Spiritual Death is Not Biblical

I just want to have clear on what you consider the soul to be. In judaism, the soul and body were one in the same as your link/quote suggests. Its also what i've learnt in hebrew studiesthe word Nephesh means 'human life' and its translated as 'soul'so soul is you and I according to judaism. Whereas Greeks taught that the soul is a force that lives on separate.Do you view yourself as a soul, or do you have a soul? remember your quote which said that Judaism believed in monism? The living people ARE souls.
The soul wasnt something separate from the body, it was the living person.
So in Ezeikle, the isrealites were said to suffer a death when they were taken by the babylonians. However they didnt physically die, the death must have been another kind of death:Ezekiel 37:9 "From the four winds come in, O wind, and blow upon these killed people, that they may come to life.’ 10And I prophesied just as he had commanded me, and the breath proceeded to come into them, and they began to live and stand upon their feet, a very, very great military force. 11And he went on to say to me: Son of man, as regards these bones, they are the whole house of Israel. Here they are saying, ‘Our bones have become dry, and our hope has perished. We have been severed off to ourselves.’ 12Therefore prophesy, and you must say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: Here I am opening YOUR burial places, and I will bring YOU up out of YOUR burial places, O my people, and bring YOU in upon the soil of Israel.The prophet was speaking to the Isrealites who had been taken captive to Babylon. They were in that situation because God had allowed the Babylonians to destroy jerusalem becuase of their unfaithfulness to him. When God abandons them, they become to him as dead bones. They are in effect, spiritually dead. But the prophet speaks of them coming to life again when God breaths into them. ok now i know you are using the greek concept of soul and body. If you are reading the accounts of judaism, you probably need to consider their understanding of soul. It is as i said above "the living person"if a person dies, a soul dies. As Ezekiel says in the OP you mention "The soul (living person) that is sinning, it itself will die"

quote:

---

Is there only one meaning to the hebrew word 'Soul', only one application

---

If you have a point to make concerning the word soul, make your argument. This is a debate, not 20 questions.

quote:

---

Now you say God may have lied or changed his mind. now you say that in all the instances where God said people would die as a result of sin, that may not be the case. Does DIE mean what is says or doesnt it.

---

Keep on track please.In Message 23 you asked: If the text means what it says and we should take it at face value, why did Adam and others live to extreme ages, was God lying.To which I responded: The word translated as die, means to kill. As the story progresses we see that God didn't kill them for their transgression and chose to throw them out of the Garden. Whether God lied or changed his mind is irrelevant.Actually I said it is irrelevant whether God lied or changed his mind. I made no claim to all instances of any word. Please refrain from adding words to my argument.

quote:

---

Now watch this point, doesnt your explanation in this regard indicate without doubt that the term 'die' may not indicate physical death, only? The AMBIGUITY which you demonstrate in your explanations is nearly proof positive that one need not be dogmatic about its application.

---

No, die means physical death. It can be used creatively, but you haven't shown evidence that this is the case in the A&E story.

quote:

---

Further, if indeed this is actually a work of God or Gods words, then its meaning could have a spiritual application. there is no need to take a materialistic stance given the fact that in nearly no instance where God made this statement, people died immediately. Is it good exegesis to assume that in every instance and with every person God cahnged his mind or lied.

---

Show these instances that support your position. I have not assumed that in every instance and with every person God changed his mind or lied.

quote:

---

Remember, this pronouncement was on humankind, not just two people in a garden. the logical conclusion is that the word 'Soul' and 'Die' in Ezekiel should be undertood comprehensively and not limited to a single definition.

---

The word translated as soul is nephesh, which refers to a living being and the word translated as die is muwth which refers to physical death. Death is stated as the punishment for sin. According to Ezekiel, only the person who sins will be punished. Please show evidence that it should be understood differently.

quote:

---

The separation is one of RELATIONSHIP not existence.

