMES. You can only RISE if you are BELOW. Paradise must be DOWN.
An impartial jury, and an honest detective, would find Hades, with Paradise as part of it, DOWN.
Only if the agreement is to speak of what you know and testify to that which you have seen. 
-
1
- Show all
When Nehemiah6 wrote that Adam and Eve were thrown out of the garden
I am very confused as to Nehemiah's understanding of the garden story. If Adam and Eve were trhown out of the garden before eating the fruit, why were they thrown out. I would like to know what version of it you are referring to, because every Bible i've seen has them expelled after and because they ate the fruit.
I am very confused as to Nehemiah's understanding of the garden story. If Adam and Eve were trhown out of the garden before eating the fruit, why were they thrown out. I would like to know what version of it you are referring to, because every Bible i've seen has them expelled after and because they ate the fruit.
They were forewarned by God not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and also the consequences for doing so. God gave an adequate explanation beforehand. It was only after they sinned that they were fully aware of their disobedience and that they did in fact commit a sin and that there was indeed a price to pay for their actions.