Spiritual Death is Not Biblical

Hey Bailey,Thanks for the clarification between a sacrifice and an offering.This tells me they still had a relationship with God.

---

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

quote:

---

You still avoided the point that paradise was lost, immortality was recended, yet he still presided over everything including them, but the relationship was different because they did not have face to face contact with God and were in a different status now than before.

---

Eden as paradise (a place or state of bliss, felicity, or delight) is a later concept. The story doesn't talk about a change in the relationship. If it does, show me the words. The story doesn't continue with Adam and Eve or their relationship with God. The information just isn't there in the simple reading. Spiritual death cannot be gleaned from the simple reading of the text.

quote:

---

Paradise of PERFCTION, lost, immortality recended, unless you are prepared to demonstrate that immortality was not exsistent in them before hand, which the plain text certainly indicates. Your response that you dont like that will not cut it. Your response that we dont know if they ate of the tree of life before hand is nonsensical.

---

Again, the story does not give enough information. I have shown from the text that they were not immortal. They needed the tree of life to live forever. God states that very clearly. That is why he expelled them from the garden.

---

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

quote:

---

The text clearly states that these two trees were in the garden, he then says you may eat freely of all but one, and he designated which one. You would have to add to these words to assume they did not know of its location. Now the simplest reading according to the plain text would indicate they certainly were aware of the tree of life.

​

They appearently were aware of where the tree of knowledge was, but I dont remember the text stating that God told them its location , DO YOU?

​

You would need to go beyond what is written to assume they did not, since the text CLEARLY INDICATES THAT GOD WAS AWARE OF ITS PRESENCE AND DID NOT CARE IF THEY ATE OF IT, OR NOT.

​

Did you CATCH that? God was aware of its location, but was not concerned whether they ate of it or not, before the fall. that is, why would he put it there and not make a provision to not eat of it, if there was a chance they may chance upon it. Your contentions in this connection make no sense and they violate the plain text.

---

Make sure when you use the word "it" that the noun it represents is clear.In the first paragraph of what I've quoted, you say that God told them they could eat freely of all trees but one and he told them which one. We know this is the tree of knowledge. You say we would have to add to the text to assume they didn't know of "its" location. The word "its" refers back to the tree of knowledge. Then you say that according to the simple reading A&E were aware of the tree of life.Knowing where the tree of knowledge is located doesn't mean A&E knew where the tree of life was located or that is was a tree of life.In the next two paragraphs you do the same thing. You say they were aware of where the tree of knowledge was, and then in the next sentence you say that the text clearly indicates that God was aware of "its" presence and did not care if they ate of it or not.The "its" refers back to the tree of knowledge, but we know God did care whether they ate from that tree or not.Now in the last paragraph you state that God was aware of "its" location ....Please be careful with your "its" and make sure they clearly refer to the noun. Also make sure you have the right noun.Back to the tree of life. From Message 94:
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.I agree that in the story God didn't care whether A&E ate from the tree of life or not. It was not prohibited. What we don't know is whether they did eat from the tree or if they knew whether the tree provided immortality.

quote:

---

Your problems only gets worse in this connection. Since after the Fall he was clearly concerned about its existence to them, this would indicate that they previously knew of its existence and location,. For if they were not aware of its existence or its location before hand, what are the chances they may find it as they were being expelled

---

A&E were expelled to prevent them from partaking of the tree. The story still doesn't tell us whether A&E knew that that specific tree provided immortality.

quote:

---

Are you begining to see the problem you have involved yourself in here? It will do you no good to ASSUME, that they were not aware of its presence or had not ate of it, Because that is what you will have to do (assume)to ignore the plain INDICATIONS of the text. It is you that is adding to the story to fit your theory.

---

I'm not assuming they were not aware. I'm saying the text doesn't tell us. We can't tell from the text. Just because God knew and the narrator knew, doesn't mean A&E knew.

quote:

---

So yes, there is enough information in the text to clear up these points, your just ignoring it, because you are coming to the text with a preconcieved theory and refuse to let it go.

---

Actually, you are assuming they knew. You are assuming that because the narrator knew and God knew, that A&E must have known. The text does not provide that information.

quote:

---

But the tree of life was in the garden before they "Needed it", as you put it. Do you mean to imply that, God gave them a command to eat ("of every tree")including the tree of life, which was there when the command was issued, but was not really serious?

---

If what you typed, is what you're reading, then I can see our problem. God did not order them to eat from every tree except one. He said they may eat freely of any tree. They were allowed to eat from any tree they wanted except the tree of knowledge. They didn't have to eat from all the trees. That's why I said the text doesn't tell us if they ate from the tree of life or if they knew it was the tree of life.Now both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge were in the middle of the garden. (Genesis 2:9). When Eve corrected the snake she said: "We may eat fruit from the tree in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden..." (Genesis 3:2-3) So if I were going to speculate whether they ate or not, I would say they probably stayed away from the middle and probably hadn't eaten from the tree.Bottom line: The text just doesn't tell us.

quote:

---

Thanks, but it is of no consequence to the argument.

---

Clearly conveying one's point is very important to the argument. That's how we avoid misunderstandings.

quote:

---

If God didnt care before why would he care afterwards, what changed to cause this change in Gods decision.

