Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Spiritual Death is Not Biblical
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 211 of 281 (535275)
11-14-2009 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Iblis
11-13-2009 7:50 PM


Re: cherubim
It's a particularly bad argument because we do have an idea of "cherubim" in common English. We think they are fat little cupid angels! When we read the garden story, we don't have any trouble thinking of the guardians as angels, if vacuous ones. When we read about the poles and the King of Tyre, we may still have this idea, without it messing us up too much.
I never in my life thought of cherubim as fat little cupid looking guys.
No doubt we are enfluenced by what art work we consummed first. However, as a english reader I would not know what is meant by cherubim until one of the latter prophets like Isaiah or Ezekiel speak of them.
Genesis was not written for me because I am not an ancient Jew ?
This is an account of origin of mankind not just the origin of Jews.
This is rather different from thinking death means real death, or at least the threat of real death, or at least a metaphor for really bad consequences; and then being told that it really means something about mortal ghosts that don't appear in the story at all and that we are stupid for not seeing it that way.
The couple had life. So what was the need for a tree of life ?
When they were born or created they possessed life. So the couple being placed before the tree of life must refer to something more profound.
God didn't say that the day they did not eat of the tree of life they would die. He said that day they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they would die.
This may be more a matter of interpretation of the meaning of the Bible. I am wondering why this whole thread was placed under Innerancy and Accuracy in the first place.
My suspicion is that it was chosen as a better place to launch an attack against theological ideas of Christ as being eternal life.
If "spiritual death" is after all not biblical then there is no biblical need to be reborn. Man is not "dead in sins". That Christ becaome a "life giving Spirit" to "regenerate" the sinner is not necessary. So I think this is a postured up theological attack of purpledawn.
I consider matters of Accuracey and Innarency to be related to historical events or people recorded in the Scriptures, as to whether they can be confirmed by outside historical sources or negated.
The whole discussion of "spiritual death" - is it bibilcal or not, I think should be in Bible Study or Faith. What is the innacurate or errant mention of death in Genesis ?
Since the phrase "spiritual death" doesn't even occur how can you argue the errant or innacurate mention of it in the Torah ? It is not mentioned. That does not mean that the idea is not biblical.
Consider this. In Genesis 6 God says His Spirit will not always strive with man because he is flesh. This preceeds the flood of Noah.
Now it does not seem right for God Who had fellowship with Adam and Eve directly to now decide that His Spirit will not always strive with man. That is unless something SINCE Adam and Eve has caused man to be UNRESPONSIVE.
"And Jehovah said, My Spirit will not strive with man forever, for he indeed is flesh; so his days will be one hundred and twenty years." (Gen. 6:3)
Man is flesh, God says. My interpretation would be that man has become something changed in what God originally created him to be. While the details of this change may not be clear at this point, it is a change which has rendered too many men unresponsive to the Spirit of God. That is unless the grace of God intervenes - "Noah found grace in the eyes of Jehovah".
To term this unresponsiveness as a spiritual death is helpful and IMO, not unbiblical.
Enoch, Abel, and Noah seem not altogether unresponsive to the Spirit of God. So there seems something at work, some grace of God, to rescue some men from this deadness in their responsiveness to God.
Whether one regards this unresponsiveness as a spiritual deadness or not may be enfluenced by how serious they think it is to be out of fellowship with God.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Iblis, posted 11-13-2009 7:50 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by purpledawn, posted 11-14-2009 1:29 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 213 by Iblis, posted 11-14-2009 4:49 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 230 by Iblis, posted 11-16-2009 11:21 AM jaywill has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 212 of 281 (535297)
11-14-2009 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by jaywill
11-14-2009 8:46 AM


Inconsistencies
quote:
I am wondering why this whole thread was placed under Innerancy and Accuracy in the first place.
PurpleDawn writes:
Message 1
In various discussions, the concept of spiritual death rises to help explain inconsistencies between Bible authors.
Message 10
I then gave two examples of where the "spiritual death" idea has been used to help smooth textual inconsistencies between authors.
quote:
Since the phrase "spiritual death" doesn't even occur how can you argue the errant or innacurate mention of it in the Torah ? It is not mentioned. That does not mean that the idea is not biblical.
When it is used to give a new meaning to the words translated as death or spirit, then we can determine if that use is accurate or not. At face value the idea of the phrase is not biblical. In Monism, the spirit (an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms) cannot die apart from the body. The OT does not support the idea of the spirit (an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms) dying separate from the body.
So far there doesn't seem to be a clear consistent meaning to the phrase.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by jaywill, posted 11-14-2009 8:46 AM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by ICANT, posted 11-14-2009 5:24 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3896 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 213 of 281 (535309)
11-14-2009 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by jaywill
11-14-2009 8:46 AM


