Spiritual Death is Not Biblical

quote:

---

Who gives a rats behind how long they lived, thats not the point. the point is that you have demanded that we take a literal definition and explanation of the word death, which would demand that these people die instantly and immediately according to your strict and dogmatic interpretation.

---

This is a misrepresentation of what I've said concerning Genesis 2:17 and death. So there's 1.In Message 25, I responded to your Message 23 with this statement: 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. Adam and Eve were relocated and penalized; but they still had contact with God (Chapter 4), so they hadn't fallen out of favor with God. God even gave Eve a son to replace Abel.I explained it again in Message 29 in a response to kbertsche. I stated: 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.

quote:

---

Baring and ignoring such an interpretation, the text and commonsesnse demonsrtrates that they did not die, they continued to live, even when they sinned. this being the case we now have another example of how the word death can be interpreted, not to mention the fact that God can very well have Spiritual death in mind, seeing that the definition is only that of cessation from something, not necessarily limited to the physical body. that is your estimation of the word from the dictionary, not necessarily Gods meaning

---

You said that in Message 28 also. But it doesn't hold water because you continued to misrepresent my position concerning the word death.

quote:

---

You have maintained that the meaning in Ezekiel can only mean immediate, physical cessation and extinction.

---

Another misrepresentation. This concerns Ezekiel 18:20. That's 2.In Message 15, I stated: My contention is that Ezekiel meant the one who sins will pay the price for the sin, not the rest of his family. Real time penalty for real time sin. If you feel he meant spiritual death, please show evidence to support your position. BTW, you provided no evidence.Again in Message 32, I stated: 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.
You even quoted it in Message 59.The text doesn't provide info on how soon the penalty will follow and I didn't claim it did.

quote:

---

Next cessation of life does not have to mean only physical to God. But there in lies your problem you are limiting the definition of death or spiritual death to a group of books and you refuse to tell us what is inspired, what is not , what is Gods Word, what is not Gods Words. looking for a comprehensive definition of the word death from a Biblical perspective and narrowing it down to a few books then insisting this all the Bible has to say concerning death, is a STRAWMAN, or silly to say the least.

---

I'm not limiting the definition of death. The definition of death is already limited. I, a mere mortal, shouldn't have to tell you what books are inspired and which are God's word. If God is speaking of something other than physical death in the simple reading of a text provided, then show it. So far you've shown that later theology considers it other than physical.As I explained in Message 1: In various discussions, the concept of spiritual death rises to help explain inconsistencies between Bible authors. These center around the word translated as die in the examples I provided. If you are unable to show me that the word translated as die in the OT refers to a spiritual death using the simple reading of the OT books, then I do feel it is a later concept projected backwards and doesn't reflect the simple reading of the text for the word die in the examples I provided.I have not insisted this is all the Bible has to say. Another misrepresentation. That's 3.In Message 10, I stated:My topic statement tells readers that I am focusing this topic on the OT prophets and the writers of the Torah (1st five books). (Admins like the topics narrowly focused.) In Message 43, I stated:I made it very clear in Message 1, Message 6, and Message 10 that this discussion deals with the plain text of the Bible. Now if you don't believe one should study the simple meaning of the text or are incapable of comprehending the simple meaning of the text, you should not have taken part in this thread.

quote:

---

Death, in the simple reading of the verses in the OP, only demonstrates that death is a cessation of life, it does not tell you what type of life or what God has in mind in the words.

---

The first half is right, but the second half is wrong. They are quite clear what God had in mind. This discussion is not looking for hidden meanings.

quote:

---

Indicating that the Bible may be Gods word changes everything and makes everything clearer.

​

limiting Gods perspective of the word death and idea of death to a few books and a stict definition is building a strawman. Now watch this debating move, unless, you are prepared to say that only the Torah and Prophets are Gods Word. Is this what you are implying or directly stating?

---

My limits only limit you, they don't limit God. If you truly feel the words are inspired by God, then you should embrace the simple meaning and not be afraid of it.

quote:

---

I dont need to take away the simple reading of the text, I agree with the simple reading of the text, it only implies cessation of life,, not what type God has in mind.

