Spiritual Death is Not Biblical

quote:

---

Unfortunately when you say that death means separation, that is how it is being used; creatively. The word death when referring to living creatures means a permanent cessation of all vital functions or when referring to the non-living the passing or destruction of something inanimate. Death, dead, or die do not carry the definition of separation currently or in the OT; but the word can be used creatively to convey other meanings.

---

So you claim. Do you have any scholarly or textual evidence for your claim that OT death = extinction rather than separation?I see two reasonable possibilities:
1) In the OT, death = extinction. Those who understand death as separation are applying a NT interpretive overlay on the OT writers. (This overlay could either be an invalid anachronism, or a valid theological application.)
2) In the OT, death = separation (similar to the NT but less developed). Those who understand death as extinction are anachronistically applying modern naturalistic definitions to the OT text instead of understanding it as the original audience would have.

quote:

---

The excerpt from the NET study note is a creative religious view of death.

---

Only if possibility #1 above is true. Not if possibility #2 is true.

quote:

---

The word translated as death in the OT does not carry a meaning of spiritual death from what I have seen so far.

---

Since Adam and Eve did not physically die immediately after they ate the fruit, we can infer that either God was not speaking of physical death, or His prophecy was wrong. Rejecting the latter possibility as against the character of God revealed in the OT, we infer that the death spoken of was a non-physical death of some sort. The rest of the account shows us the effects of Adam & Eve's sin, with separation, alienation, and gradual decay of society. We can infer from the account that eating the fruit caused some sort of negative inner (spiritual) change in Adam & Eve. Correlating this data, we could conclude that Adam & Eve had experienced "spiritual death". But I agree that much of this is inferrential, and I'm not sure we can go much further in defining spiritual death from the OT alone.

quote:

---

So you claim. Do you have any scholarly or textual evidence for your claim that OT death = extinction rather than separation?

---

The dictionary. I didn't say that muwth meant extinction.I showed in Message 29 that it carries the meaning of "to kill". Ezekiel is riddled with the word muwth. Message 29Since how a word is used in a sentence can make a difference, I can't address the word generally.The word death does not equal separation, just as separation does not equal death.The word death can probably be used creatively to give that meaning, but the word itself does not mean separation.In the verses I provided in the OP the usage of the word die does not mean separation. It means to kill.Neither of your options is true.

quote:

---

Since Adam and Eve did not physically die immediately after they ate the fruit, we can infer that either God was not speaking of physical death, or His prophecy was wrong. Rejecting the latter possibility as against the character of God revealed in the OT, we infer that the death spoken of was a non-physical death of some sort. The rest of the account shows us the effects of Adam & Eve's sin, with separation, alienation, and gradual decay of society. We can infer from the account that eating the fruit caused some sort of negative inner (spiritual) change in Adam & Eve. Correlating this data, we could conclude that Adam & Eve had experienced "spiritual death". But I agree that much of this is inferrential, and I'm not sure we can go much further in defining spiritual death from the OT alone.

---

So in Message 34 when you said you saw my point, apparently you didn't.We can infer that the fruit wasn't poisonous and that God changed his mind. No you can't infer (to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises) all the rest from the simple reading of the text.Why is the option always nonphysical death, God lied, or God is wrong?
Why can't God just change his mind? Is he not allowed?
Listeners would be relieved to know that the lovers weren't going to be killed. God chose to show mercy. That option plays right into God's character as portrayed in the OT.

---

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

quote:

---

I showed in Message 29 that it carries the meaning of "to kill".

---

It CAN mean "to kill," but only if it is in the Polel or Hifil stem. (But you seem to want to read it as "to be killed" which would require the Hofal stem.) In the Qal stem, as in Gen 2:17, it CANNOT mean "to kill" or "to be killed." Here it can only mean "to die," and the best dictionary definition from context is "2) to die (as penalty), be put to death".

quote:

---

In the verses I provided in the OP the usage of the word die does not mean separation. It means to kill.

---

No, the stem is Qal, so it CANNOT mean "to kill" (or "to be killed"). It means "2) to die (as penalty), be put to death".This only tells us that muwt means "to die." It does not tell us how they understood death; was it extinction, or separation? You seem to be assuming that they understood it as extinction. If so, do you have any support for this?

quote:

---

We can infer that the fruit wasn't poisonous and that God changed his mind. No you can't infer (to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises) all the rest from the simple reading of the text.

