Is death just another life?

[Clete]

Nah.
I don't even think you are sinless, but I think you have a relationship with the Lord.

Is it that everyone has simply decided to ignore everything I say.

That's fine.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If what you've written below is supposed to explain this statement, I'm still not getting it. But see what I respond with below to determine if we're at least communicating on the same plane.

I contend that your definition is made in order to rectify a supposed inconsistency, that Adam DIDN'T die in the day he ate the fruit, and without that supposed inconsistency, there's no need to redefine death. It will be difficult for you to see it this way, as you are both content and accustomed to your definition. However, it is inconsistent with all other uses of death in our language, which means it is a "redefinition", not a "definition".

dearly departed

Definition of dearly departed in the Idioms Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

idioms.thefreedictionary.com

Not a "redefinition" at all.

My definition is consistent with how we speak of death, how Paul spoke ("absent" from the body), and with what happened in Genesis 3, where God kicked man out of the garden in the day [the very same one] that he ate of the fruit.

Adam wasn't told he would "die when he ate the fruit", but that he would die "in the day he ate the fruit". That difference is subtle, but necessary to point out.

You seem to think that "in the day" is referring somehow to when Adam would die.

It's not.

Read the verse again slowly:

Genesis 2:16-17:
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 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[f] shall surely die.”

The "in the day" is modifying when the fruit is eaten, not when man will die.

In other words, God is saying that by eating the fruit, whenever that may be, he will die.

Satan didn't say Adam wouldn't die in the day, he said he would NEVER die. Are you suggesting that I'm in agreement that Adam would NEVER die? I'd like to see how you get that from my posts.

Again, your definition of death is "cessation of existence."

God said "in the day that you eat of it ..." (referring to a yet future undefined moment, as explained earlier in this post) "... dying you shall die."

Satan said "You shall not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:4-5)

"In the day [Adam ate] of it," he did not "cease to exist."

So far in scripture, "in the day" has referred to 'a week' and 'a yet future undefined moment' (As W2G has said, Eating a single fruit doesn't take 930 years.) Adam did not cease to exist over the course of 930 years, he died (whatever the definition) at the END of 930 years.

Not if put in opposition to what Satan said, which is that Adam would NEVER die.

Satan did not say "you shall never die."

He said, "you shall not surely die" (or "not dying you will not die," if we look at the Hebrew) in the day you eat of the fruit.

If Adam understood God, and we should believe God was able to program Adam with language to be able understand the most significant command He ever gave to any man, then that is the most important thing regarding the phrase in chapter 2, even if we need chapter 5 to understand it fully.

We have something said in chapter 3 regarding that phrase within the context of the story that allows us to understand it fully, without going to something two chapters later being talked about in a completely different context.

It's called "So He drove out the man."

"In the day you eat of the fruit, you shall surely die.

In the day that man ate of the fruit, he did die, because God drove him out of the garden.

And we already have the different use of "day" IN THE SAME CHAPTER.

This is similar, but less asinine, than the suggestion from way 2 go that the eating has to continue until Adam dies.

We recognize that we do have a dying process that can be visibly or physically observed. For instance, I have much more grey hair now than I did 10 years ago. I'm am closer to death than I was then, therefore in dying I shall die. Or I will continue dying until I'm fully dead, at which time, the loss of existence is complete, whereas until it is complete, first I lose hair, then I lose memory, then I lose kidney function, then...

Supra.

My admission was regarding what happens AFTER the definition is changed. But that changing of definition is quite significant--we really don't want to use a different dictionary than God does when God tells us something. Then "murder" is not really murder, and "adultery" is not really adultery...it allows for all kinds of things God didn't intend.

Definitions are part of the truth. It really does matter what "is" means.

 

[Derf]

Not a "redefinition" at all.

My definition is consistent with how we speak of death, how Paul spoke ("absent" from the body), and with what happened in Genesis 3, where God kicked man out of the garden in the day [the very same one] that he ate of the fruit.