---

Sure it did. The text was quite clear. Now that we know the simple text refers to a physical death and not a spiritual death.

quote:

---

Again you are viewing the text from mans perspective with mans finite understanding, unless you are prepared at this point to indicate that these are only the words of men.

---

As are you. Again, my personal position is irrelevant to the discussion. Just argue the position presented (the real position).

quote:

---

You made the assertion that spiritual death is not biblical, I have no idea what you mean by Biblical, other than your intimation to the Law and Prophets.

---

As I explained in Message 4, that is the title of the thread. The title is not the discussion. But as I explained to you in Message 10 Biblical means being in accord with the Bible. This discussion has been limited to specific books of the OT or Jewish Bible.

quote:

---

Simple enough, now remember this is Biblical accuracy forum correct, atleast that is what you indicated. That being the case, I would indicate that since you have not indicated that the NT is not the word of God, I am warrented in assuming it is also part of the Biblical record, and that while the word death means only cessation of life and does not indicate what type of life, the NT record makes clearer what is involved in the word death from Gods perspective.

​

You have not demonstrated that the definiton of death is limited to a physical property only, especially considering we are dealing with Gods word, concepts and ideas. you have not made clear or indicated whether the words in Ezekiel or Genesis are Gods words or mens words

​

Thirdly, your "position" as you put it is a totality of what you have asserted, indicated and implied, not what you choose to use later. Scince you will not indicate what you mean by Biblical, Gods words, Gods concepts, the totality of your assertions, indications and implications imply logical contradictions, when the totality of the BIBLICAL record is taken into consideration.

​

Fourth, indicating that a word carries a certain definition is not the same as showing that another concept is not taught or implied in the same source, especally when dealing with Godly, spiritual and esoteric concepts.

​

fifth. operating under the guidlines you have set out about definitions and plain and simple text interpretations, would actually contradict your ideas on the word death.

---

You're still just talking, not showing evidence that what you're saying is so. As I said in Message 10: Where you pull your information from for your argument is up to you, but if you bring up a later concept and apply it to the past; you also need to provide support as to how the plain text in the past says what you claim it says.

quote:

---

By all means please show me where i have done this. heck I am trying to get you to put words in your own mouth

---

There are 3 shown above, which pretty much reflects most of what you've been misrepresenting throughout the thread.

quote:

---

Even if you could demonstrate that death is only physical in certain verses (and you cannot)it would not remove the fact of Spiritual death overall, depending on what overall is. maybe you can help us with that point. My guess is that you will not, because you want the conversation slighted twords your contentions.

---

I have already demonstrated and you agreed (read quote above) that in the simple meaning of the text death refers to physical death in the verses I supplied.

quote:

---

Here is a simple enough question, In your estimation, not the prophets or Torah, but yours, based on your studies overall, Is spiritual death real or not?

---

My personal position is irrelevant to the discussion. The fact that you seem to need it is fascinating. Argue the position and not the person.EMA, this is the last time I'm going to explain the topic, repeat myself, and respond to your off topic complaints. If you don't want to discuss the simple reading of the text, then don't participate. If you continue complaining and not addressing the topic or continue to get personal and not address the topic, I will call a moderator. The discussion needs to move forward and you seem to be stuck at the beginning.To other participants: Please move the discussion forward.

---

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

quote:

---

I dont need to take away the simple reading of the text, I agree with the simple reading of the text, it only implies cessation of life,, not what type God has in mind.

​

PurpleDawn writes:

​

Sure it did. The text was quite clear. Now that we know the simple text refers to a physical death and not a spiritual death.

again you are commiting a logical error, given your definition of Biblical. your estimation here and overall would not support the "in accord with the Bible", concept of death, Spiritual or otherwise. why not try taking a look at all the biblical perspective, unless you want to admit you dont believe the rest is from God.