---

Yes, I suppose this could be another inference. But the OT tells us that God does not change His mind (Num 23:19), and in the few places that He seems to do so the text comments on it. Since we see no such comment relating to Gen 2:17, I think it highly unlikely that God changed His mind here.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

K writes:You are absolutley correct K, he needs this type of explanation to avoid an obvious flaw in his theory about death. There are only two logical possiblities outside of the nonsensical idea that he changed his mind. You have to remember he also does not believe God is omnipotent, that should help us to understand alittle his position on death.The only two logical and scriptrual explanations are that they BEGAN to die physically, which actually came about latter(930 years later), OR another type of death is under consideration, or eve a third, which is really only a combination of the two, that both are under consideration in the verse. he however, will not allow this because he says, it cannot have a dual meaning, but he will not give us any valid reason as to why it cannot be both, other than his opinion.Baring the silly idea that God has changed his mind, this leaves us with another option. Since they did not die immediatley, but BEGAN TO DIE, this now creates another TYPE of death or another explanation of death, other than an immediate cessation of all functions Even if we reduce it to physical death only, we now have another explanation besides the strict dogmatic explanation of the word death offered by him. the truth is that god has a very different idea of what death involves verses Purpledawn.He says that these peoples idea of the soul was that it is really the mind with the body and that death means cessation of all functions, yet how will he explain Saul's encounter with Samuel (after Samuel had died physically) at the witch of endors house. Samuel's soul returned from a place he was presently residing in (Hades) to give Saul specific warnings.Even if one views this as a story the writer and the readers had a view of soul apart from the body and they clearly did not view death as extinction, and PDs position falls to the groundEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

PDDoes Samuel count as an Old Testament prophet? Read 1 Samuel 28:6-25. No doubt you have ready explanation as to why this illustration from one of the prophets, does not count as soul apart from body and why death means extinction or cessation.Nonetheless it shatters your contention that these people did not have a conception of spirit apart from body and death as separation from God.It would not be unscriptural to insist that Samuel although dead still existed in another form in another place. This illustration from one of the Old Testament prophets corresponds directly with the 'Transfiguration', where Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ. People from recorded had such beliefsBut since the two prophets and moses just came straight from the grave and extinction, they should have been briefed immediatley because they would have no clue what was going on, ha ha.EAM

.I second that motion!

i think Ezekiel shows that when he calls the nation of Isreal a pile of 'dead bones'and when he says that God will breath his spirit into them and they will spring to life.

the only problem with this statement is that the only 'soul' mentioned in the account is the witch's soul. She feared being put to death for practicing magic. This indicates that she and her hearers believed the opposite about 'soul'. It shows they believed souls could be put to death:Vs 9 "Why, then, are you acting like a trapper against my soul to have me put to death?Vs 21 "So she said to him: Here your maidservant has obeyed your voice, and I proceeded to put my soul in my palm and obey the words that you spoke to me.When she sees the so called "Samuel" she doesnt say she sees a soul but rather she sees a 'god'Vs13"But the king said to her: Do not be afraid, but what did you see? And the woman went on to say to Saul: A god I saw coming up out of the earth. this also does not fit with Psalm 146:4-3 "3Do not put YOUR trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.
(Why are we told not to put our trust in other humans?)
4His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground;
In that day his thoughts do perishNor does it fit in with Ecclesiatis 9:5"For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all" Im sure you can call to someone all you like, but if they are conscious of 'nothing at all' then there is no way they are going to hear and answer you. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

quote:

---

It CAN mean "to kill," but only if it is in the Polel or Hifil stem. (But you seem to want to read it as "to be killed" which would require the Hofal stem.) In the Qal stem, as in Gen 2:17, it CANNOT mean "to kill" or "to be killed." Here it can only mean "to die," and the best dictionary definition from context is "2) to die (as penalty), be put to death".

---

If someone is put to death, they are killed. They don't die of natural causes.

quote:

---

This only tells us that muwt means "to die." It does not tell us how they understood death; was it extinction, or separation? You seem to be assuming that they understood it as extinction. If so, do you have any support for this?

