Derf
Well-known member
I don't think I have, since "eat" isn't a time word, it's an action that the time words are addressing. The other is "die". Both occur "in the [same] day", which is what we should be attmpting to define. Do you agree?
Is death just another life?
- Thread starter Derf
- Start date
way 2 go
Well-known member
in this case it defines when Adam and Eve died , when they ate
when is someone guilty of sin , they day they do it or some later date
it wasn't just any arbitrary day it was the only day they would die
Derf
Well-known member
Agreed..."in the [same] day"
Not sure why this is important, but they are guilty as soon as they commit the sin. They are still guilty days, months, years later. Punishment may or may not occur at some later date.
Never said it was arbitrary, but your statement should end with, "it was the only day they would die in," if you want to actually discuss the passage. Our discussion is around the meaning of "in the day". Now, can you give me a definition of "in the day" that holds true for both uses of "in the day" in Gen 2? Please go read Gen 2, paying extra attention to the two uses of the phrase "in the day" before you answer.
way 2 go
Well-known member
sin causes death right away
(Romans 7:9) For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
back "in the day" we learned to split atoms and created nuclear bombs nuclear power plants nuclear subs
and "in the day" they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima On 6 August 1945 killed an estimated 129,000 people
look I used "in the day" in they same sentence with different duration
your eisegesis of Gen 2:17 is wrong
God created everything on day one then formed everything on days 2-6
"in the day" here means one day , not that it matters verse 17 stands on it's own
(Genesis 2:4) These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
.
eating took mere minutes and seperated them from God immediately which is the death God warned them about
(Genesis 2:17 [MKJV]) but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
Derf
Well-known member
Fantastic post, way 2 go! You actually answered my questions. I don't agree with your answer, but it was well worded.
Can you tell me how sin could "revive" in someone? Can something "revive" that has never been alive? So sin must have been alive in him already, and had died in some way, don't you think? If that's true, then how does the commandment coming revive sin? The only way I know of for sin to die in us is for us to die to sin...for us to be crucified with Christ.
Yes, you did. That's a good way to show one correct use and one incorrect use of "in the day". Nobody uses that second form. We always use "on the day" when talking about a particular day. You even do it when you when you begin the second sentence with "On 6 August..." and while you dropped the period after Hiroshima, you retained the capitalization of "on". We don't use "in the day" to mean the same thing as "on the day".
Maybe, but I've shown yours to be wrong, while you've actually shown mine to be possible.
I don't think 17 stands on its own, but even if it did, the second half of 2:4 doesn't stand in its own apart from the first half, does it? And the first half of 2:4 makes a reference to the generations of the heavens and the earth, while either referring back to the previous description of 6 days (Gen 1:1-2:3), or ahead to 2:5 and following, which is an unknown number of days, but unlikely to be less than God's sixth and seventh day (in which case "in the day" would still refer to more than a single day).
Separated them from God immediately? How do you get that, since God wasn't walking with them at the time they ate it, but then He came and had a conversation with them after they ate it? Now you've turned "in the day" into "in the instant". Who's doing the eisegesis, here?
This certainly doesn't stand in its own, as the narrative started before it and continued after it. Don't we always want to let the bible interpret itself? Don't we need other passages to help with that? Or at least the whole of the passage a verse is in.
way 2 go
Well-known member
the Law and we inherited sin
sin is death
"sin revived, and I died."
"For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
no
how did Paul die ?
how are the dead standing ?
(Revelation of John 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God. And books were opened. And another Book was opened, * which is * the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of the things written in the books, according to their works.
no.
know how I know because I just used it in a sentence you know in the day they dropped the nuke 129,000 people died
no
in or on
no difference
no you didn't and your eisegesis is wrong
eating took very little time not days .
the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
verse 17 stands on it's own
(Genesis 2:17 [MKJV]) but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
God said you eat you die in that day that you eat
they ate they died that day
so now you want to deny they were guilty of sin the moment they ate ?
derf :but they are guilty as soon as they commit the sin
Derf
Well-known member
Edited in:So sin was alive in us thru inheritance from birth, right? And what was the result? That everybody born in Adam's line dies. Then the law came and Paul died. So what about Paul died? Wasn't he already dead in your view? Of already dead, then sin must have died in ordered to be revived...you can't revive something that is already alive.