---

You have agreed that in the simple reading of the text, the word translated as die implies cessation of life. But you feel the simple reading doesn't imply what type of death.The answer depends on whether the people of the time felt the spirit could die. If the spirit can't die, then the type of death is easy. God is speaking to Adam and saying that Adam will die if he eats from the tree. God is referring to a normal physical death. Since the spirit can't die, the word death would not be referring to the spirit.If the spirit can die (as in cease to exist), then again the type is still easy. The body can't live without the spirit. In the OT the spirit is the breath within us. If the spirit dies, the body dies. So the result is still a physical death.So in the simple reading of Genesis 2:17, God was referring to physical death when he told Adam he would die if he ate from the tree. Anyone listening to the story for the first time would also understand God to be speaking of physical death.Now if spiritual death means separation or alienation of the soul from God, then the simple reading of the verse is not referring to spiritual death. God only speaks of death, not separation or alienation.

---

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

quote:

---

let me elaborate, however. You are exacally correct in assuming that the meaning includes physical death. one certainly would come away with that estimation. But, and thats a big Butt, as we move through the scriptures we begin to see something else emerge a concept of the afterlife, the expansion and explanation or the soul and Spirit and finally the fact that the soul or Spirit is more than the body and that it will go on forever., ie

---

I agree that the concepts of body and spirit changed over time. The Sadducees didn't believe in resurrection or that the spirit continued on even as a shadow. We just ceased to exist. (Their thoughts, not mine.) So even at the time of Jesus there were two very different thoughts on the subject of spirit and afterlife among the Jews and the Sadducees were very strict about sticking to what was written in the Torah or first five books. The Hellenistic period of Jewish history began about 332 BCE.

quote:

---

"what shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul, or what shall he give in exchange for his soul"

---

Mark 8:36 The word psuch, which is translated as soul, simply means life. The statement isn't referring to the afterlife.

quote:

---

Lets stick with the Adam and Eve scenerio for a minute. Since they didnt die, we may assume they would have lived forever, had they not eaten. This is a reasonable conclusion from the text. Now this item alone demonstrates that man being created in Gods image possess the ability to go on forever, unless sin gets in the way and blocks the avenue. The text indicates this, whether you believe the body and soul are one or not. this alone demonstrates that mans soul is more than breath, that is, there is something that cant simply disappear.

​

Even if God changed his mind, they eventually did die physically, which implies that they would not have, had they not eaten of the fruit. So the conclusion from the plain text is that they would have lived forever physically, which demonstrates that man has the potential to be immmortal, even physically, correct?

​

Question, if they had not eaten would they have lived forever? That is if we are going to go by what the plain text indicates.

---

Not without the tree of life. At the time the warning is given, the reader has no indication that A&E would live forever. The story does not imply that A&E knew about the tree of life. Only when we get to the deliberation stage where God divulges that they could partake of the tree of life and live forever do we see that they had that potential, if they knew about it. Instead of killing A&E God chose to separate them from the tree of life. The story doesn't provide enough information to determine if A&E knew about the tree of life and partook of it before the incident or not. The story does tell us that A&E were mortal. The tree of life would not have made a difference if they were already immortal. We can only conclude that they would have lived for ever if they were able to eat from the tree.

quote:

---

A 'spiritual death' or separation is indicated by the fact that God removed this IMMORTAL PHYSICAL status and placed a condemnation on them from an earthly aspect as well. Now watch this, even if death is extinction (I dont believe it is)the immortal physical aspect of thier exisistence, IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD was removed, that is they began to die physically, this alone is a type of Spiritual Death, Something was lost that they previously had

​

Conclusion, from this passage alone we can determine that death is more than physical, because the immortal aspect was removed, which removes it from the physical status. Would you agree with this assesment?

---

No

quote:

---

Fortunatley however, the rest of the Biblical record clarifies what might have been missing in anyones understanding., ie, that the soul even after physical death continues to exsist in some form, that experiences separation from God and eternal punishment. That is if we are going to consider the entire Biblical account.

​

Even if you dont believe this aspect, there was still a spiritual death as described above

---

But this belief cannot be attached to the word translated as die in the simple reading of the text.

quote:

---

So in the simple reading of the text, anyone listening to this statement made here and in other places about death would also understand that he is not really serious about death as a consequence to disobedience to his commands since Adam lived nearly 1000 years afterwards and nobody else that sins dies either.

​

So how can the first time reader in this place and others come away with only the idea of physical death. If they did not die, what type of physical death is under consideration?

---

No, they would see a merciful God. Just physical death.Edited by purpledawn, : Continuing response

Why can't God be considered merciful in the A&E story?The story does not imply spiritual separation from God. They still had a relationship with God after they left the Garden.In chapter 4 Eve said she had gotten a man from the Lord. In 4:25, Eve said God gave her another son to replace Abel. Although they suffered the penalty for their disobedience God was still with them.You may view that as spiritual separation, but the text doesn't support the idea you've presented as removal of the Holy Spirit. The story doesn't mention the Holy Spirit at all.

quote:

---

Ezekiel said that Isreal had become a pile of dead bones becauas they had been unfaithful to God....they were dead in Gods eyes because they left him spiritually. They still dwelt in the promised land, but they were not worshiping him, therefore they were 'spiritually' dead.

---

Now you've stated that spiritual death deals with the removal of the Holy Spirit from the people. Now you are saying they left God spiritually. What do you mean by that? Just the worship practices? What in the text shows that all the Israelites weren't worshipping God?

quote:

---

Adam and Eve chose to leave God too when they disobeyed him and therefore they were dead in a spiritual sense because they no longer lived according to Gods spirit, but chose their own path.

---

They didn't choose to leave God. The warning wasn't if you eat you leave. The warning was that if you eat you die and the snake told them they wouldn't. Leaving wasn't a choice option for Eve at the time. Show me in the text that they weren't living according to God's spirit. They boys were making sacrifices to God. God gave Adam and Eve children. Adam and Eve are not described as doing anything else wrong in the story. Now they knew right from wrong.

quote:

---

My conclusion is that "spiritual death" is most definitely an OT concept.

---

But it isn't presented in the story. You're placing a Christian concept on a very old Hebrew story. Show me that the words express spiritual death.

quote:

---

The two trees existed in the Garden before and after the fall. Before the fall they had no need of the tree of life, because if they had not sinned they would not have died, immediatley or later. After the fall God recognized that because they are NOW in a position where they would need the tree again, they may attempt to regain what they had lost, so he said,

​

"let US go down and stop them , lest they put forth thier hand, eat of the tree of life and live forever"

---

There is nothing in the story that states A&E did or didn't need the tree of life before they gained knowledge. We've become so accustomed to adding to the story, we miss the basic components. Adding to stories is what people do. They add to make it fit the current circumstances. But it is nice to just see what is really there.The narrator tells us that both trees are in the Garden.
We know that A&E were allowed to eat from any tree except the tree of knowledge.
What we don't know is if A&E did eat from the tree of life or knew that it was a tree of life.
We also don't know if one only has to eat once from the tree and live forever or continue to eat from the tree to live forever.Genesis 3:22 doesn't carry the meaning that they had already eaten from the tree of life. Maybe they did and that's why they lived longer than most humans.

quote:

---

now notice they were NOT instructed to NOT eat of the tree of life before hand, because such a warning would have been senseless sense they were in an immortal state already, it was only after the fall that this exclaimation was pronounced. So the simple reader would be able to deduce this fact and your contention falls to the ground.

​

this why the Apostle Paul speaks about the first and second Adam in the book of Romans, Christ gave us back what was lost in Adam, a DIRECT relationship with God and eternal life (John 3:16)

---

That doesn't mean they were immortal, it just means God had no problem with them eating from the tree of life and living forever. They didn't have the knowledge. Genesis 3:22 is saying God didn't want them to be able to live forever because they now had the knowledge.Paul and John are a later teaching. How do their words change the simple reading of the text?

quote:

---

So your other contention about them knowing about the tree also falls to the ground (no pun intended) The trees were there and aparently they did know, because God said let us go down and stop them. Why would he need to worry about it if they were unaware.

---

We can't tell from the story if they knew what the tree of life did or not. Once they gained knowledge all we can tell from the story is that God didn't want them to live forever. Whether A&E knew at any time that the tree of life would allow them to live forever we can't tell from the story. The information isn't there.Just a thought, A&E didn't complain about not being able to live forever once they were removed from the garden. That would tell me that they didn't know.

quote:

---

To further demonstrate the faulty character of your point about the simple reader scnerio, I dont know ANYONE besides you that does not after a simple reading of the text come away with the idea that Adam and Eve were not ALREADY in an immortal state. I mean, isnt that the common understanding in the biblical world, that they were already It seems you are outwieghed by the majority of the world on this point, and by all the simple readers

---

It depends on the lesson being taught with the story. The information just isn't there which allows the story to be molded as needed for lessons.The fact that the tree of life existed tell me they were not immortal.

quote:

---

One more thing. I have repeadley stated that it is sensless to keep bringing up what the readers perspective would involve compared to what Gods intended purpose are in relaying a message. What is this obssesion you have with the readers perspective. The readers perspective does not make or break Gods word.

---

Without readers or listeners the word falls on rocky ground. The words have to be understood by the intended audience. The message of the story had to be understood my the intended audience otherwise it would not have continued. People don't usually save or repeat what they don't understand.Edited by purpledawn, : Typo

---

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

quote:

---

lol, i thought you didnt like it when people add to the story

---

You're right, my bad. The story of Adam and Eve does not say how old Adam was when he died. That was added by the redactor after the exile, so we really don't know if they ate from the tree of life before removal from the garden or not.

quote:

---

there you go adding to the story again lol

---

That's not an addition to the story that is my conclusion given what the story said. They didn't complain about losing immortality. I would think that would be a bigger deal than having to plow the fields. Since they made no mention of it, my conclusion would be that they probably didn't know.

quote:

---

They did not have the same relationship. Before the fall God walked with Adam and Eve through the garden as HIMSELF, with no mediatorship. After the fall he would barely show himself to Moses in the mount.. The fact that God oversaw his world in the giving of sons and daughters, etc, etc, has nothing to do with the fact that FROM man to God, there was now a different set of circumstances. The rain falls on the just and the unjust

---

You're jumping from A&E to Moses.So far, spiritual death has been presented as an alienation of the soul from God or as the removal of the Holy Spirit from the person. What you're saying now is that it is a change in relationship. What meaning does spiritual carry in that phrase? Does it deal with the persons own spirit or soul or is it the Holy Spirit?In the A&E story the relationship changed, but they still had contact with God. There was no mediator mentioned when God spoke to Cain. The story doesn't present a mediator.

quote:

---

The law (Mosaic)and the Gentile law (Romans 2:14-16), anticipating the mediatorship of Christ allowed a certain amount of contact with God, but not a direct relationship of forgiveness, hence the statement,

---

It is interesting the the word translated as forgive (to pardon) doesn't show up until Exodus 34, but the Adam and Eve story doesn't mention they had a need to be pardoned or had a lack of communication from God. The text of the story does not present spiritual separation as it has been defined so far.

quote:

---

First this was done through the blood of Bulls and Goats, (ADAM NEEDED NO SACRIFICES before the fall because there was no sin. afterwards these sacrifices served as a mediator, but forgiveness was not complete, it was only rolled forward to the perfect sacrifice which removed the sins completley and forever,

---

There is no mention in the story of A&E that they (A&E) made sacrifices to God. The fist mention of sacrifice is when Cain and Abel make offerings to God. These are not sin offerings these are offerings given for worship or devotion, or a gift showing respect or gratitude.

---

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

quote:

---

I do not see how the account mentions any such continued relationship with God. It speaks of them being expelled from the garden and condemned to death...how can those circumstances mean they still had a relationship with God? And what versus are you reading to draw that conclusion?