---

Read the story. They now had knowledge of good and evil like God. (Genesis 3:22-23) If you're looking for theological answers, they aren't in the text.

quote:

---

the expellsion for the purposes of not eating of the tree of life, was a SECONDARY consideration as to the purpose of thier leaving in the first place Watch how it follows logically. If this is the primary reason, then it would follow that God should not have put the TOL in there in the first place, them in there in the first place, or both of these together, if he did not want them to eat of it. But you have already admitted that he did not care, now you say he does, which is it?

​

The TOL and its application to them was not the same before the sin as it was afterwards.

​

Further, it is irrelevant whether they knew of its properties, since God did and he did not care if they ate of it. The whole your diggingis getting deeper.

---

Nope. Genesis 3:22-23 is very clear. God banished A&E from the garden to prevent them from eating of the tree of life. As I've said, while they were clueless God didn't care if they lived forever. After they gained knowledge of good and evil, God did care if they lived forever. Again the story is very clear.

quote:

---

This is a quibble and a cavil and it has nothing to do with the point, or the force of the argument I have set out, or that the text has set out. On one point you are correct, I should have said "May EAT", but this also has nothing to do with the point at hand.

---

It isn't trivial. There is a big difference between must and may. The argument you were making was based on must. Your stance did not support the idea that they had a choice.

quote:

---

Watch it flow logically. Whether they knew of it (TOL) and whether ate of it, (TOL),is also irrelevant. What is relevant, is that GOD knew of its properties, location and accesiblity to them and allowed them access to it, not being concerned if they ate of it or not. Knowing all these facts,it is REASONABLE TO ASSUME that it could do nothing for them, that they did not already possess.

---

Your logic is full of potholes. No, it isn't reasonable to assume the tree of life was useless to A&E. The simple reading doesn't support that assumption. The text (Genesis 3:22) very clearly states that if they ate of it they would live forever and God didn't want that after they gained knowledge.

quote:

---

Conclusion, something changed to change Gods mind about the TOLs application to them, and its accesiblity to them, which was of no concern previously.

​

Whether you agree or not, this interpretation certainly addresses the plain and simple text and its direct conclusions.

​

After the sin, God changed his mind from an anthropomophic stand point.

---

Yes, God changed his mind concerning the tree of life because they gained knowledge. The story does not support the idea that Adam and Eve weren't human upon creation and changed to human after eating. If you disagree, show me the words in the text that support this idea.

quote:

---

This theory might work if it were not for two major points. God was AWARE it was there, and told them they MAY eat of every tree except one.
Your argument seems to imply that he was serious about all the trees but figured that they would not find the tree of life, or hoped that they would not chance upon it. Your theory defies simple logic and the plain and simple text.

---

God being aware, doesn't make A&E aware. My speculation is more logical than yours. The point is that the text doesn't tell us if A&E knew there was a tree of life or if the tree of life provided eternal life and it doesn't tell us if they ate from it prior to eating from the tree of knowledge.

quote:

---

Question, if they found the tree and ate of it before the problems started would it have made them immortal?

---

According to Genesis 3:22, yes.

quote:

---

Question? Since God knew of its location and its (TOL)potential, was he not serious about the instruction to freely eat of all but one?

---

God said they could eat freely from any tree but one, the tree of knowledge.

quote:

---

If God was concerned about the tree after the sin and whether they ate of it, to not live forever, Why would he NOT be concerned about it before the sin since he claerly gave them the right and ability to find it.

---

When he gave them the right and ability to find it, they didn't have knowledge. After they gained knowledge, God did not want them to live forever. This isn't rocket science.

quote:

---

Even if we assume they were simply mortal, wouldnt the tree provide immortality in either instance?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

Since you seem to believe they were mortal before and after,our biggest problem is going to be explaining why he cared afterwards and not beforehand. Do you mean to imply that God was not interested in them becoming immortal before hand, but was afterwards?

​

Even if, we assume that your contention about them not being immortal prior to the sin is true, why would God not be concerned about them eating of it, before the problems started. Wouldnt the same result of immortality occur, if they ate, before as well as afterwards? Yet, God seems to not care beforehand. Your theory ignores simple logic and the plain text.

---

Asked and answered. Knowledge.

quote:

---

Thus your bottom line and its implications are not support by the text

---

Wrong. The text does not support the idea that A&E weren't mortal upon creation. The text is very clear about why God changed his mind about the tree of life. (Genesis 3:22-23)My bottom line was that the text doesn't tell us if A&E ate from the tree of life before expulsion or not. You haven't shown otherwise.How does all this tie in with idea that the word translated as die refers to Spiritual Death?
The simple reading does not support the idea of spiritual death and your "logic" hasn't shown otherwise.If you have a point that on topic, get to it.Edited by purpledawn, : Corrected typo. The "text does support" changed to "the text does not support"

---

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

quote:

---

Your assumption here is that they had no knowledgeof good and evil entirely. This is a common misunderstanding. The expression needs to be understood in light of the PLAIN and SIMPLE text and
context. Answer this question, did they have the capacity to understand a simple command before the fall? Wasnt thier capacity to understand already there before the fall.,

---

I'm not assuming they did or didn't already know of good and evil. According to the story they didn't. Understanding commands doesn't mean one knows the difference between right and wrong. Toddlers understand commands, but don't automatically know the difference between right and wrong.

quote:

---

Hence the statement, "let us make man in our image"., "In the image of God created he him, in the image of God created he them", implies at least this quality initially

---

That statement isn't part of the A&E story. It is a later Priestly story of creation.

quote:

---

Are you prepared to say they could not understand Gods simple commands? Also, look at the very elaborate discourse Eve involves herself in with the Serpent BEFORE THE FALL.