---

I pointed out in Message 25 that Adam and Eve didn't lose their relationship with God (Chapter 4).

quote:

---

I dont know where you pulled that out of. "thou shalt not kill", means "Thou shalt not die" ???

---

See Message 29.

quote:

---

they most certainly were separated from God by sin and began to die physically.

---

Show evidence that they were separated from God.

quote:

---

perhaps you could give your definition of dualism

---

quote:

---

so soul is you and I according to judaism. Whereas Greeks taught that the soul is a force that lives on separate.

---

Exactly!

quote:

---

The prophet was speaking to the Isrealites who had been taken captive to Babylon. They were in that situation because God had allowed the Babylonians to destroy jerusalem becuase of their unfaithfulness to him. When God abandons them, they become to him as dead bones. They are in effect, spiritually dead. But the prophet speaks of them coming to life again when God breaths into them.

---

Yes, the people were physically exiled/separated from the land of Israel. They were being disciplined. They didn't view the body and soul as separate, so in what way were they separated from God? Other than location, what was different than when they were in the land of Israel?

quote:

---

ok now i know you are using the greek concept of soul and body. If you are reading the accounts of judaism, you probably need to consider their understanding of soul. It is as i said above "the living person"

---

In Zech. 7:11-14, the land is desolate (devoid of inhabitants and visitors), not the people. The people could be desolate (joyless, disconsolate, and sorrowful). By spirit, I meant their mood.My contention is that the Jews did not see the two as separate at the time of these writings and did not convey that in the writings. The dualism is a later concept and I think the creative writing of the prophet lends itself to manipulation to fit the new concept.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

In the story God says that if they eat of the tree they will die. So death is the penalty for eating from the tree. If we were hearing the story for the first time, we might think the tree is poisonous, but once they eat of the tree we know that the tree isn't poisonous. So for Adam and Eve to die the day they eat, they would have to be killed. I think we have become so accustomed to the story that the drama is lost.

---

OK, I see your point. The author uses the Qal stem, not one of the others, so the best definition is probably your a2. My version of BDB expands a bit more on this:

quote:

---

That sounds like dualism which is a later concept.

---

Yes, I agree that this sounds like dualism. I believe the ancient Hebrews were dualistic in this sense. I don't know where the author of your quote gets his claim that it was a later concept; this sounds like some sort of modern revisionism.The OT has the concept of She‘l, where one's soul goes after death. This seems to assume "dualism." According to ISBE: Here's the BDB definition of She‘l:

Do we know that for certain? How would Adam or Eve have any concept of death, either physical or spiritual, if they had never witnessed it or were never instructed on it?The seeming conclusion is that Adam and Eve were born to die to serve as a testament to the futility of doing anything apart from God.The other conclusion is that God gave them the temptation indirectly because he is the one who created them ex nihilo with his own specifications in mind. Doesn't that make God responsible for the outcome? Likely from man, but I have no way of knowing either way.