---

As you noted he made clothes for them. In Chapter 4, Eve said: "I have produced a man with the help of the Lord." She also says later: "God has appointed for me another child instead of Abel, because Cain killed him.Adam and Eve aren't mentioned much in the C&A story because the story is about Cain and Abel. Cain and God carried on a conversation. Genesis 4:8-16

quote:

---

yes thats what she said...but did God confirm her belief? Is there a verse to show he agreed with her? What she believed may just have been a belief of her own...just as she believed she would be in a better position if she ate from the tree.
Do you have a verse in genesis that shows otherwise??

---

We only know what the text said. It doesn't say she believed or felt God helped her. She said he did.The story does not tell us that Adam and Eve's relationship with God ceased.

quote:

---

you really are complicating things and im not even sure how you are understanding 'spirit' as opposed to 'holy spirit' as opposed to 'spiritual'

​

a spiritual person = a person who persues things, or is interested in things pertaining to God. A spiritual person puts more emphasis on those things then on material things. But they do not necesarily have Gods holy spirit because that is a gift from God.

​

holy spirit = Gods active force or power that he uses to accomplish things. He can give to his people to perform powerful works, or he can give it to them to comfort them or to teach them, or to make them feel a sense of inner peace....there are many ways he uses the holy spirit but it doesnt mean that once you've been given some, you have it forever more. He has to keep giving it to you and you only get it by maintaining a relationship with him.

​

Spirit has more then 1 meaning. The hebrew and greek words Ruach and pneuma, have a general meaning of breath but also have extended meanings beyond that basic sense.
They can mean wind, the vital force in living creatures, a persons demenor, spirit persons including God and his angels

​

So how are you applying the term 'spirit' in this discussion? When you say A&E did not die a 'spiritual' death, what is the spriitual death you are refering to?

---

I'm asking you what spiritual is referring to in the phrase "spiritual death".How I apply the word spirit depends on how it is used in the text and what word is used in the text.I think we're still talking about Ezekiel 37:9 and the dead bones. You stated that they had left God spiritually. You're saying that by not worshiping God that they are spiritually dead. That is a different definition that what you have given before. I'm asking for clarification. Earlier you said it was the removal of the Holy Spirit.What does the word spiritual in the phrase "spiritual death" refer to?If it deals with worshiping practices, what in the text shows that all the Israelites weren't worshiping God?

quote:

---

if A&E were living according to Gods spirit, they would have been loyal and obedient but they werent. They beleived the lie of the serpant, they questioned Gods law, then they willfully disobeyed him. After that they tried to hide from God, then they tried to put the blame on someone else for thier actions.

​

so if you think that they were acting in harmony with Gods spirit, you are wrong. Gods spirit is holy and pure and innocent...they lost any holiness, purity and innocence when they disobeyed him and acted decietfully.

---

They received a punishment for that disobedience. What about after that? The text does not say whether they continued behaving badly or they learned their lesson after being exiled from the garden. So we can't say that they were or weren't acting in harmony with God's spirit after the exile.

quote:

---

thier sons are a different matter. They were born into a condition of sinfulness and therefore cannot be compared with A&E. If you think that A&E werent too bad, then you do not have Gods view on the seriousness of their actions.
They introduced sin and death on the whole human race. It is because of them that God does not speak with us, or govern us directly today.

---

That's a later teaching. It isn't in the simple reading of the text.

quote:

---

PurpleDawn writes:

​

But it isn't presented in the story. You're placing a Christian concept on a very old Hebrew story. Show me that the words express spiritual death.

yep, i already did that

​

"In the DAY of your eating from it, you positively will die"

​

What changed for them on the day that they ate?

---

Nothing in that text speaks of the soul, spirit, or the Holy Spirit. We've already established that the word translated as die, refers to physical death. Where is the spiritual part?Once they ate, they gained knowledge of good and evil.
They now had to work for their food.
Snakes no longer have legs.
Eve would have pain when bearing children.
They no longer had access to the tree of life.
Exiled from the garden.IOW, they matched the culture of the story's audience.