​

Therefore the expression, "Knowledge of good and Evil", must have reference to something besides the total misunderstanding of a thing or lack of complete knowledge.

---

It isn't lack of complete knowledge. It is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Two very specific things. (I type tree of knowledge or just knowledge because I don't want to type tree of knowledge of good and evil every time I have to answer the same question for you. We know which tree we are talking about and what it imparts. So when I say knowledge, I'm not just talking about general knowledge, I'm still talking about the tree of knowledge of good and evil.)

quote:

---

You are wrong again, the expellsion and banishment from the tree of life was a result of sin. Being denied acess to the TOL, was punishment for the sin and has very little to do with Knowledge of good and evil. It has to do with the fact that man must now pay for his sin and there would be NO EASY SOLUTION or a simple ignoring of his actions that changed the relationship.

---

Read the story. The punishments were for their disobedience. The banishment was to keep them away from the tree of life. It was a secondary result due to what they gained when they disobeyed.The snake was punished because he coerced the woman into eating from the tree. (Genesis 3:14-15)The woman was punished for eating from the tree. (Genesis 3:16)Adam was punished for listening to his wife and ate from the tree. (Genesis 3:17-19)Because they now knew about good and evil like God, they were cast out of the Garden to keep them from the tree of life. (Genesis 3:22-23)The story doesn't say their relationship with God changed for the worst.

quote:

---

Your right all the answers arent going to be in one text. Now you are starting to understand

---

And you aren't apparently. The simple reading has one meaning. Anything else we add to it is just that, addition. We change it to fit the theology of the time. Everything you're dragging into the story is later theology and would have meant nothing to the original audience of the story. You're looking for answers to current theological questions.At the time the A&E story was probably written, blood sacrifices to forgive sin weren't part of the culture. Notice Cain didn't provide a sacrifice for forgiveness and God didn't kill him for murdering his brother. Sacrifice wasn't the point of the stories.

quote:

---

PurpleDawn writes:

​

Nope. Genesis 3:22-23 is very clear. God banished A&E from the garden to prevent them from eating of the tree of life. As I've said, while they were clueless God didn't care if they lived forever. After they gained knowledge of good and evil, God did care if they lived forever. Again the story is very clear.

​

Ah, your finally coming around to the truth. So,now you admit directly or indirectly here that they might have been immortal before the fall. Thanks for this small admission. so, if as you indicate above the very real poosibility exists that they were immortal, this would in and of itself be a spiritual aspect and
that they lost (died) to that advantage, hence spiritual death.

---

I've been very patient concerning your dishonest representation of my statements. I've chalked it up to major comprehension issues. Please pay attention to what I have written.My statement doesn't refer to whether they were immortal or not. As I said later in the post, the text does not support the idea that A&E weren't mortal upon creation. I did not indicate a possibility in my statement.

quote:

---

My argument was never based on MUST, but we will let that go.

---

Sure it was.

quote:

---

Immortality was recended because of sin, not because the knowledge of good and evil.

---

Incorrect. Genesis 3:22-23

quote:

---

Let me demonstrate. before the fall they had a basic knowledge of right and wrong, that is they had a decision making process, (Bailey notwithstanding), as is indicated in Verse 11 of chapter 3: "hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I COMMANDED thee, thou shouldest not eat"

​

The command was given before the Sin, which demonstrates beyond any doubt they had a basic understanding of right and wrong, otherwise God would not issue a COMMAND, if they did not have the CAPACITY to understand it or obey it, ( Bailey notwithstanding), correct?. He certainly would not punish them if they could not understand the command.

---

Wrong. Giving a command doesn't prove they knew the difference between right and wrong. We teach toddlers commands before they really understand the language. They don't know right from wrong.

quote:

---

The expression "Knowledge of Good and Evil" is one of DEGREE , not complete lack of ability to understand this or that.

​

Knowledge of good and evil is the aspects of good and evil, not the ability to understand the difference betwwen right and wrong

​

there eyes were opened to the full spectrum of what constituted Good and Evil, not the complete ability to NOT understand anything at all.

​

Hence, immortality and access to the TOL was recended due to the DISOBEDIENCE, not because they now had a complete panoramic view of Good and Evil, ONLY.

---

The text doesn't support your theory. God is very clear why he expelled them from the garden. (Genesis 3:22-23)

quote:

---

It is both reasonable and textual to assume that if they had access to it, that it would not have any affect to them if they were already immortal. This is further supported by the fact God gave a specific direction to eat of any tree they decided.