---

I get the feeling you referring to what happens after a person is buried, an afterlife. I'm not referring to the afterlife.Death means a permanent cessation of all vital functions. There is no evidence that the ancient Hebrews thought otherwise. Now what they thought happened after the body died has nothing to do with the definition of the word death.The word death does not mean extinction or separation. Extinction or separation are possible by-products of death.

quote:

---

Yes, I suppose this could be another inference. But the OT tells us that God does not change His mind (Num 23:19), and in the few places that He seems to do so the text comments on it. Since we see no such comment relating to Gen 2:17, I think it highly unlikely that God changed His mind here.

---

I think it is very likely that he changed his mind and no I don't find that in conflict with Numbers 23:19. In Numbers, God is now the leader of the Israelite Nation. He is telling the leader of another nation that he will not change his mind and curse his chosen people. He isn't going to behave as man does and turn on his people.This doesn't preclude God from changing his mind, if he chooses to. Cursing his own chosen nation is not showing mercy. Choosing not to kill someone for misbehavior is showing mercy. To show mercy, God has to be capable of changing his mind.

---

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

quote:

---

Does Samuel count as an Old Testament prophet? Read 1 Samuel 28:6-25. No doubt you have ready explanation as to why this illustration from one of the prophets, does not count as soul apart from body and why death means extinction or cessation.

---

Yes, it is. It is difficult to address issues you have created for me instead of what I've actually said. In Message 38, I provided information on what the Jews may have believed concerning the afterlife before Greek influence. This doesn't create an issue with the verse from 1 Samuel.

quote:

---

Nonetheless it shatters your contention that these people did not have a conception of spirit apart from body and death as separation from God.

---

That isn't my contention.

---

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

Yes she would have thought that it was a god, but her contention and estimation notwithstanding, the scripture says it was Samuel who appeared in spirit form, not this "so-called Samuel" and spoke with Saul. Now the scripture has to be believed or it does not. This is however, only a portion of what the totality of scripture has to say about the afterlife, the key words always in Eccl are "under the sun", ie, "the dead know nothing under the sun", thier reward and memory are gone from the living. They are concious of nothing "under the sun"Eccl 3:21-22. Animals and man die, Mans spirit ascends back to God who gave it, Eccl 12:7. Also, look at Heb 9:27EAM

quote:

---

Death means a permanent cessation of all vital functions. There is no evidence that the ancient Hebrews thought otherwise.

---

This is what I meant by "extinction." What is your evidence that the ancient Hebrews viewed death as you describe instead of as a "separation" of body from soul? How can you be sure that you are not reading a modern definition back into an ancient text? (We've seen from the usages of "sheol" that they did believe in continued existence with separation of body and soul after death.)Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

K writes:Correct and Eccl 3:18-22, makes it very clear even in this book that there is a distinction between man an animal, one (the physical) goes to the dust the other (mans spirit)returns to God. Eccl 12:7EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

quote:

---

This is what I meant by "extinction." What is your evidence that the ancient Hebrews viewed death as you describe instead of as a "separation" of body from soul? How can you be sure that you are not reading a modern definition back into an ancient text? (We've seen from the usages of "sheol" that they did believe in continued existence with separation of body and soul after death.)

---

I addressed that in Message 38.If you feel I am reading a modern definition back into an ancient text, then show me; don't ask me.

---

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

PD writes:The other plain and simple statement in theses passages is that the soul, physical or otherwise "IT WILL DIE", since these people did not die and some lived nearly 1000 years, your contention that the plain and simple text must be observed falls to the ground.The fact that these people did not die or began to die from a state of perfection, demonstrates that your strict adherence to this type of exegesis is not warrented.It also demonstrates that there is another definition of the word death other than the one you offer. Unless youare prepared to demonstrate that in each instance God changed his mind or he lied.I have now presented another definition of the word death than purposed by yourself. Which means if we incorperate the rest of the scriptures, those both close to the Prohets and Torah, that we can get an overall BIBLICAL picture of Spiritual death.You do not have right to set out what the scriptures have to say about a topic by isolating a faulty principle to a set of writings. Unless you are prepared to demonstrate that death in those passages does not mean Spiritual and that the rest of the BIBLICAL record is not Gods word.Your position is faulty, illogical, unscriptural and unwarrented from nearly every perspective.This is called a 'Strawman' in argumentation, there are to many things you need to establish before hand to demonstrate that your OP is valid. This is not how argumentation works, that is the way you are proceedingEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.