Well, not a redefinition from TheFreeDictionary.com, I agree. Surely a usage of a word that has persisted for well over a thousand years, much longer than our English language has existed, would be included in most English dictionaries. But I’m contending that it’s a redefinition from what God intended.

You seem to think that "in the day" is referring somehow to when Adam would die.

It's not.

Read the verse again slowly:

Genesis 2:16-17:
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 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[f] shall surely die.”

The "in the day" is modifying when the fruit is eaten, not when man will die.

In other words, God is saying that by eating the fruit, whenever that may be, he will die.

I’ll disagree with you on the modifications in that sentence. The word “that” introduces a dependent clause, and “in the day” is not part of that clause. The sentence will read acceptably well, grammatically, without the dependent clause. And if you remove it, you can see that the prepositional phrase “in the day” still fits as a modifier of “you will surely die” and specifically as an adverbial modifier of the verb “die”. “That you eat of the [tree]” actually modifies “day”—it tells which day. Then “you will surely die” tells the pertinent event that will take place “in the day”.

Again, your definition of death is "cessation of existence."

That’s one I propose, as I don’t yet have a better one to offer. But I agree it is somewhat deficient. I’m trying to keep it distinct from “soul sleep”, which also has some deficiencies.

God said "in the day that you eat of it ..." (referring to a yet future undefined moment, as explained earlier in this post) "... dying you shall die."

Satan said "You shall not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:4-5)

"In the day [Adam ate] of it," he did not "cease to exist."

So far in scripture, "in the day" has referred to 'a week' and 'a yet future undefined moment' (As W2G has said, Eating a single fruit doesn't take 930 years.) Adam did not cease to exist over the course of 930 years, he died (whatever the definition) at the END of 930 years.

If “dying you shall die” suggests an ongoing event, as the present participle suggests, it seems unlikely that it could happen in a single moment, when Adam was kicked out of the garden.

How long does it take to die?

Satan did not say "you shall never die."

He said, "you shall not surely die" (or "not dying you will not die," if we look at the Hebrew) in the day you eat of the fruit.

I’m struggling to find a difference in your distinction.

We have something said in chapter 3 regarding that phrase within the context of the story that allows us to understand it fully, without going to something two chapters later being talked about in a completely different context.
It's called "So He drove out the man."

"In the day you eat of the fruit, you shall surely die.

In the day that man ate of the fruit, he did die, because God drove him out of the garden.

No, it explicitly says the reason God drove him out, which wasn’t because he ate the tree—it was to take away access to the tree of life AFTER he was told he would return to dust.

I’ll have to think about your good point about Paul’s use of “absence”.

 

[glorydaz]

How long does it take to die?

Some say we begin to die the moment we are born.

The dying process takes quite some time for most people.

 

[Clete]

What could this passage possibly mean?

​

Colossians 2:11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.​

​

What?....

Romans 6:4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.​

How can this possibly be true...

Romans 7:8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.​

​

 

[JudgeRightly]

Well, not a redefinition from TheFreeDictionary.com, I agree. Surely a usage of a word that has persisted for well over a thousand years, much longer than our English language has existed, would be included in most English dictionaries. But I’m contending that it’s a redefinition from what God intended.

And yet, I gave you TWO instances in scripture where separation was how "death" was intended.

If I hadn't done that, then you might have a point.

I’ll disagree with you on the modifications in that sentence. The word “that” introduces a dependent clause, and “in the day” is not part of that clause. The sentence will read acceptably well, grammatically, without the dependent clause. And if you remove it, you can see that the prepositional phrase “in the day” still fits as a modifier of “you will surely die” and specifically as an adverbial modifier of the verb “die”. “That you eat of the [tree]” actually modifies “day”—it tells which day. Then “you will surely die” tells the pertinent event that will take place “in the day”.

You just get done telling me about how long our English language has existed, then immediately go into the grammar of the English version of the text.

That’s one I propose, as I don’t yet have a better one to offer. But I agree it is somewhat deficient. I’m trying to keep it distinct from “soul sleep”, which also has some deficiencies.

The better one that solves the problems you have is the one I and Clete are offering, that death means separation.