Supra.
He recognized his eventual death--that he couldn't keep the law perfectly, or more likely that He realized the law was insufficient to save him. Just like Abimelech became a dead man while he was still alive:
Genesis 20:3 KJV — But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife.
Ask Abimelech.
Jesus told us there would be a resurrection, and all in their graves would come out, some to eternal life and some to condemnation. These are people that had just before been dead, but now were raised from the dead, just prior to judgment.
Which is not normally used that way. Look up "in the day meaning" on the web.
Incorrect. Here's just one hit from my search:
------------------
Do we use in or on for days?
“In” generally refers to longer periods of time. “On” is used with dates and named days. “By” is used with times and named days of the week, but specifically, telling us an end time.Oct 10, 2017
https://www.mmmenglish.com › pre...
Prepositions of TIME IN / ON / AT / BY Common English Grammar ...
--------------------I know you have little more to say than what you've already said in this topic, but perhaps you could expand your horizons a bit and investigate a little. Then let me know what you find.
Wrong. All scripture needs context. For instance, who is the "you" in the verse? Please tell me only from the information in verse 17.
See how you had to rephrase from "in the day" to "that day"? That's because we don't use "in the day" like that.
So? How does that impact our discussion?
Last edited:
way 2 go
Well-known member
you're mixed up because you don't believe Adam & Eve died in the day of the eating of the tree
your spiritless man is not compatible with the bible
spiritually alive at birth
(Matthew 18:10) Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones . For I say to you that in Heaven their angels always behold the face of My Father in Heaven
(Luke 1:15) For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall neither drink wine nor strong drink. And he shall be filled with * the * Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.
doesn't say that now does it
"I died "is paste tense
"Abimelech became a dead man" doesn't say that now does it
how are the dead standing before God
(Revelation of John 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.
your contention is death only applies to the physical body and
what would be the point of physically dead bodies standing before God
but they are spiritually dead and that explains dead standing before God
you've got nothing
eating caused their spiritual death on that day .
so now you want to deny they were guilty of sin the moment they ate ?
derf :but they are guilty as soon as they commit the sin
Paul was physically alive when he wrote this but sin killed Adam & Eve spiritually , immediately
(Romans 7:11) For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me .
killed is past tense too
Derf
Well-known member
You're misrepresenting what I wrote I believe Adam and Eve died "in", but not "on" the day they ate the fruit. And I showed how those two phrases don't have the same meaning, both in our time and in the time when Genesis chapter 2 was written. As it was when Gen 2 was translated into English.
I never said man was without a spirit. What I am saying is that it isn't necessary to invent some kind of spiritual death to explain Gen 2.
Unnecessary, since I've shown we don't need the spiritual death concept, when real death works just fine.
Would you like to explain why you quoted those?
Right, just like Abimelech was dead, present tense. This he must have died previously (past tense). Since I've shown that the bible sometimes talks about something that hasn't yet happened as if it has already happened in one place (Abimelech), then it might apply in another place (Paul). There is more to back up my assertion, Paul actually describing the very thing that I'm describing:
Romans 4:17 KJV — (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
And he's talking about death and resurrection, which is the exact subject we were talking about.
No, but it implies it, just like Paul saying "and I died" doesn't say he was dead afterward. "You are a dead man" equals "You died." "And I died" equals "And I became a dead man." If the first can apply to an alive man, meaning "You are about to die," so can the second.
Physically dead bodies can't stsnd, whether there's a point or not. But alive bodies that were previously dead can stand. This is also described elsewhere, as I mentioned before.
John 5:28-29 NKJV — Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.
Do you think the people that come out of the graves will be able to stand?