Re: cherubim
The whole discussion of "spiritual death" - is it bibilcal or not, I think should be in Bible Study or Faith.
I suggest that you don't want it in A&I because you don't like the constraint of having to debate honestly. Why not? You respond to attempts to get you to do so by the OP in a very revealing fashion
jaywill writes:
I suggest that you not try to tell me when and where and what to write on this Forum.
Message 188
This cherubim question is a great example of bad argument. Pick a hard word, claim we need later uses of the word to understand it, argue that because your translation leaves the word in Hebrew instead of paraphrasing it there's a danger that I'm claiming it's only written for Jews! It's pure sophistry ...
as a english reader I would not know what is meant by cherubim until one of the latter prophets like Isaiah or Ezekiel speak of them.
Why not? It's a word in English, not just in Hebrew! You may not know what a garden is, from the Old High German garth, an enclosed place. But that doesn't mean you need a later book in the Bible to explain it to you, you can either know the language you are reading or else use a dictionary.
Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Definition:
\Cher"ub\, n.; pl. {Cherubs}; but the Hebrew plural
{Cherubim}is also used. b.
1. A mysterious composite being, the winged footstool and
chariot of the Almighty, described in --Ezekiel i. and x.
I knew that they were the cherubim. --Ezek. x. 20.
He rode upon a cherub and did fly. --Ps. xviii.
10.
2. A symbolical winged figure of unknown form used in
connection with the mercy seat of the Jewish Ark and
Temple. --Ez. xxv. 18.
3. One of a order of angels, variously represented in art. In
European painting the cherubim have been shown as blue, to
denote knowledge, as distinguished from the seraphim (see
{Seraph}), and in later art the children's heads with
wings are generally called cherubs.
4. A beautiful child; -- so called because artists have
represented cherubs as beautiful children.
Dream Dictionary
Definition:
Seeing a cherub in your dream, represents child-like innocence, frailty and mischievousness. You need to take life a little less seriously. Alternatively, you may have been dishonest or manipulative.
Forbidden
Edited by Iblis, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by jaywill, posted 11-14-2009 8:46 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by jaywill, posted 11-15-2009 12:23 AM Iblis has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 214 of 281 (535313)
11-14-2009 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by purpledawn
11-14-2009 1:29 PM


Re: Inconsistencies
Hi PD,
Purpledawn writes:
So far there doesn't seem to be a clear consistent meaning to the phrase.
The phrase = "spiritual death".
You are probably not going to get a clear answer of any kind as there is no such thing as spiritual death.
The spirit of man can not die, as it is eternal.
The first time I heard of spiritual death it was someone trying to explain that since the man did not die when he ate the forbidden fruit he must have been separated from God in spiritual death.
A bunch of baloney as far as I am concerned or have ever been since I was 10 years old.
You make a big deal about the plain text.
Do you believe the plain text?
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. That is a declarative statement of completed action.
Can you determine from the plain text when the beginning was?
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,
The plain text says this is the generations/history of the heaven and the earth in the DAY they were created. Again when was that?
Therefore in the day the heaven and the earth was created the following also took place as it is in the generations/history of that day:
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
The plain text says God formed man from the dust of the ground.
God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Nothing said about spirit.
Man became a living soul. The Hebrew word nephesh translated soul here means, 1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion.
There is nothing here about spirit. There is no way to determine from the plain text if this man had a spirit or not. There is no way to determine from the plain text when this man was formed from the dust of the ground.
If I was going to venture a guess as to when he was formed I would have to say you can not write a number big enough to be that date, as it was in the beginning.
More plain text.
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
God planted a garden in paradise (Eden=pleasure).
He placed the perfect man He had formed in this perfect place.
Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
The man was given a job, to dress and keep the garden.
Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
The plain text says the man would die the day he ate of the specific tree God pointed out to him.
And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
The woman was deceived but the man was not deceived. But many say he was with her. The translators says that but the plain text does not say that. The plain text says she gave to the man, he ate.
God had given the man a commandment not to eat the fruit but God did not give the commandment to the woman.
But man disobeyed a direct order of God with the following results:
After man disobeyed, God talked to the man but man was not in God's physical presence.
God kicked mankind out of His paradise, a place where everything was perfect.
The question is, how does mankind get restored to the condition that the man was in before he disobeyed God?
That is what is necessary to get back in paradise.
Now the plain truth is he died that day or God lied.
There has nothing been mentioned about this man having a spirit in the plain text.
Therefore the death had to be physical death.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by purpledawn, posted 11-14-2009 1:29 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Peg, posted 11-14-2009 9:35 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 216 by purpledawn, posted 11-14-2009 10:02 PM ICANT has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 215 of 281 (535336)
11-14-2009 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by ICANT
11-14-2009 5:24 PM