---

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

quote:

---

i think it has always been presented as a change in relationship in this thread. For as long as a person if obedient and loyal to God, the relationship with him is maintained. As soon as the person turns aside and becomes disobedient and disloyal, they loose their relationship. Remember the holy spirit is a byproduct of having a relationship with God. Its something he CAN give you when you need it or request it, but its not something that you automatically received just because you have a relationship with God.

---

Support please.So far you're showing me that spiritual death is anything you want it to be.

quote:

---

The answer is that they were not forgiven for their error. If they had of been forgiven, they would have stayed in the garden.

---

They don't ask to be forgiven in the story. It isn't the point of the story. It is a just-so story. It explains why life is the way it is. It is a foundational myth. That's why you can change it to fit whatever you want it to fit.The simple reading of the A&E story doesn't speak of spiritual death (alienation of the soul from God) in relation to the word translated as die. The text doesn't support it.

---

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

quote:

---

you havnt addressed the Ezezkeil scriptures

​

Your claim at the outset was that the OT doesnt support spiritual death. Genesis is the OT just as Ezekiel is the OT

​

so please address the Ezekeil scriptures, explain why ezekeil said the nation was a 'pile of dead bones'

​

How can a living nation be a pile of 'dead bones' if not physically, how? & Why?

---

The creative use of dry bones refers to the House of Israel. The nation is dead. (Ezekiel 37:11) The implication is that they have been in exile so long it is doubtful that they will rise as a nation again. Ezekiel then assures his audience that God is still present among them, that God's purpose for Israel continues and that the nation of Israel shall rise again.The Israelites had lost hope, but that deals with their mood (spirit).What has been presented so far as definitions for "spiritual death" doesn't reflect it is just a change in relationship with God. The words death or separation used in the phrase gives the impression that the relationship ends, not just changes.Ezekiel doesn't present God's relationship with the Israelites as ending. Our relationship with our children doesn't end because we are disciplining them.ABE: I've addressed Ezekiel 37:9 in Message 19, Message 33, Message 47, Message 51, Message 53, and Message 58.Edited by purpledawn, : Added msg links

---

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

quote:

---

Spiritual death means to loose Gods favor. It is a condition of having no relationship with God, no understanding of God, no love for God.

---

A&E still had a relationship with God and they apparently had an understanding of God. Love isn't mentioned in the story and whether they lost God's favor or not isn't mentioned in the story.In Ezekiel 37:9, the people still had an understanding of God, love isn't mentioned, and they did lose God's protection; but he is going to restore the nation.This definition of spiritual death isn't consistent. It's a definition that can be mutated to fit any condition you want it to.The story doesn't provide the answer to your "whys". The questions are from a later teaching.God sent them away to keep them away from the tree of life. That is in the story.What spiritual relationship did they enjoy? Where does the text cover this relationship?

quote:

---

Yes, they had introduced idol worship at the temple in Jerusalem

---

Ezekiel 37:9 While they were in exile, what in the text shows they didn't worship their God?

quote:

---

thats true, the account speaks no more of them so anything we might add is only speculation. They are no more mentioned in the bible until the NT when Paul explains that Adam became a father giving death to all his offspring, whereas Jesus became a father giving life all those who excersize faith in him.

---

Paul is a later teaching.

quote:

---

So if you take that into consideration, the remembrance of Adams sin remains and therefore it is likely that Adam was never forgiven for his wrongdoing.

---

The A&E story is a foundational myth. It can be changed to accommodate various teachings. That is what Paul is doing.

quote:

---

no its not a later teaching. The idea is throughout the OT and it is developed through the messianic prophecies. Mankind was subjected to a sinful condition
Ps 51:5 Look! With error I was brought forth with birth pains,
And in sin my mother conceived me

---

Original Sin is a later teaching.Neither of the songs you quoted support Original Sin. Psalm 51 does not support that teaching. The song writer is speaking of himself. Show me that he is speaking of a theological belief affecting all and not just self depreciation. It's an individual lament. Psalm 49 is a wisdom song. It deals with the question of the value of wealth, not Original Sin.

quote:

---

the spiritual part is in that they lost their relationship with God. Genesis does say they died ON THAT DAY...yet they didnt die physically on that day.