So they are never actually resurrected before being condemned? Are you calling Jesus a liar?
Yep, just as Paul says. "You were dead in pur trespasses and sins" equals "You are as good as dead in your trespasses and sins." Just like Abimelech.
way 2 go
Well-known member
on the day your car dies you'll be walking
in the day your car dies you'll be walking
no difference
your still walking the day it happens
I didn't invent it , what is is and what is not is not that's truth
no . only to people who add to the bible like yourself
spiritually alive at birth
nope , God threatened Abimelech , Paul didn't threaten himself
(Genesis 20:3) But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, you are about to die, for the woman whom you have taken; for she is a man's wife.
how could he be alive unless
it's a spiritual death
no you're adding to the bible which is strange for you since you get hung up over "on or in"
"I died "is paste tense that wasn't Paul threatening himself like God threatened Abimelech
also
(Romans 7:11) For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me .
killed is past tense too
killed and died spiritually
you like to add to the bible
(Revelation of John 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.
it doesn't say those who were dead , it says "the dead" which you can't explain
but spiritually dead explains it
what is is and what is not is not that's truth
yes they dead will be able to stand
your problem is explaining how there are still dead and standing
(Revelation of John 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.
Jesus taught your future is decided at your death
(Luke 16:22-23) [22] And it happened that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich one also died and was buried. [23] And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Derf
Well-known member
Both can be true without them meaning the same thing.
Wrong. Look up the phrases.
No, I didn't give you that much credit. But someone did invent it to explain something that they thought needed to be explained.
That doesn't mean you are the one speaking truth.
Or yourself, since "spiritually dead" isn't in the bible.
Neither of those say anything about being spiritually alive.
God threatened Paul, just like He threatened Adam and Eve, and Cain, and Abimelech, and everyone under the law. The law carries with it an explicit threat of death for anyone who breaks the law.
The same way Abimelech was alive even when God, who does not lie, said, "Thou art a dead man."
how could he be alive unless
it's a spiritual death
Are you saying I have a wrong interpretation of the Abimelech verse? Please explain.
Supra
If someone is currently dead, then he died in the past, right? So Abimelech being a dead man means that he died in the past, right? Same as Paul.
John 5:25 KJV — Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
Can the dead hear? These are not spiritually dead, but physically dead, as the later verse shows:
John 5:28 KJV — Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Spiritually dead people aren't in graves. Physically dead people can't hear, unless they are given life first. So it is with those in Rev 20. They were dead, but now they are alive and able to stand and hear.
Which is meaningless.
I don't have a problem explaining it.
Jesus taught that your future, after death, is decided AFTER the resurrection.
John 5:28-29 KJV — Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
You have no idea whether the resurrection has already taken place in that story, since it isn't mentioned...unless you are adding to scripture.
way 2 go
Well-known member
both mean the same thing
walking
on the day your car dies you'll be walking
in the day your car dies you'll be walking
no difference
your still walking the day it happens
just stating what is .
bible or trinity are not in the bible, so ?
but spiritually alive and spiritually dead are taught in the bible just like the trinity
trinity is alluded to in the first verse.
(Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
yes they do, you just can't see it
God doesn't join himself to the spiritually dead
(Luke 1:15) For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall neither drink wine nor strong drink. And he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.
this sounds spiritually dead to you then I guess you're spiritually dead.
your spirit doesn't cry Abba Father ?
(Romans 8:15) For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption by which we cry, Abba, Father!
guess your still dead ?
(Ephesians 2:5) (even when we were dead in sins) has made us alive together with Christ (by grace you are saved)
no , out of those the only one threatened was Abimelech
(Genesis 20:3) But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, you are about to die, for the woman whom you have taken; for she is a man's wife.
Adam and Eve, and Cain were not under the law
but all 3 were separated from God which is spiritual death
Abimelech was physically alive and spiritually dead and God threatened him with physical death
(Genesis 20:3) But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, you are about to die, for the woman whom you have taken; for she is a man's wife.
yes .
if your able to read this the only kind of dead you could be is spiritually dead not physically dead.