---

You're spouting logical nonsense. Nothing you've said shows that, per the simple reading, A&E were immortal and were changed to mortal.

quote:

---

I already have, several times and you are not paying attention "Of every tree thou MAYEST FREELY eat, except the tree of knowledge of Good andEvil"

​

Now watch it flow logically. If the tree of life gave immortality, it is reasonable and TEXTUAL to assume that, (A). they already had this and didnt need it and the tree wouldnt do any more for them, than they already had, or (B). God already knew they were immortal and issued a command that allowed them to eat of a tree with no concern of its affects on them. ...

​

Conclusion. Therefore, whether you agree or not the TEXT clearly supports the idea of IMMORTALITY before the fall, even if it does not DIRECTLY state that they were or were not immortal.

---

(C). They were mortal and if they ate from the tree they would live forever.I've countered this theory, move forward. You making up scenarios that aren't supported by the text itself. We can make up anything we want. It's easy to make up a story for either side. The text doesn't support the idea that they were immortal.If Adam and Eve were immortal, the tree of life was a useless prop in the story. It served no purpose before or after they disobeyed.But the tree of life does have a part to play in the story. Because A&E could gain immortality from the tree of life (which would only be possible if they were mortal), they were removed from the garden to prevent them from eating of the tree of life. The tree of life was essential to the storyline.

quote:

---

Now notice your only objection to this LOGIC and textual support is that we dont know if they ate of it, which I have demonstrated is irrelevant, and that we dont know if they knew where it WAS OR NOT, which is also irrelevant, as applied to the logic I have provided. Your two contentions are cavils not arguments.

​

Notice you said. "If you disagree with this show me the words in the text that SUPPORTS this idea".

​

I just did.

---

You applied logic to your own made up conditions, not what is in the text.The A&E text is the stuff written in the Bible, not what you type in your post.The actual text you provided from the story only states that they are allowed to eat from any tree they want except one. That's it. The rest you made up.

quote:

---

The text tells us that there were two trees in the garden and that God made them and the others AVAILABLE to them, by stating, Of every tree thou mayest freely eat, except....... Why would one need to assume that they were unaware of the TOL since it was in the garden along with the others that God FREELY offered to them

---

The text doesn't tell us if A&E knew that the fruit from one of the trees would allow them to live forever or if they knew where it was located. The narrator and God knew, but the text doesn't tell us whether A&E did or didn't know. We can't assume either way. It isn't in the text. Why is that so difficult to understand?

quote:

---

PurpleDawn writes:

​

My bottom line was that the text doesn't tell us if A&E ate from the tree of life before expulsion or not. You haven't shown otherwise.

​

I believe I have with the greatest of ease

---

Only by making up your own conditions, but not from the text.

quote:

---

How many times do I need to demonstrate it. They possessed immortality, they lost this (died) to this aspect. Immortality is a spiritual attribute they were alive physically from an immortal standpoint. When they sinned they die to this aspect, thus they died spiritually

---

Once would be nice. So spiritual death hangs on the assumption that Adam and Eve were immortal when first created.The simple reading doesn't support that assumption without adding to the storyline. As I showed above, I can make an assumption that they were mortal by adding to the storyline. It is a Just So style of story. The story can be adapted to fit whatever theology you want.The simple reading supports the idea that A&E were mortal. The need for them to be immortal is from Christian Theology, but isn't supported by the simple reading of the text.

quote:

---

hence it does not matter whether they ate of the tree or not. if living forever was a concern before the fall, he would have never given them DIRECT access to it and if denying them living for ever AFTER THE FALL was based on them obtaining knowledge of good and evil one would ask why he even gave them ANY intelligence at all to make a decision on the Tree of knowledge of good and evil in the first place.

​

even the simplest of persons can see that denying them access to the tree of life after the fall is not based in this assumption, it makes no sense.

---

The only reason for this gobbledygook you call logic, is to support your own theology. It isn't based on the simple reading of the story.

quote:

---

Your CONTENTIONS are based in the worst form of assumtions and disregard for simple logic,not to mention the text.

---

Oddly enough, your lack of logic has actually made my point concerning the A&E story at least.The word translated as die only refers to physical death. Attaching it to a spiritual death is a later theology (Christian) based on the assumption that A&E were immortal. Christianity needs A&E to be immortal to support the theology you expressed above: Further Christ restored this physical immortal state by his death and ressurection.You are projecting a later theology onto a very old story that really has nothing to do with theology. It is a just so style of story talking about the development of man, not a fall.Edited by purpledawn, : Added thoughts.

---

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

quote:

---

I also stumbled across some early christian meanderings which hardly seem of use. What I mean is, they go on and on without offering scriptural support. Mostly anyway, with a few exceptions here and there, such as Ignatius in a couple spots. Keep in mind, this jazz was completely contrived prior to 400 CE.

---

Great information. Thanks Bailey.

quote:

---

In all fairness, even that's not to say the entire mumble is unfounded within scripture, but rather plainly, evidently unsupported upon delivery.

​

But, then again, is that not what christian apologists and 'getics are mainly about?