---

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell

PD writes:Whaaaat?I dont believe what I am hearing here, you do understand how ridiculous this sounds, correct? When a judge pronounces judgement on someone is he killing them as in the sense of murder. You have got to be kidding. No wonder you dont understand what the Soul or death involves from a Biblical perspective.PD writes:PD writes: You are carefully avoiding the argument. This is a clear instance of a person being obstinate and obtuse in an argument. Lets see if you will answer this question. When a person is put in prison or executed is the state or country in effect telling that person that your rights are revoked and you are cut off from a relationship from the state and from the people.There is a break in relationship and you know it. The same applies to God and his children, ignoring or avoiding this point will not help your position or your argument.Now according to scripture, this separation will occur eternally in a place where man will dwell eternally. OH YEAH, thats right you havent ANSWERED the simple question as to whether you believe any of this is actually Gods word or not, Old or New. Please explain why in a biblical discussion that involves God, Spirits, souls, punishment and other related spiritual items this so difficult a question to answer.The definitions provided by Kbertsche in post 35 are a clear indication that your intimations about what people believed at these times are to strict and categorical. certainly some people may have belived such things as you are indicating and even people within groups may have had varing opinions but your positon is simply to categorical. You explanation of these terms do not compare with what scholars say about these words or thier beliefs in those days. Your isolating and defining words to categorically and disregarding context and the SUBJECT matter, specifically God and his eternal dwelling I have shown it by the text itself, Ezekiels (Gods command), Adam and Eve, that separation involves RELATIONSHIP and the argument that further inspiration would clarify what GOOOOOOD's meaning of death, soul and punishment would be. Now ALL you all you need to do clarify what or if any of part of this is INSPIRED or NOT, it would help us understand not only your position, but what the actually application of these words in the context would mean. Your failure to do this stalls the debate.Lets put it this way and see if you will answer it. It there any POSSIBILITY at all that any of this can have a SPIRITUAL application, seeing that God, God's existence and Gods rules are involved. In other words the TEXT itself, the same one that you draw your conclusions from directly state and imply the SPIRITUAL
aspects of these concepts. Sin is a moral and ethical concept. Death from Gods (Spiritual and eternal) perspective would have a different menaing than simply physical. That is if you would be kind enough to tell us whether God has anything to actually do with the inspiration of these alledged words from him.Your position in not answering these simple questions, is like talking about a submarine and saying that water and its properties dont matter in its construction. Help us out here PD.Heck do you even believe in God? I have repeatedly, but what good will it do unless you state your position on God or whether any of this is from God or not. You being overly obstinate and unreasonable in this discussion. Your taking a humanist and materialistic stance when dealing with clearly Spiritual and God matters. Thats simply ridiculous. I have given evidence, now provide an answer t these simple questions, please!!!!EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Yes, I agree that this sounds like dualism. I believe the ancient Hebrews were dualistic in this sense. I don't know where the author of your quote gets his claim that it was a later concept; this sounds like some sort of modern revisionism.

---

The question would be when dualism came into the culture or was it always there? It is difficult sometimes to weed out later influences.The book of Daniel is dated at 167-164 B.C which is after the Greek influence from what I can tell.I did find some other articles dealing with Sheol as your quote described. But even in those articles the separation is only after death and the "shadow" remained there. There was no concept of individual resurrection or separation from God. The current Christian concept of spiritual death is alienation of the soul from God, whether the person is dead or alive.How is a soul alienated from God while the person is alive?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

EAM writes:HG writes:thanks
Atleast you take the time to answer a simple question. PD wont because he knows it will throw his conclusions into contradiction and confusion.I am busy presently but I will get to the rest of your questions later.EAM

No problem, take your time.

---

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell

quote:

---

PD writes:

In the story God says that if they eat of the tree they will die. So death is the penalty for eating from the tree. If we were hearing the story for the first time, we might think the tree is poisonous, but once they eat of the tree we know that the tree isn't poisonous. So for Adam and Eve to die the day they eat, they would have to be killed. I think we have become so accustomed to the story that the drama is lost.

​

Whaaaat?

​

I dont believe what I am hearing here, you do understand how ridiculous this sounds, correct? When a judge pronounces judgement on someone is he killing them as in the sense of murder. You have got to be kidding. No wonder you dont understand what the Soul or death involves from a Biblical perspective.

---

What you quoted was my response to a question from kbertsche in Message 27. We are talking about the text of the Adam and Eve story. What judges do is irrelevant to the story. What is your point concerning what I actually said?

quote:

---

PD writes:

Yes, the people were physically exiled/separated from the land of Israel. They were being disciplined. They didn't view the body and soul as separate, so in what way were they separated from God? Other than location, what was different than when they were in the land of Israel?

​

You are carefully avoiding the argument. This is a clear instance of a person being obstinate and obtuse in an argument. Lets see if you will answer this question. When a person is put in prison or executed is the state or country in effect telling that person that your rights are revoked and you are cut off from a relationship from the state and from the people.