(Romans 7:11) For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me .
(Ephesians 2:5) (even when we were dead in sins) has made us alive together with Christ (by grace you are saved)
God threatened Abimelech with physical death , how come you don't understand that
you still have the same problem
they're already resurrected and called "the dead"
(Revelation of John 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.
it doesn't say those who were dead , it says "the dead" which you can't explain
but spiritually dead explains it
to you truth may be meaningless
what is is and what is not is not that's truth
then go ahead
yes they dead will be able to stand
your problem is explaining how there are still dead and standing
(Revelation of John 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.
your future destination is determined at your physical death no room for repentance after physical death.
punishments and rewards are determined later.
(Luke 16:22-23) [22] And it happened that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich one also died and was buried. [23] And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
You're contending, I thought, that priests should stop celebrating Eucharist. I'm saying I don't buy it.
But in the meantime, we are anointed with the Spirit. So obviously something's ontologically different right now, not just at the resurrection.
But the Apostles continued to celebrate the temple liturgy after the Ascension. This would make them sinners in so doing. Is this what you're proposing? Or are you suggesting Hebrews was written after the temple was pulverized?
lol. Having some experience with fasting I conclude that while I would characterize fasting as work, it's much easier work than eating and lifting weights is. I look forward to my next fast, because it's so easy. Saves time and effort. Never have to think, "What should I eat."
You're equating the Eucharist with Old Testament law?
We're baptized into Christ's Resurrection, not just His death and burial.
That's all I meant by all the penitential talk earlier.
Of course. But I think you're implying a false dilemma.
So what if a non-Christian has no fear of death? Would you expect them to live exactly the same?
Derf
Well-known member
Priests both administer and celebrate the eucharist, right? And everybody at mass celebrates it? Paul gave a small for-instance of when it's wrong for an individual to celebrate it, and the implication some take from Paul is that the administration should be withheld in certain circumstances. Several congresspersons have been denied the eucharist for such and other reasons over the years. So even the Catholic church seems to agree that it should stop in some fashion, whether you but it or not.
Why is an anointing of the Spirit an ontological difference? Didn't Saul the king have the anointing of the Spirit, but later lost it, and it was replaced by an evil spirit?
No, but Hebrews comments on the old covenant being replaced, though not in an instant of time.
Sounds like the military uniform of the day.
I am?
Yes, but what does that mean?
Ok
The verse is talking about the body, for sure, but isn't the "old man" problem also to be resolved, since it appears to be related to our flesh, which will be changed (future)?
In some ways, perhaps. Moslems, for instance, think they will be granted access to paradise if they sacrifice their lives for Allah. And they, then, live differently because of that assurance. Why do you ask?
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Ministerial priests (e.g. bishops) "celebrate" Mass differently from common priests (all the rest of us). I'm saying Paul is not saying that Church bishops should ever stop celebrating the Eucharist.
It should stop for non-Catholics, Derf. That's what you just proved.
Even if it's probationary and reversible, it still must be real. Passing from death to life, transubstantiating from goats to sheep.
Doesn't it? Doesn't the death of the testator end the Old Covenant in an instant of time? Hadn't it already happened on the cross? And therefore when the Apostles went to the temple to participate in Old Testament liturgy, weren't they sinning, according to Hebrews?
And if instead Christ's death dedicated the New Covenant, amending and fulfilling the Old, even then, still, wasn't what the Apostles were doing still sin, if that's what Hebrews is talking about with repenting of dead works?
In either case, the Old is turned off like a light switch on the cross. Whether it's because it's turned off itself, or because the New was turned on. Same result.
I don't think the Apostles were guilty of not repenting of dead works in participating in OT temple liturgy at the temple while the temple still stood.
Only if you love serving in the military and it's your passion and what completes you and gives your life full meaning. Then that would be an OK analogy.
Context of Galatians 3.
It means an ontological, metaphysical change. A cadaver transubstantiates into a living man.
Whatever happens in the future is going to be a one-off, but in the meantime there are predictable and known changes in our accidents, as we are purged of the accidents of a corpse, replacing them with accidents of a living man.
I don't think they would get baptized, read the Bible, go to Mass, just because they lack a fear of death. It seems like that's what you were saying. Is that not what you mean?
It seems like your idea of the Christian life is more simply law-abiding and morally upright, but not distinctively Christian, whereas that is not the historical way the Church saw themselves, like ever. They just read the Bible, it says 1st Corinthians 11:26 "till He come," and that's what we do.
Derf
Well-known member
Does that not make you a non-catholic?
I'm not saying it's not real, just that the anointing didn't always change the person into something else. I don't see that King Saul became a sheep or that he passed from death to life. In fact, if he had indeed passed from death to life, how could he pass back to death?
Perhaps so. I was thinking of this verse:
Hebrews 8:13 KJV — In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
If it was sin from the moment of Christ's death, and more importantly His resurrection, it wasn't apparent even with Paul, who still participated in temple liturgy, as you call it. I think the attitude of the participant was important--whether they thought it necessary for salvation or not. And perhaps it's similar to thinking the new covenant liturgy is important in the same way--that if your reliance is on a ritual rather than the thing the ritual symbolizes, you are sinning according to Hebrews:
Hebrews 4:1 KJV — Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
Supra, but let's acknowledge what works might be dead--any that we rely on to save us.
I don't think so, either, for the reason stated above. And ONLY for the reason stated above.
If it's used in the same way...trading the old liturgy for a new one...then I guess I am.
I'm not getting the "accidents" terminology. Nor the gist of your "one-off" comment. Do you mean that the resurrection is of less importance than the already-effected ontological change?
If so, that's why I'm trying to tie them together. That already-effected ontological change is BECAUSE of the promise of the future resurrection, not that the resurrection is merely a byproduct of the change we (hope we) see here and now.
But we might not sin because we lack a fear of death. Getting baptized is an early step in beginning to recognize that we don't need to fear death. Reading the bible helps us to understand that death need not be feared. Going to mass? I'm not sure what part that plays, as I'm not sure where the similaritie lie with respect to fellowshipping with the saints and devoting ourselves to the teaching of our pastoral leaders, which also are intended to remind us of what has already occurred (Christ's resurrection) so we can apply that to our own future, assured resurrection.
And it became formulaic, which makes it ineffective. The formula is always ineffective, because it is dead works. The belief is what's important. That's why we non-Catholics focus on both the baptism and communion as rites of symbology or remembrance of our salvation, not rites of salvation themselves.
way 2 go
Well-known member
your problem is explaining how there are still dead and standing
(Revelation of John 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.
Derf
Well-known member
Jesus explained that for me.
John 5:28-29 KJV — Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
The dead (in their graves) "hear" Jesus' voice and come out of their graves, stand before God, and face judgment. Obviously the dead are resurrected, and thus can hear and stand.
way 2 go
Well-known member
yes and the dead are still said to be dead after being resurrected
(Revelation 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.
just like before they died
Mat 8:22 But Jesus said to him, Follow Me, and let the dead bury their dead.
the dead are dead before they physically die and dead after they are resurrected
Derf
Well-known member
Just like God said Abimelech was dead before he physically died...but it wasn't "spiritual death". Sometimes God talks about something that hasn't happened yet as if it has already happened.
Romans 4:17 KJV — (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
That concept is in the bible in numerous places, And in the place above it's immediately contiguous with God giving life to dead people! So why would you not be willing to allow use of that concept in places where scripture talks about dead people?
I could be wrong on this issue, I admit. But I'll never find out if I'm wrong unless I'm willing to look at and attempt to understand the scriptures used to bolster the other position. I'd ask you to afford me the same courtesy instead of just repeating your same talking points, which I've answered in a way that makes sense of your cited scriptures in favor with my position.
Can you do that?