---

I do think that Paul's creative style of writing is misunderstood today and can easily be manipulated to support later theology.Just because Paul personifies sin in his writings doesn't mean the use of the word sin by Ezekiel is personified. Just because Paul uses death figuratively, doesn't mean the word die as used in Genesis 2:17 or Ezekiel 18:20 is figurative. The time, purpose, and audience of the writing has to be taken into account.EMA has made it clear that the idea of spiritual death concerning Genesis 2:17 hangs on the assumption that A&E were created immortal. Unfortunately the simple reading doesn't support that assumption.The reality of the texts of the OT (Torah and prophets) is that the soul cannot be separated or suffer separate from the body while the person is alive. Poetic writings can be interpreted otherwise. It is difficult for people today to read the old scriptures without the influence of later theology. Even without the later influence it is difficult to understand the creative writings of an ancient culture. We are devoid of the news of the time to understand the slang and idioms the audience understood easily. Due to the research of scholars we can gain insight into the basics of the time, but we are still missing the character of the people.We lose so much over time.This thread has been enlightening. Thanks again for your research.

---

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

quote:

---

No person in thier right mind would assume that Adam and Eve would be aware of where the tree of knowledge and good and evil WAS (in the middle of the garden), then somehow, not be aware, of where the TOL was (IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GARDEN), as the scripture PLAINLY indicates and states. Now watch this, what would be the more reasonable thing to assume, assuming that that we are assuming, that this is the place of these trees. No doubt the trees were side by side, in the middle garden. Your first premise or ASSUMPTION, is therefore unreasonable and nonsenssical.

​

Conclusion, since we are proceeding on assumption that they knew of its (TOL)existence, the more reasonable assumption is that they ofcourse would KNOW.

---

The Adam and Eve story is written from a third person point of view. In Genesis 2:9 the writer/narrator tells the audience that God put the Tree of Life (TOL) and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (TKGE) in the middle of the garden. From the text we can assume the trees are close to each other, but we cannot assume from that text that A&E knew about the TOL.In Genesis 2:16-17, we are told that God told Adam that he could eat from any tree except the TKGE. We can assume God showed him which tree to avoid, but we cannot assume that Adam was told about the TOL at the same time. As you keep stating, God didn't care if they ate from the TOL before they disobeyed.We cannot conclude from the text that A&E knew there was a tree in the garden that would give them eternal life. The writer knows the tree is there, God knows the tree is there, and the audience knows the tree is there. The text does not tell us if the characters of A&E knew about the tree. A&E don't ever mention the TOL.

quote:

---

Your second assumption is even more ridiculous and irrelevant. Whether they knew what the tree would do is not argument and does not apply to anything in the text. The fact that God GAVE them access to the the tree that would provide eternal life, would do this whether they believed it or not. Your statement is therefore irrelevant ot the argument.

​

Your third ASSUMPTION, that we do not know whether they ate of the tree is irrelevant to the fact that they had COMPLETE ACCESS and OBVIOUS knowledge to its location. The MORE reasonable assumption, that is if we are assuming, is to assume they had ate of it and it did nothing more for them, than they had already. this is why God had no concern before the fall if they had access to it or whether they ate of it. either conclusion is true, due to the fact that God, (now watch) had no concern before the fall as to whether they ate of it or not, or if they were eternal or not.

​

This is his clear indication before the fall. if this positon was not in place, which it clearly is, you might have a valid point, on the expression, "let us go down and stop them, lest they put forth thier hand eat of the tree of life and live forever.

---

You can spin as much logical nonsense as you want, but basic literary interpretation does not support your rants.Yes they had the option to eat from the TOL as they did the rest of the trees, but having access doesn't mean one has to access. The text does not tell us that they ate from the tree.You're assuming since God didn't care if they ate from the TOL, that A&E were already immortal and that the tree would not give them eternal life. You are also assuming that after they disobeyed, God changed their physical nature to mortal and then he cared if they ate from the TOL. The text does not support that conclusion.A reasonable conclusion would be that A&E were mortal and God didn't care if they came upon the TOL and ate the fruit. God had no problem with them living forever in their current state. After they disobeyed and now had the knowledge of good and evil like God, God did not want them to live forever. (Genesis 3:22) Notice God did not say that man was immortal like them. So we can conclude from the text that they had not eaten from the TOL before being expelled from the garden.The text does not clearly show that A&E were immortal. That is your own assumption necessary to support the later theology.

quote:

---

Gen 3:22 can only be interpreted in light of Gen 2:16. Eternal life was not an undesierous thing from God to man before the fall and he clearly gave it to them freely, your assumptions notwithstanding, because they are only assumptions that violate the the plain text, in 2:16. you are reading into Gen 3:22 something that is not present in Gen 2:16, that they previously did not have eternal life.

---

I agree that eternal life was "not an undesirous thing" before the fall. The text did not say he gave them eternal life. It only says the TOL was in the garden and they were allowed to eat from it. We don't know that they did. You are reading into Genesis 3:22 something that is not present in Genesis 2:16. You are assuming they were immortal. The text does not support that assumption.

quote:

---

Gen3:22 can only be interpreted in light of Gen 2:16, the Fall and Sin. it is a much more reasonable assumption to assume they plainly HAD what was indicated in Gen 2:16, lost it and then now, were trying to regain it by a simple means in Gen 3:22. God stops this action, not because they never had it (Gen2:16) but because sin now does not allow them to REATAIN it or gain it back, through a simple means.

---

The Fall and Sin are later theologies. All they had in Genesis 2:16 was permission to eat from all the trees but one. God stops them because now they were like him knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3:22) You're adding to the story.

quote:

---

Now without using a SINGLE other verse of scripture, besides the Genesis account i have established that a person is MORE THAN JUSTIFIED in believing in the concept of eternality in Adam and Eve and that as a result of them losing this they died a Spiritual death by losing this God like quality.

---

Not from the simple reading you haven't. You can believe what you wish, but the plain text does not support the concept that the word die used in Genesis 2:17 means spiritual death. The word die simply refers to physical death in the A&E story.

quote:

---

Secondly, the majority of the Jewish people that were directly related to these scriptures and not long therafter also, agreed with these assumptions, that they lost the immortal aspect in the fall and sin.

---

Please provide support for this statement.

quote:

---

The weight of the plain text, reason and history are against your assumptions, not to mention the rest of the INSPIRED record and account of Gods inspired Word

---

The plain text does not support the concept that the word die in Genesis 2:17 means spiritual death. Only with later Christian overlays do you come up with that conclusion.Please show that the "rest of the inspired record and account of Gods inspired word" supports that the plain reading of the word die in Genesis 2:17 refers to spiritual death.

---

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

quote:

---

PurpleDawn writes:

​

Not from the simple reading you haven't. You can believe what you wish, but the plain text does not support the concept that the word die used in Genesis 2:17 means spiritual death.

​

It does it if they possessed immortality, it does if God gave them this quality and the accses to it. It does if they had it at all. it does if they had it and lost it, which the text indicates.

---

You claim my position is all assumption, but your contention is the one filled with ifs. Ifs are used when one doesn't know.You have presented that the word translated as die refers to spiritual death only IF A&E were created immortal.You are obviously unable to understand the simple meaning of the A&E story. I can't make it any clearer and it is useless to keep repeating myself.You have shown me that spiritual death as it relates to the A&E story is based on assumptions from later theologies and not the simple reading of the story.Thanks for your time.

---

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

Stop talking about debating and just debate.

quote:

---

By Biblical you said, that which relates to they Bible, yet you wont even make clear what consitutes, "the BIBLE".

---

quote:

---

Now lets put it in a nice neat package for the reader of our two posts. Since it is not immediatley appearent what the writer in Genesis had in mind in detemining whether they were immortal before the fall and both assumptions are reasonable from the context. It becomes necessary to determine from other areas of scripture what the answer may be. This ofcourse, would involve including the TOTALITY of the BIBLICAL account as you put it and what the two disputants (You and Me) position on what the scriptures may be., ie, the words of men or the words of God. Gods meaning are going to be consistent across the board. Mens meaning can vary depending on the time and concepts at any given time.

---

I made it very, very, very, very, very, very clear in the OP that I wanted to look at the simple reading. I don't want to look at other means of interpretation. Remez is another type of interpretation. You can open your own thread and only look at the Remez all you want. It is not the basis for this discussion. Get over it!It is ridiculous to try and debate when we are looking at different styles. So I kept it to one style. Deal with it!I don't doubt that spiritual death is based on a remez interpretation and not the simple reading of the text. These styles of reading the text are later developments after the exile.In Message 79, you stated: The word translated as die in Genesis 2:17 refers to physical death. Message 29 There is no literary device used by the author to implicate any other meaning to the word translated as die.So make your case without whining, adding to the story and a lot of ifs. Anybody can make a case with ifs.Edited by purpledawn, : Typo and added thought.

---

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

Since you don't understand systematic methods of exegesis and apparently don't understand literary devices, it will be difficult for you to move forward. I can't debate apples if you're debating tico berries.

quote:

---

We done this to death. hey look at that, I used the word death in another means besides physical.

---

Grow up! You're being obtuse and showing your ignorance. As I said in Message 32 and several other times: 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.You, EMA, have not shown that the word translated as die is being used figuratively in Genesis 2:17. Lack of dying doesn't make the usage figurative.

quote:

---

is your implication here that the only possible explanation and interpretation of a word is to use only the simple reading?

---

I really hope English is your second language, because you have shown you don't comprehend simple sentences and don't construct sentences that can be understood easily. I have no idea what you are saying in this sentence and I'm tired of guessing.

quote:

---

I have already done this by indicating that a plain and simple reading of the word will not meet the standards of the interpretation

​

Further,It does not matter what the human perspective is in this instance. Of course a human writer would probably use it to mean physical, because that is all he or she is aware of. However, this does not make your case for you.

​

In other words does the writer use the words Physical death when using the word death, ofcourse not. In the same way if the meaning in the passage is spiritual death it is not necessary for him to use the term Spiritual death for that to be the meaning. the rest of the context will indicate that, as I have now spent many a post demonstrating.

---

Yep, tico berries.

quote:

---

Styles of reading are dependent upon the individual reader and the context not TIME periods. Writing styles would ofcourse be partially dependant upon time lines. Your above statemnet is silly.