If “dying you shall die” suggests an ongoing event, as the present participle suggests, it seems unlikely that it could happen in a single moment, when Adam was kicked out of the garden.

It's the "dying" part that you seem to be focusing on, to the point where you're ignoring the rest of the phrase, or at the very least, just tacking it on as if it doesn't change anything.

"Dying" implies an ongoing process.

"Die" implies a singular event.

"Dying (the body starts to decay) you shall die (the singular separation, either of body and soul/spirit, or of man and God)."

How long does it take to die?

Depends on which kind of death your talking about.

Spiritual death is instantaneous.

Physical death is also instantaneous, when the body is separated from the soul/spirit.

Dying is a lifelong process (as GD suggested).

I’m struggling to find a difference in your distinction.

Consider: You keep saying "you will never die." What I've pointed out is that what Satan said is that something will not occur in the yet future event "in the day that you eat of it," but it COULD be read as if it won't ever happen.

In other words: Your phrase is clear cut. Satan's was intentionally deceptive to make Adam think that what he meant was your phrase, while meaning that "death will not occur at the point where one eats the fruit."

God's command was clear: In the day that you eat of the fruit, you shall surely die.
Satan's lie was deceptive: In the day that you eat of the fruit, you shall not surely die.

Both God and Satan were referring to a yet future event in the day where Adam ate the fruit.

No, it explicitly says the reason God drove him out, which wasn’t because he ate the tree—it was to take away access to the tree of life AFTER he was told he would return to dust.

Scripture says that God said this:

Genesis 3:22
22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever..."

BECAUSE:

Genesis 2:17
17 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.”

Thus, by Adam:

Genesis 3:6-7
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

I’ll have to think about your good point about Paul’s use of “absence”.

Now you're going to think about it, after the many times, even in this thread, that you have been presented with "absent from the body"?

Absent from the body == separated from the body == body and soul/spirit are separated = physical death

 

[Idolater]

If Adam and Eve were expelled from God's presence, and if Christ is God, and if Christ is really present whenever we gather in His name, then what does that say about the idea that in the day that Adam died, when he was expelled from the Garden, that his death was due to his 'separation' from God? Doesn't it somehow reconcile it?

 

[glorydaz]

God's command was clear: In the day that you eat of the fruit, you shall surely die.
Satan's lie was deceptive: In the day that you eat of the fruit, you shall not surely die.

Both God and Satan were referring to a yet future event in the day where Adam ate the fruit.

I think the deception was only possible because of the word "surely".


Whether any part of Adam died that day, or whether his access to the tree of life was cut off and he would eventually die, or whether he was condemned to die because of his sin are all in the realm of possibility.

Absent from the body == separated from the body == body and soul/spirit are separated = physical death

The question then is whether our spirit is so separated from God as to call it "dead".
We are able to hear and respond to the Gospel, for instance.

Can't have it both ways.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The question then is whether our spirit is so separated from God as to call it "dead".
We are able to hear and respond to the Gospel, for instance.

When we sin, we are separated from God. "I was alive once without the law. But when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."

It has nothing or very little to do with whether God can call out to us after we are separated from Him.

Someone who rejects the gospel is just as spiritually dead as someone who has sinned and has never heard the gospel.

Having the ability to hear and respond to the gospel is something we can do, regardless of whether we are spiritually dead or not.

Regardless, Paul's "absent from the body, present with the LORD" isn't talking about spiritual death. It's talking about physical death.

Can't have it both ways.

False dichotomy, as explained above.

 

[glorydaz]

When we sin, we are separated from God. "I was alive once without the law. But when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."

It has nothing or very little to do with whether God can call out to us after we are separated from Him.

Someone who rejects the gospel is just as spiritually dead as someone who has sinned and has never heard the gospel.

Having the ability to hear and respond to the gospel is something we can do, regardless of whether we are spiritually dead or not.

That scripture has nothing to do with actually being "dead"....it has to do with the LAW and being condemned by the LAW to death.

The rest of your words are nothing more than conjecture. Where is your scripture to prove it?

You said, "Having the ability to hear and respond to the gospel is something we can do, regardless of whether we are spiritually dead or not."

Regardless, Paul's "absent from the body, present with the LORD" isn't talking about spiritual death. It's talking about physical death.



False dichotomy, as explained above.

My comment had nothing to do with the "absent from the body statement" so it can't be a "false dichotomy" as you charge.

I was talking about being spiritually separated from God and still being able to respond to the Gospel which is spiritual.

 

[JudgeRightly]

That scripture has nothing to do with actually being "dead"

It has everything to do with being dead spiritually.

....it has to do with the LAW and being condemned by the LAW to death.

Because the law kills, but the Spirit gives life.

The rest of your words are nothing more than conjecture. Where is your scripture to prove it?

I would have thought you would have recognized some of the passages I was referring to, GD.

See the link below.

You said, "Having the ability to hear and respond to the gospel is something we can do, regardless of whether we are spiritually dead or not."

Yes, I did. Spiritual deadness is by choice. But we can CHOOSE to come back to Christ if and when He calls us. See the link below.

My comment had nothing to do with the "absent from the body statement" so it can't be a "false dichotomy" as you charge.

You literally quoted the portion of my post where I was quoting Paul's "absent from the body."

What else am I supposed to think when you do that?

I was talking about being spiritually separated from God and still being able to respond to the Gospel which is spiritual.

Spiritually dead, separated from God, does NOT mean "corpse-like" deadness, as calvinists call it.

Dead Wrong!

HERE is the PODCAST on Spiritual Deadness Dr. Braxton Hunter, a Ph.D. in Christian Apologetics and the President of Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary, partnered with me in a deb…

soteriology101.com

 

[JudgeRightly]

I think the deception was only possible because of the word "surely".

Forgot to address this:

The word "surely" isn't in the original Hebrew text.

The phrase used (as pointed out previously) is "dying you shall die."

 

[Arthur Brain]

Some say we begin to die the moment we are born.

The dying process takes quite some time for most people.

It's true enough really though isn't it? As soon as a life enters the world it's only got one guaranteed destination in one sense - death, no matter what.

Depending on how long that life lasts then we have threads like this one that pontificate on what may be the ultimate 'fate' of said depending on what they believed in this snapshot of existence etc. Get it right then "Heaven", get it wrong then "Hell", "Lake Of Fire" et al...Fun isn't it?

 

[glorydaz]

It has everything to do with being dead spiritually.



Because the law kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Paul is not saying the law kills any more than he is saying we are dead to sin.

Romans 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

What the law does is condemn us to death, and that is what Paul is talking about.
You're missing his point totally in chapter 7....probably all of chapter 6, 7, and 8.

I would have thought you would have recognized some of the passages I was referring to, GD.

See the link below.

You thought wrong.

Yes, I did. Spiritual deadness is by choice. But we can CHOOSE to come back to Christ if and when He calls us. See the link below.

What you're saying makes no sense. How about you just post scripture that says spiritual deadness is by choice and we can choose to come back......

You literally quoted the portion of my post where I was quoting Paul's "absent from the body."

What else am I supposed to think when you do that?

I thought you'd see I was talking about deadness or separation of spirit/soul. The last half of your statement.
I would have highlighted your words in red except I didn't know if that was allowed or not.

Spiritually dead, separated from God, does NOT mean "corpse-like" deadness, as calvinists call it.

Dead Wrong!

HERE is the PODCAST on Spiritual Deadness Dr. Braxton Hunter, a Ph.D. in Christian Apologetics and the President of Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary, partnered with me in a deb…

soteriology101.com

I don't think spiritually dead even exists. Call it what you will.
I know what you're saying, but I don't agree.

Read it as condemned and then you'll see how the law "kills", and what Paul is talking about.

Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

 

[glorydaz]

Forgot to address this:

The word "surely" isn't in the original Hebrew text.

The phrase used (as pointed out previously) is "dying you shall die."

It's in my Bible, so I'll stick with that.

 

[glorydaz]

It's true enough really though isn't it? As soon as a life enters the world it's only got one guaranteed destination in one sense - death, no matter what.

Depending on how long that life lasts then we have threads like this one that pontificate on what may be the ultimate 'fate' of said depending on what they believed in this snapshot of existence etc. Get it right then "Heaven", get it wrong then "Hell", "Lake Of Fire" et al...Fun isn't it?

Well, I think God has all the bases covered. We just have to see where each fits in.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well, I think God has all the bases covered. We just have to see where each fits in.

I've no problem with God having all of the bases covered. I'm more bemused by those who think He hasn't...

 

[glorydaz]

Forgot to address this:

The word "surely" isn't in the original Hebrew text.

The phrase used (as pointed out previously) is "dying you shall die."

I just spent some time looking to the Hebrew and the meaning of this portion of scripture.

Some agree with you, and others don't. What I found very interesting was the agreement seemed to be that it was talking about losing immortality. Even those who said, "dying you shall die" was speaking of mortality. That is one of the possibilities I'd listed earlier with them no longer having access to the tree of life.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Paul is not saying the law kills any more than he is saying we are dead to sin.

He literally says "the law kills", GD!

And then he contrasts that by saying "the Spirit gives life"!

That's rather explicit!

I've pointed out before, either in this thread or another, that the authors of the Bible were VERY careful in how they worded what they said.

Romans 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Which is referring to those to whom "the Spirit [gave] life."

What the law does is condemn us to death,

The law doesn't do that. That's Satan that does that. (1 Peter 5:8)

The law is what kills us, and Paul is rather emphatic about this:

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 6:23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans6:23&version=NKJV

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead.I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. - Romans 7:7-12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans7:7-12&version=NKJV

The law is what delivers the wages of sin (death) to us who have sinned, similar to how the law

and that is what Paul is talking about.

And we have such trust through Christ toward God.Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God,who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. - 2 Corinthians 3:4-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Corinthians3:4-6&version=NKJV

How do you deal with John 3:18, which says the world is condemned already simply because the world doesn't believe?

“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. - John 3:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John3:18&version=NKJV

Paul then goes on to say this:

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. - Romans 8:1-3,9-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans8:1-3,9-11&version=NKJV

Because:

Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death.But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. - Romans 7:1-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans7:1-6&version=NKJV

You're missing his point totally in chapter 7....probably all of chapter 6, 7, and 8.

And what point would that be?

You thought wrong.

Serves me right for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

What you're saying makes no sense. How about you just post scripture that says spiritual deadness is by choice and we can choose to come back......

John 3:16-18

Romans 10:9-15

I thought you'd see I was talking about deadness or separation of spirit/soul. The last half of your statement.
I would have highlighted your words in red except I didn't know if that was allowed or not.

I usually reserve [ COLOR=RED ] for the words of Christ.

If I'm highlighting something, I usually use [ YELLOW ]/[ /YELLOW].

I don't think spiritually dead even exists.

The phrase does not exist in the Bible, to be sure.

However, I have repeatedly called the separation of man from God "spiritually dead," if for no other reason than ease of use, but mainly because that's how the Bible describes those who are separated from God in Revelation, "dead" on a spiritual level, and there are similarities between that and other instances where the Bible talks about those who do not have a relationship with God when they die physically being separated from Him.

Call it what you will.
I know what you're saying, but I don't agree.

I don't care if you agree with me or not. What I care about is whether you understand the argument presented.

Read it as condemned

This is called eisegesis, GD. Reading an a priori belief into scripture to try and understand what scripture says is a bad idea.

and then you'll see how the law "kills", and what Paul is talking about.

Except that Paul never describes the law as "condemning" anything, at least not directly that I could find. You're more than welcome to prove me wrong by posting a scripture that has Paul saying that the law condemns, even if it's not verbatim.

Otherwise, I'm going to stick to what Paul said, that the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Supra.

 

[Clete]

False dichotomy, as explained above.

That seems to be all these twits are capable of doing! Repeating themselves as though we've said nothing.