Re: Inconsistencies
Hi ICANT,
Im sorry, i dont want to contradict you here, but for the sake of the discussion i will
ICant writes:
The phrase = "spiritual death".
You are probably not going to get a clear answer of any kind as there is no such thing as spiritual death.
The spirit of man can not die, as it is eternal.
Ecclesiaties 3:19"For there is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit [RU'ACH], so that there is no superiority of the man over the beast, for everything is vanity.
20All are going to one place. They have all come to be from the dust, and they are all returning to the dust. 21Who is there knowing the spirit of the sons of mankind, whether it is ascending upward; and the spirit of the beast, whether it is descending downward to the earth? "
Spirit is Ru'ach in hebrew and Pneu'ma in greek. The meanings of both of these words is 'breath' which is linked to 'life'
Yes, we all have breath, which means Yes we all have spirit.
But if you take the breath away, the person dies and the breath/spirit is no more.
and when the spirit/breath is gone, the unanimated body returns to the dust from where it came. Spirit is what animates us, its what makes us alive. When that spirit is taken away, we expire because the spirit is no more.
Psalm 104:29 says of earth’s creatures, human and animal: If you [God] take away their spirit, they expire, and back to their dust they go.
Isaiah 42:5 says that God is the One laying out the earth and its produce, the One giving breath to the people on it, and spirit (Ra'uch) to those walking in it.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by ICANT, posted 11-14-2009 5:24 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by ICANT, posted 11-15-2009 12:36 AM Peg has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 216 of 281 (535339)
11-14-2009 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by ICANT
11-14-2009 5:24 PM


Re: Inconsistencies
quote:
You make a big deal about the plain text.
I'm not really making a big deal, but the discussion is useless if I'm looking at the plain text and someone else is presenting bits and pieces to make a meaning different than the plain text.
Barring translation differences, the plain or simple reading is the closest thing to common ground for a discussion.
quote:
Do you believe the plain text?
It doesn't matter. The text says what it says no matter what I believe.
quote:
Can you determine from the plain text when the beginning was?
The story doesn't provide that information.
quote:
Now the plain truth is he died that day or God lied.
I disagree. I've addressed this a few times in this thread. Mercy is the other option. Message 29
quote:
There has nothing been mentioned about this man having a spirit in the plain text.
Therefore the death had to be physical death.
I agree the verse refers to a physical death.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by ICANT, posted 11-14-2009 5:24 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 11-15-2009 12:23 AM purpledawn has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 217 of 281 (535349)
11-15-2009 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by purpledawn
11-14-2009 10:02 PM


Re: Inconsistencies
Hi PD,
Purpledawn writes:
quote:
Now the plain truth is he died that day or God lied.
I disagree. I've addressed this a few times in this thread. Mercy is the other option. Message 29
Where do you get mercy from the plain text?
Do you believe he died because he ate the fruit?
Or did he die because he disobeyed God by eating the fruit?
I believe he died because he disobeyed God and ate the fruit. God could have said cut down the tree, dig a hole, or any of another thousand things and it would have been the same.
The man disobey a direct order from God for which the punishment was death.
He died or God lied.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by purpledawn, posted 11-14-2009 10:02 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by purpledawn, posted 11-15-2009 4:56 AM ICANT has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 218 of 281 (535350)
11-15-2009 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Iblis
11-14-2009 4:49 PM


Re: cherubim
I suggest that you don't want it in A&I because you don't like the constraint of having to debate honestly. Why not? You respond to attempts to get you to do so by the OP in a very revealing fashion
I don't mind debating honestly. Was thier a clear initial attempt to define "biblical" in the OP? "Spiritual Death is not Biblical"
Latter PD advized that in essence that the Torah was considered the "biblical". The Title was ambiguous as to the scope of "biblical". And you chid me for not wanting to debate honestly?
Here's my initial response to the charge that "spiritual death" is not biblical.
When Paul writes "Even when we were DEAD in offenses, made us ALIVE together with Christ ..."(Eph. 2:5) is that an example of the unbiblical "spiritual death" objected to ?
The sinner was DEAD and with Christ was made ALIVE. And "spiritual death" is unbiblical ??
Oh, but maybe we mean just in the Torah it is unbiblical ?? Is it left purposely unclear ? I think one poster did attempt to define boundaries with PD.
Then we have this refering to a verse in the Torah and a verse outside of it in Ezekiel:
It has been argued that the punishment in these verses may deal with spiritual death and not real time physical punishment or death.
Concerning Exodus 20:5 and Ezek. 18:20 someone may have written about them. I don't think I have.
Going back to the usual objection from Genesis, I may have said that Adam and Eve suffered a spiritual death when they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. At least I never said that because of that the passage did NOT deal with "real time physical punishment or death".
On Genesis 3 I think I have said that death began to work in them from the deadening of their human spirit and climaxing in their physical death. Their hearts did not stop beating on the day they ate. But something in them died. Death began to operate until one day years latter they physically died.
Now on the Ezekiel and Exodus passages. Does PD mean someone applied the verses to a death not physical? I mean a New Testament teacher may use an Old Testament passage in the way of application. Application for edification is different from interpretation. I would like to see the specific example of treatment of the two passages to see what PD is talking about.
Then we have this:
I feel that the verses show a change in the society. The Priestly Exodus verse is corporate oriented and pertains to those who supposedly hate God. Probably written before the fall of the southern kingdom.
I think PD means the Exodus verse and the Ezekiel verse.
There is not a lot to comment on here or object to unless one is more aware with the perhaps the Documentary Hypothesis. I think the man's name is Wellhousen (spelling?)? When I read something like this I assume that the higher criticism of Wellhausen is in the thought of the writer.
Message 188
This cherubim question is a great example of bad argument. Pick a hard word, claim we need later uses of the word to understand it, argue that because your translation leaves the word in Hebrew instead of paraphrasing it there's a danger that I'm claiming it's only written for Jews! It's pure sophistry ...
as a english reader I would not know what is meant by cherubim until one of the latter prophets like Isaiah or Ezekiel speak of them.
Why not? It's a word in English, not just in Hebrew! You may not know what a garden is, from the Old High German garth, an enclosed place. But that doesn't mean you need a later book in the Bible to explain it to you, you can either know the language you are reading or else use a dictionary.
In your reference to the dictionary you essentially told me the same thing I would have read by going to Ezekiel.
Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Definition:
\Cher"ub\, n.; pl. {Cherubs}; but the Hebrew plural
{Cherubim}is also used. b.
1. A mysterious composite being, the winged footstool and
chariot of the Almighty, described in --Ezekiel i. and x.
Thanks. That is exactly what I said. You have to wait to get to Isaiah or Ezekiel.
I knew that they were the cherubim. --Ezek. x. 20.
If you're reading sequencially for the first time without reference to a dictionary, you would know when you got to Ezekiel.
He rode upon a cherub and did fly. --Ps. xviii.
10.
2. A symbolical winged figure of unknown form used in
connection with the mercy seat of the Jewish Ark and
Temple. --Ez. xxv. 18.
I don't see a devastating defeater to what I said. Thankfully up to now all the Webster definitions come right out of the Hebrew Bible where I think the clearest indication of what was meant should be located.
3. One of a order of angels, variously represented in art. In
European painting the cherubim have been shown as blue, to
denote knowledge, as distinguished from the seraphim (see
{Seraph}), and in later art the children's heads with
wings are generally called cherubs.
Now we get down to #3 - European art. Watch out. Anything may go, like ox horns on Moses or Noah's ark looking like a ocean liner rather than a box.
4. A beautiful child; -- so called because artists have
represented cherubs as beautiful children.
My point is that you need another biblical source to inform you. I don't see how you have negated that.
Dream Dictionary
Definition:
Seeing a cherub in your dream, represents child-like innocence, frailty and mischievousness. You need to take life a little less seriously. Alternatively, you may have been dishonest or manipulative.
As a serious Bible student I would go with the earlier definitions because THEY reference the Bible.
But I fail to see what you have proved here contrary to me saying the whole explanation of things in Genesis is not always found in Genesis.
Maybe it was not the best example for me to use. However, back to the point. "Spiritual Death not Biblical".
Does biblical include the Gospel of John ? Or is that LESS biblical but Genesis is REALLY biblical ? Is that the idea ?
"Truly, truly, I say to you, An hour is coming, and it is now, when the DEAD will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live." (John 5:24)
We Christians believe that Christ is refering to the spiritually DEAD who may be physically alive. They hear the voice of the Son of God and receive spiritual life.
The physically dead are refered to in this latter passage:
"Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming in which all in the tombs will hear His voice and will come forth ...to the resurrection of life ... to the resurrection of judgment;" (v.28,29)
It is understandable that a person, especially a relatively ethical person would object to being discribed as spiritually dead. I would be offended had it been put to me that I was spiritually dead. I resented it when a Christian told me I was a lost sheep. I can imagine how I would have felt at being discribed as spiritually dead.
Touchiness aside, we see that the good man Cornelius (Acts 10) needed to receive the gospel preached by Peter and receive the Holy Spirit. He gave alms to the poor. He feared God with his whole household. His good deeds God said, went up as a memorial. Why then did he still need to go to Peter to hear the Gospel of the crucified and resurrected Savior ?
He needed to be regenerated. He needed Christ as life. He needed what Nicodemus needed, to be born again. He was one of the dead which needed to hear the voice of the Son of God so that he might have Christ as his indwelling divine life.
Spritiual death and spiritual life are biblical.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Iblis, posted 11-14-2009 4:49 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Iblis, posted 11-15-2009 1:42 AM jaywill has replied
 Message 231 by purpledawn, posted 11-16-2009 11:37 AM jaywill has replied
 Message 243 by Iblis, posted 11-17-2009 5:34 AM jaywill has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 219 of 281 (535351)
11-15-2009 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Peg
11-14-2009 9:35 PM


Re: Inconsistencies
Hi Peg,
Peg writes:
Yes, we all have breath, which means Yes we all have spirit.
How do you make that broadjump from breath to spirit?
They are not the same thing.
The only creature on the face of this planet that has a spirit is made in the image/likeness of God.
The man and woman created in Genesis 1:27 is such a creature as they were created in the image/likeness of God.
The plain text does not even say the man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 was made in the image/likeness of God.
Peg writes:
Im sorry, i dont want to contradict you here, but for the sake of the discussion i will
Don't worry about contradicting me. There can be no debate if everyone agrees.
Then there would be no need for me to study.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Peg, posted 11-14-2009 9:35 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Peg, posted 11-15-2009 4:49 AM ICANT has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3896 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 220 of 281 (535352)
11-15-2009 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by jaywill
11-15-2009 12:23 AM


Re: cherubim
Thanks for your generous answer, I'm going to walk through it point by point for places where I think there may still be some confusion
Was thier a clear initial attempt to define "biblical" in the OP?
Yes, here, provisionally
purpledawn writes:
My contention is that the Old Testament prophets and writers of the Torah do not present a concept of spiritual death.
Message 1
Exodus and Ezekiel are then produced as good places to start.
"Spiritual Death is not Biblical"
Yeah, this bothered me too at first. Of course, it's a lot smoother read than "Spiritual Death is not Torah-Nephibim-y". But still, I thought it was kind of inflammatory.
But I dropped this objection when I realized that purpledawn was perfectly willing to discuss further hagiography once the Law and the Prophets were dealt with thoroughly. The intent was just to facilitate an attention to the plain reading by excluding later interpretations from the original texts.
There's some question as to what order the information attributed to Moses and the various prophets becomes available; for example Deuteronomy was probably not available to some of the earlier prophets, regardless when it may have been written.
unless one is more aware with the perhaps the Documentary Hypothesis
This becomes even more complex when one looks closely at the scribal markings and tries to determine when various texts may have been compiled together to produce the composite of speeches, censuses, laws, chronicles and generalogies we now have in our hands.
So let's take the Law and the Prophets as our starting point and not quibble about it, but leave out the Psalms and Gospels and Epistles and so forth that we know were still being developed at a much later date until we are sure what the plain reading of the older texts is saying. This way, we won't confuse ourselves with anachronisms too much.
Thanks. That is exactly what I said. You have to wait to get to Isaiah or Ezekiel.
Not at all! What I'm trying to impress on you is that "cherubim" is a perfectly good English word. It means, loosely, a kind of angel; and lots of people know that! If the word isn't in your vocabulary for some reason, you can look it up.
Sure, Webster refers to the Prophets when he defines it (along with art and culture.) The Bible is a core document for ideas about angels! But the reason he's defining it for you is because you missed out on it somewhere growing up, you weren't exposed to the art or folklore or sermons that would have made it a familiar word.
The reason I'm making this point is because I think Moses or Jasher's audience would have known perfectly well what a cherub was! If for some reason they didn't, they could have researched it somehow and discovered it was an angel or supernatural being represented as a man/bull/lion/eagle chimera. Their V'BSTR'Sh scroll might have shown them a picture of one of those annoyed looking sphinxes that sat out in front of the temple of Babylon.
But a lot of them stood outside that temple themselves! They were like "Look, meet me over next to the cherubim and we will go get us some pulse and water at Belshazzar's place." And a lot more probably got told by their mom that if they didn't stop bugging her while she was trying to count the shekels, she was going to feed them to the cherubim. They knew what they were.
I knew that they were the cherubim. --Ezek. x. 20.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by jaywill, posted 11-15-2009 12:23 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by jaywill, posted 11-16-2009 9:31 AM Iblis has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 221 of 281 (535357)
11-15-2009 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by ICANT
11-15-2009 12:36 AM


Re: Inconsistencies
hi ICANT
ICANT writes:
How do you make that broadjump from breath to spirit?
They are not the same thing. The only creature on the face of this planet that has a spirit is made in the image/likeness of God.
The english translators chose the word 'spirit' where the hebrew writers used the word 'ru'ach'
quote:
Strongs Hebrew Dictionary
Original Word: ר֫וּחַ
Transliteration: ruach
Phonetic Spelling: (roo'-akh)
Short Definition: air
Definition
breath, wind, spirit
NASB Word Usage
(1)air (2), anger (1), blast (2), breath (31), breathless* (1), cool (1), courage (1), despondency* (1), exposed (1), grief* (1), heart (1), inspired (1), mind (3), motives (1), points (1), quick-tempered* (1), side (4), sides (2), Spirit (76), spirit (127), spirits (3), strength (1), temper (2), thoughts* (1), trustworthy* (1), wind (98), winds (7), windy (2), wrath (1).
did you read the scritpures I posted? They show pretty well that the 'spirit' is something that dies. And as you can see from the hebrew dictionary, ru'ach has nothing to do with any living part of a person.
I believe the church's introduced the idea of a spirit because they started teaching that people were going to heaven and therefore everyone would become like Jesus, a 'spiritual' person....a person who is like 'air'.
from what i've learnt, this is not a bible teaching and 'spirit' certainly did not imply a living lifeforce apart from the body. It was known by the writers of the bible as it is described above...as an invisible force that brings life to the body.
Genesis 6:17 says "God proceeded to blow into the mans nostrils the breath (ru'ach) of life"
This meant that God put into Adam’s lifeless body the spark of life or the force of life, which is active in all earthly creatures. Also at James 2:26 it says "the body without spirit is dead"
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by ICANT, posted 11-15-2009 12:36 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by ICANT, posted 11-15-2009 5:08 PM Peg has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 222 of 281 (535358)
11-15-2009 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by ICANT
11-15-2009 12:23 AM


Mercy Option
quote:
Where do you get mercy from the plain text?
God said that they must not eat from the tree of knowledge because when they ate of it they would die. This would suggest that the tree is poisonous. The serpent then tells Eve that they would not die if they ate from the tree, suggesting it was not poisonous. Eve ate and it wasn't poisonous. If God was implying that the tree was poisonous, then God lied about the safety of the tree.
If God is saying he would kill them as soon as they ate from the tree, then God showed mercy by not killing them on the spot. For those who read it this way, mercy is an option.
IMO, the first scenario is probably closer to what the original audience would have understood.
quote:
Do you believe he died because he ate the fruit?
Or did he die because he disobeyed God by eating the fruit?
They lost access to the tree of life because they gained knowledge. They gained knowledge because they disobeyed and ate the fruit. Due to their disobedience, they lost access to immortality.
quote:
The man disobey a direct order from God for which the punishment was death.
He died or God lied.
That view falls under the second scenario I described above. As EMA and I went around and around on earlier in this thread, the story doesn't tell us that A&E were immortal before eating from the forbidden tree, and it doesn't tell us that A&E knew about the tree of life. I think we assume they did since we do, but it is the narrator that tells us about the tree of life. No where in the story does it divulge that A&E actually knew about the tree of life.
As I showed in Message 29, the word used for die represents a premature death, not a natural death. God doesn't tell A&E they lost access to the tree of life as part of their punishment. God is talking to others when he says, "the man has now become like one of us". The reader knows they lost access, but the story isn't clear that A&E knew.
If they didn't know about the tree of life, then natural death as punishment wouldn't be a threat.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 11-15-2009 12:23 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 223 of 281 (535401)
11-15-2009 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Peg
11-15-2009 4:49 AM


Re: Inconsistencies
Hi Peg,
Peg writes:
Genesis 6:17 says "God proceeded to blow into the mans nostrils the breath (ru'ach) of life"
Peg you never cease to amaze me.
Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.
Where does this verse say anything about God proceeding to blow into the mans nostrils the breath (ru'ach) of life"?
There is no verse in the Bible that says that.
Genesis 2:7 is the only place God came close but the word is not (ru'ach).
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed 5301 into his nostrils the breath 5397 of life; and man became a living soul 5315.
5301 naphach 1)to breathe
5397 nĕshamah 1) breath
5315 nephesh 1) soul, self, life, creature, person,
Peg writes:
James 2:26 it says "the body without spirit is dead"
I will agree totally and competely with this statement.
But when you learn a little Greek you won't agree with it.
I don't know who you are following in Greek but they don't know an Alpha from a Beta.
Jam 2:26 For as the body without the spirit 4151 is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
4151 pneuma 1) the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son.
Since God made mankind in His image/likeness this verse is talking about the coeternal spirit God gave mankind in Genesis 1:27 in the process of creating mankind a living being with a mind, body and spirit.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Peg, posted 11-15-2009 4:49 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Peg, posted 11-16-2009 2:48 AM ICANT has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 224 of 281 (535415)
11-15-2009 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by kbertsche
09-16-2009 5:06 PM


Re: Daniel
Yes, Daniel was claimed to be a prophet.. however, the book of Daniel was not written by Daniel. It was written in about 164 bce. That is why
although it is considered about religion, it is not considered particularly holy.
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by kbertsche, posted 09-16-2009 5:06 PM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Peg, posted 11-16-2009 3:04 AM ramoss has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 225 of 281 (535447)
11-16-2009 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by ICANT
11-15-2009 5:08 PM


Re: Inconsistencies
ICANT writes:
Peg you never cease to amaze me.
me either! im sorry it was 2:7...not sure where i got 6:17 from lol
but im glad you know the verse i was quoting anyway.
ICANT writes:
Genesis 2:7 is the only place God came close but the word is not (ru'ach).
Your'r right, my mistake on that one. The word used in this verse is 'nishmath' from neshamah. But this word still means 'breath'
so it was the breath in Adam that caused him to become a living 'soul'
This still backs up the point im making about 'spirit'
ICANT writes:
Jam 2:26 For as the body without the spirit 4151 is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
4151 pneuma 1) the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son.
Since God made mankind in His image/likeness this verse is talking about the coeternal spirit God gave mankind in Genesis 1:27 in the process of creating mankind a living being with a mind, body and spirit.
but the information you just posted gave the meaning of the words in genesis and they mean nothing that could be interpreted as eternal living spirit of the sort you are talking about.
ICANT writes:
5301 naphach 1)to breathe
5397 nĕshamah 1) breath
5315 nephesh 1) soul, self, life, creature, person,
In the greek scriptures, the greek word pneu′ma is 'spirit' and it carries the same meaning as the above hebrew words including the Hebrew word ru'ach.... breath or blow
Im curious as to when the meaning of the words changed from 'breath' to something is a living thing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by ICANT, posted 11-15-2009 5:08 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by ICANT, posted 11-16-2009 5:20 AM Peg has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024