---

I've explained this "to death" and I've been considerate enough to provide links so you could learn. You obviously don't wish to learn.

quote:

---

Lets try that again. Since it is not directly stated that God forgave Adam and Eve and that he told them they would die, absolutley and it is not stated directly that he changed his mind, we must, using the Purpledawn method, gather from the plain and simple text that God lied about his statements. Now since no other method is proper except the plain and simple reading, God must be a liar.

---

You're the one who keeps saying God is a liar. The text doesn't say he lied either. All we know is that he didn't kill them, but chose to punish them instead.

quote:

---

Or one can look at the individual punishments and conclude, Ohhh, this is what God meant by die. But we are certainly not warrented in assuming that he changed his mind, or that he is a loving and forgiving God, because that is not stated in the text, or in definitions of any of the words and that would certainly violate the plain and simple text method.

---

Nope. The disciplinary actions did not refer back to the word translated as die. The original warning wasn't mentioned again. What literary device is employed to bring the reader to that conclusion?

quote:

---

I dont see how you can eat your cake and have it in this situation. Describing the writing as creative in these instances further violates your own principles and premises

---

More tico berries.

quote:

---

Now does your restrictive method only apply to argumentation or does it apply to you as well. your forced to this conclusion if you are going to use such a ridiculous method.

---

It isn't my method. We learned it when we first learn to read. Basically, it is just the standard or natural way of reading a book. Read a link or two.

---

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

quote:

---

Yeah yeah yeah, I understand that yous guys have three or four different methods Sod, Remez, etc,of interprepretation, the Catholics three or four, Protestans three or four. But literary devices and exegesis nothwithstanding and your verbose, pathetic attempt at condesention,

---

IOW, only you know what it really says.

quote:

---

I have demonstrated the concept of immortality in the Genesis context. That it was obvious,that they had access to it, that they possessed it. Only obstinance and ignorance will ignore this simple
exegetical interpretation

---

Actually you haven't. You've assumed and added to the text.

quote:

---

As a result of thier sin, the conditions changed both in thier surrounding and in thier character and makeup. Of what sense would it make, to ascribe a punishment that they already possessed, ie death and dying? What sense would it make to tell someone they would die and then not follow through with that punishment.

---

Asked and answered several times. Mercy!

quote:

---

We can make this alot simpler if you will simply state in NO uncertain terms your position on this text and others, as to whether it is Gods word or not. We can avoid alot of miscommunication and
misunderstanding.

---

No we can't. You have comprehension issues and apparently no amount of careful explanation turns on the light bulb.Since you like the word if, all you have to do is present the argument you would present if I believed the writings are the word of God and the argument you would present if I didn't believe the writings were the word of God. Not rocket science.

quote:

---

Now, how can one can make these types of comments after the text plainly indicates by God himself, that they knew where it was.

---

Show me in the text that God indicates that A&E knew where the tree of life was located before they ate from the tree of knowledge.

quote:

---

Im sorry tell me again, how it is that I havent demonstrated that the word death hasnt been used CREATIVLEY or in an expanded sense. Are you paying any attention at all. It would serve you better to
respond to my arguments, other than saying you dont like them or that you simply disagree.

---

You haven't demonstrated that the word translated as die in Genesis 2:17 has been used creatively to mean something other than the common meaning. Unfortunately you don't have an argument based on the simple reading of the text. Hard to respond to what isn't there.

quote:

---

Ive refered to and read the links, but the idea of categorigal 'reading styles', is a nonsensical idea, in and of itself

---

Then don't participate in the thread.

quote:

---

The obvious LOGICAL CONCLUSION (and I bet even you can get it PD), is that if they had not sinned, they would not have experienced any of the CONDITIONS that they did afterwards and that they would not
have tasted or experinced death, physically, progressively or otherwise.

---

You don't know that from the text. Playing the if game again. IF they hadn't eaten from the tree, they would not have been disciplined. Whether they were immortal without the tree is known. Whether they knew of the tree is unknown. IF they make no other missteps to cause God to discipline them, odds are they would eventually eat from the tree of life.Again, you can play the "if" game all you want, but it doesn't address the simple reading of the text. We are addressing what did happen, not what might have happened IF God hadn't put the tree of knowledge in the middle, or the snake had just kept his mouth shut. What IF the tree of life wasn't in season or IF God had just not created humans he would have avoided the whole problem. Ifs are easy, but useless in understanding the simple reading.

quote:

---

Question, was death a consideration before they sinned? if it was the threat would make no sense.

---

Clarify.

quote:

---

Now, even if the word only refers to physical death, I would challenge you to demonstrate that according to the text, my conclusions are invalid. Have at it. Timber, PD

---

State your conclusions succinctly, without extraneous debating gibberish and insults, and I will see how they deal with the simple reading.

quote:

---

Answer these questions. According to the plain and simple text, would they have died, had they not sinned?

---

The text doesn't give us that answer.

quote:

---

What is the opposite of never dying?

---

Never living.

quote:

---

Is it reasonable to assume (according to the plain and simple text)that even in a physical sense one may not die, if God is the sustainer of that physical existence?

---

No. Adam and Eve were provided food for sustenance. The text doesn't not give us information that God kept them physically alive in a different way than how humans normally thrive.

quote:

---

If you had to choose a word to describe not ever dying, what word would you choose PD?

---

Fiction

quote:

---

Now you can scream and shout all day long and insist that perfection, immortality in a physical form is a later concept, but I submit to you that it is right there in the Genesis account. the one you prescribed we use.

---

Actually you're doing the screaming and shouting, I'm just repeating the basics you don't seem to understand.

quote:

---

Now since I have consistently demonstrated this from logic and context, why dont you do me a favor and tell me whos words are these in Genesis, Gods or mens

---

In Message 11 you asked:So be even more helpful in helping us to understand what your position on these texts are, ie, mans words, Gods and mans words, Gods words only, or, I dont know, or, I dont care or its irrelevant to the subject at hand, from your perspective and I responded: It is irrelevant to this discussion. Either the text says what it means or it doesn't. If it doesn't mean what it says, then evidence is needed.. You apparently didn't really want to know my perspective, you want to know my personal belief system. This thread is not about whether the Bible is the word of God or not. My personal position on the matter is irrelevant to this discussion. Asked and answered! Move on.Again, if that is so important to you, answer from both perspectives. Stop wasting your energy on whining and rudeness.

---

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

I didn't realize it was going to be so difficult reading the simple text.The Genesis 2:17 text does not refer to spiritual death. The word translated as die refers to physical death. Although A&E did not die, that does not negate the meaning of the word in the story. It just means God chose a different means of discipline. In the story this discipline explains why man is the way he is, etc.The Apostle Paul refers to death through Adam and life through Christ, which is what most bring up to support the idea of the word translated as die to really mean spiritual death. Paul is personifying sin and death. Just because Paul uses death figuratively, doesn't mean the word die as used in Genesis 2:17 or Ezekiel 18:20 is figurative. The time, purpose, and audience of the writing has to be taken into account.Paul isn't changing the simple reading of Genesis 2:17 and isn't contradicting it. When Paul personifies death, life and spirit he isn't referring to physical death and life of an individual. Death and life/spirit take on the meanings in some verses of immoral and moral. Those are the issues that Paul presented to his audience. Right and wrong behavior. Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430) was a proponent of Original Sin and the idea that A&E were immortal. (Augustine on Adam)
Although it is interesting that Augustine felt Adam was immortal, but he did not think Adam was impervious to death. Augustine is a later concept. Paul is a later concept, but he isn't contradicting the simple reading of the text in Genesis 2:17. Adam and Eve made a mistake, but the story doesn't present them as immoral.

---

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

quote:

---

I didnt realize you didnt take God serious in the first place.

​

After all the arguments I have presented we are asked to believe the conclusion that God ran around through the Torah, prophets and Old testament, saying:

​

If you sin, you will DIE, No Im just kidding

​

The soul that sins it will die, No Im not serious

​

If you sin I will kill you, but you dont have to take me literally

​

If you break my commandments, I will put you to death physically, but dont worry I wont follow through with that anyway.

​

Since you are going to die anyway and you already know this, my comments would make no sense and the threats cannot be taken seriously.

---

No, that is not what you are asked to believe. I have corrected you on this point. Message 76I have asked that readers look at the simple reading of Genesis 2:17 and see that the word translated as die refers to physical death. The simple reading of the story also shows that God can show mercy. Christians do consider God to be merciful. To be merciful, God has to be able to change his mind when he feels the circumstances warrant mercy.Stating that God cannot or will not change his mind means that God is not merciful.The author of 2 Peter is addressing the return of Jesus and why he hadn't returned yet. People were losing faith that he would return. That verse doesn't support that God can't change his mind and show mercy.

---

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

quote:

---

it took a while but you finally got around to answering my fundamental questions. when you do make it back home, Ill talk to you back at the house. thanks again

---

No, my first post on EVC in 2004 does not answer your question concerning the text of the Bible. Message 11I answered your "fundamental" question when you first asked it, you just didn't like the option I picked from your list of choices.You have a habit of assuming. You have now made an assumption concerning my personal belief system that you feel makes me unworthy of your debating attention. That's why I said my personal beliefs were irrelevant. You have a tendency to bailout of a discussion by intimating that you have more knowledge and the person just isn't going to understand.If that's the excuse you need to justify leaving the discussion, that's fine, but know this. In this discussion you have shown your ignorance concerning forms of Bible interpretation and your inability to comprehend simple Bible reading. Your debating style is discourteous and dishonest. You have not been able to analyze the simple text apart from dogma and tradition.You have divulged more concerning this topic than you know. Thanks for the debate.Try to improve your style and don't dismiss others so easily because of what you "think" they believe.

---

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

quote:

---

THe Bible DOES teach spiritual death and that is the kind of death that Adam and Eve experienced on the day they sinned. On that day they sinned against God and God separated them from the garden of Eden and from His visible presence in the world. Separation from God is death; spiritual death.

---

What kind of separation from God? This discussion is looking at the simple reading of the text in the Jewish Bible. Please read Message 1.
Also read Message 149

quote:

---

Romans 8:6 "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace."

---

Here Paul just explained that he used the words life and death figuratively.Show me that the writer of Genesis 2:17 was using figurative speech.ABE: Where does the story tell us that mankind was removed from God's visible presence?Edited by purpledawn, : ABE

---

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