---

That was my response to Peg's Message 32. We are discussing Ezekiel 37:9. Your prison analogy doesn't fit the bill. What you are describing is a physical separation by prison cells or death. Prisoners can still have relationships. Where does the text show loss of relationship with God?

quote:

---

You explanation of these terms do not compare with what scholars say about these words or thier beliefs in those days.

---

Provide evidence please.

quote:

---

I have shown it by the text itself, Ezekiels (Gods command), Adam and Eve, that separation involves RELATIONSHIP and the argument that further inspiration would clarify what GOOOOOOD's meaning of death, soul and punishment would be.

---

Then you need to reference the posts you feel provided the evidence. I don't see it.

quote:

---

Lets put it this way and see if you will answer it. It there any POSSIBILITY at all that any of this can have a SPIRITUAL application, seeing that God, God's existence and Gods rules are involved. In other words the TEXT itself, the same one that you draw your conclusions from directly state and imply the SPIRITUAL aspects of these concepts.

---

What specific text are you referring to?

quote:

---

I have repeatedly, but what good will it do unless you state your position on God or whether any of this is from God or not. You being overly obstinate and unreasonable in this discussion. Your taking a humanist and materialistic stance when dealing with clearly Spiritual and God matters. Thats simply ridiculous. I have given evidence, now provide an answer t these simple questions, please!!!!

---

My position on God is irrelevant to the discussion. If I have missed your evidence, then please refer the posts where your evidence resides. You do realize that evidence means textual evidence, not just you saying something is so.Show me the relationship problems in the text of the Adam and Eve story.
Show me in the text of Ezekiel that die is something other than physical death.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

PD writes:Ignoring my arguments is not the same as missing itIll get to the rest of this post alittle later, let me present this in this connection presently, i forgot to include it in the last post.Here it is in syllogism formMajor premise:
God pronounced the sentence of death on any soul that sinnedMinor premise:
God clearly commuted (set aside) that sentence due to the fact that people did not immediatley die as a result of sinConclusion:
therefore because God is involved in such matters one is not warrented in concluding that death is always immediate, the soul has no other properties than physical or that death is only physical in nature, based on the single definition of a word and due to the fact that God himself is not physical and these are clearly spiritual concepts and ideas, eternal in character. EndWord definition is not the only consideration. Gods nature, character and purposes must be taken into consideration., not to mention context. To isolate words by thier srtict definition and apply them to both God and man in the same way is both unreasonable and unwarrented, scripturally speaking.Definitions of words dont always carry the same meaning to God as to humans, the context and the entirity of scripture will reveal its over all meaning, If you will tell us what that is. Yes it does matter for the logical reasons have presented aboveJesus said "I have not come to bring peace but a sword" If we go by the strict meaning of the word sword, you see what happens. the word here clearly has a physical definition but is used in a dual sense where the ethical term sin is involved God is using the word death in a dual sense if we consider what the entirity of scrpture has to say. That is if you will tell us what Gods words are.Your first mistake is assuming that words cannot have a dual meaning to God or man, regardless of thier strict definition, or what a group of people believes, as i have just indicated.Your second problem is that you are assuming that the hearer always has to understand the entire purpose of a statement immediatley for it to be valid or dual. I have already demonsrtated this is not the case as in the examples with Gods words to Satan in Genesis and Gods words to Abraham in Genesis. It should be obvious that if these situations are real niether person understood the entire meaning immediately. Hey, but God did and we do now.Your intimation that God does not matter and that your position on God does not matter is both unreasonable and illogical, your insistance that a word must be abided by disregarding context, Gods overall plans and overall content of the entire subject scripturally is simply silly. Your position is invalidated. Even if one does not believe in the inspired nature of scripture he is atleast obligated to view its entire content, if he or she wishes to formulate opinions on words or ideasYour view on what is mans words and what are Gods words either partially or collectively most certainly matterEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

I made it very clear in Message 1, Message 6, and Message 10 that this discussion deals with the plain text of the Bible.

quote:

---

Your intimation that God does not matter and that your position on God does not matter is both unreasonable and illogical,

---

I didn't say that God doesn't matter. I said that whether I believe the text is written by God or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

quote:

---

Your first mistake is assuming that words cannot have a dual meaning to God or man, regardless of thier strict definition, or what a group of people believes, as i have just indicated.