​

thats why i asked you what other way could they have died. Think about it and compare it with the rest of the OT and the way the isrealites were considered dead when they left God. Ezekeil is an attestation to this 'spiritual' death.

​

The people he gave his message to were not dead, yet he called them dead 'a pile of dead bones'

​

Spiritual death is the result of loosing favor with God. We loose favor with God when we act disobediently.

---

In the A&E story, the word die refers to physical death. It is not written in a way to view it any other way in the simple reading. Just because they didn't die physically doesn't mean they died another way. The story doesn't present another way.

quote:

---

Spiritual death is the result of loosing favor with God. We loose favor with God when we act disobediently.

---

And how does God's favor manifest itself in real life?
Does nothing go wrong for the believer?

---

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

quote:

---

Ok, I lied, maybe one more thing. Try and understand this from a simplistic standpoint. When a prisoner in is in prison or being punished, the State still has the responsibility to care for and preside over that individual. However, thier relationship to the state is different than those of others citizens. In this instance lets say that mans relationship was different than the angels that did not rebel. The good angels that had not sinned had a different relationship than man and the fallen angels, EVEN THOUGH GOD IS STILL PRESIDING OVER ALL OF US. Surely you can see this simple point of designation in relationship types.

---

The state didn't create the prisoner. The story says that God created Adam and Eve. That's a very different relationship than a warden. Yes it is very simple.He created them, provided food for them, had one rule for them, disciplined them, and continued to watch over them. Very simple, but very different from a warden. Not a good analogy. A parent would be a better analogy.How does that fit in with the notion of spiritual death? The definition is becoming weaker and weaker.

quote:

---

Choose another word to describe A&E disobedience

---

I didn't describe their disobedience as Original Sin. What Peg described seemed to be the concept of Original Sin.

quote:

---

I t would not have if they had not sinned, or whatever other word you choose

---

So your contention is that all mankind since the supposed time of A&E continues to suffer from spiritual death?

---

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

quote:

---

So I have two problems with your definition of death as "permanent cessation of all vital functions".

---

Then stop putting the word permanent in front of cessation of all vital functions. I haven't said that. We aren't discussing what happens after death.The uses of spiritual death in the instances I provided were referring to live people, not physically dead people. Does spiritual death refer to physically live people, physically dead people, or both? Death - ISBE
There is a basic meaning of the word death. The word can also be used creatively to convey other meanings. The people who feel that the word translated as die in Gen 2:17 means spiritual death, would need to show that the word translated as die is being used figuratively. That has not been shown.Notice that the reference to loss of spiritual life in the ISBE definition is considered a figurative use. The ISBE also said: Since they didn't physically die, mercy is what I have been attributing to the simple reading of the text. The wider theological interpretations cannot be gleaned from the simple reading of the text. Like I've said several times, we can change the story and interpret it any way we want to teach a specific theological lesson. That's why we are looking at the simple reading.The ISBE meaning of death agrees that the Greek view of the spirit is different than the Israelites. Any separation of body and spirit is after death, not in life.Of course since the word death in the phrase "spiritual death" isn't using the standard meaning of the word death according to you, what is your point?The verses I provided were referring to the afterlife.

---

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

quote:

---

What possible difference could who created them have anything to do with anything. God responded to them exacally the same way a parent and offical of the State would have in this situation, because he both. You are very good at dodging a point but fortunatley I am better at recognizing a dodge.

---

There is considerable difference between a parent and a state official.So where does the simple reading refer to a relationship change as spiritual death?

---

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

Hey Bailey,Thanks for the background.I'm still trying to get a clear definition of spiritual death. It seems to vary.Death supposedly refers to separation, but I haven't gotten a clear picture of what the spiritual portion is referring to.Any clues?

---

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