​

Your second problem is that you are assuming that the hearer always has to understand the entire purpose of a statement immediatley for it to be valid or dual.

---

I'm quite aware that a word can have several meanings depending on how they are used, but they don't usually have dual meanings within one usage in a sentence.Example: I have a lead horse. The word lead has more than one meaning, but it can only have one meaning within the sentence. I either have a lead (metallic element) horse or I have a lead (acting as a leader) horse. Now my lead (leader) horse could be a lead (metal) horse, but then I would have to use the word twice to get that point across.Show me within the plain text of a specific verse that there is a dual meaning to the word you question and that the audience doesn't need to understand what they are listening to.We aren't talking in generalities. We are looking at how words are used in a specific text.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

The question would be when dualism came into the culture or was it always there? It is difficult sometimes to weed out later influences.

---

Agreed. The word Sheol is throughout the Hebrew Bible, even in the oldest books (Job, Pentateuch). But it is hard to tell what the conception of it was or how it changed with time.

quote:

---

The book of Daniel is dated at 167-164 B.C which is after the Greek influence from what I can tell.

---

Its date is disputed. There are good arguments for a much earlier, traditional date. Arguments for late dates of Daniel seem largely circular (they assume that the earlier Hebrews did not have many of the concepts in Daniel, so these must have come from the later Persians or the Greeks).

quote:

---

I did find some other articles dealing with Sheol as your quote described. But even in those articles the separation is only after death and the "shadow" remained there. There was no concept of individual resurrection or separation from God.

---

Perhaps one could make a case that the early Hebrews had a monistic view of man while he was alive, and saw his body and soul splitting after death?Dan 12:2 is probably the clearest OT reference to the resurrection, but there are some with other passages that hint at it:

quote:

---

The current Christian concept of spiritual death is alienation of the soul from God, whether the person is dead or alive.

​

How is a soul alienated from God while the person is alive?

---

The concept of separation/alienation from God while alive does appear in the OT. Perhaps the best explanation is here: If we understand death=separation, then this passage is speaking of spiritual death. It correlates well with NT descriptions of spiritual death.Edited by kbertsche, : typo

quote:

---

The concept of separation/alienation from God while alive does appear in the OT. Perhaps the best explanation is here:

​

Is. 59:2 writes:

​

(NASB): But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear.
(NET): But your sinful acts have alienated you from your God; your sins have caused him to reject you and not listen to your prayers.

If we understand death=separation, then this passage is speaking of spiritual death. It correlates well with NT descriptions of spiritual death.

---

OK so in the term spiritual death, death creatively means separation and not extinction. As an adjective of death does spiritual refer to the soul or to religious values?I agree that the verse actually speaks of alienating God's affections. It was a recurring theme for the Israelites. When all was well, God was happy and they were under God's protection. When things went bad, God was displeased and they weren't under his protection. I seriously doubt the every individual was corrupt or alienated God. People were supposedly still praying but God wasn't listening.There isn't anything that speaks of the soul as opposed to the whole person. God was still watching over the Israelites even though he was annoyed with them.As I showed in the OP, the uses for spiritual death have been used to create a dual meaning in conflicting verses concerning physical death. See this article No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.thesecondchanceministries.org/Three DeathsDeath just isn't what it used to be. I think spiritual death is another catch phrase that really doesn't mean anything, but can be molded to fit many situations.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz