Not without the tree of life. At the time the warning is given, the reader has no indication that A&E would live forever. The story does not imply that A&E knew about the tree of life. Only when we get to the deliberation stage where God divulges that they could partake of the tree of life and live forever do we see that they had that potential, if they knew about it. Instead of killing A&E God chose to separate them from the tree of life. The story doesn't provide enough information to determine if A&E knew about the tree of life and partook of it before the incident or not. The story does tell us that A&E were mortal. The tree of life would not have made a difference if they were already immortal. We can only conclude that they would have lived for ever if they were able to eat from the tree.
Ok I will quit asking questions that relate directly and indirectly to the assertions and contentions, per admins request. In the Christian world, this is a simple responsiblity in debate if your are going to formulate a solid propositon for debate and be responsible for your arguments, assertions and contentions, you seem to think it is not. Ill play by your less than rational way of proceeding. Enough said
The two trees existed in the Garden before and after the fall. Before the fall they had no need of the tree of life, because if they had not sinned they would not have died, immediatley or later. After the fall God recognized that because they are NOW in a position where they would need the tree again, they may attempt to regain what they had lost, so he said,
"let US go down and stop them , lest they put forth thier hand, eat of the tree of life and live forever"
now notice they were NOT instructed to NOT eat of the tree of life before hand, because such a warning would have been senseless sense they were in an immortal state already, it was only after the fall that this exclaimation was pronounced. So the simple reader would be able to deduce this fact and your contention falls to the ground.
this why the Apostle Paul speaks about the first and second Adam in the book of Romans, Christ gave us back what was lost in Adam, a DIRECT relationship with God and eternal life (John 3:16)
So your other contention about them knowing about the tree also falls to the ground (no pun intended) The trees were there and aparently they did know, because God said let us go down and stop them. Why would he need to worry about it if they were unaware.
To further demonstrate the faulty character of your point about the simple reader scnerio, I dont know ANYONE besides you that does not after a simple reading of the text come away with the idea that Adam and Eve were not ALREADY in an immortal state. I mean, isnt that the common understanding in the biblical world, that they were already It seems you are outwieghed by the majority of the world on this point, and by all the simple readers
One more thing. I have repeadley stated that it is sensless to keep bringing up what the readers perspective would involve compared to what Gods intended purpose are in relaying a message. What is this obssesion you have with the readers perspective. The readers perspective does not make or break Gods word.
The story does not imply spiritual separation from God. They still had a relationship with God after they left the Garden.
In chapter 4 Eve said she had gotten a man from the Lord. In 4:25, Eve said God gave her another son to replace Abel. Although they suffered the penalty for their disobedience God was still with them.
They did not have the same relationship. Before the fall God walked with Adam and Eve through the garden as HIMSELF, with no mediatorship. After the fall he would barely show himself to Moses in the mount.. The fact that God oversaw his world in the giving of sons and daughters, etc, etc, has nothing to do with the fact that FROM man to God, there was now a different set of circumstances. The rain falls on the just and the unjust
The law (Mosaic)and the Gentile law (Romans 2:14-16), anticipating the mediatorship of Christ allowed a certain amount of contact with God, but not a direct relationship of forgiveness, hence the statement,
"blessed is the man to whom God does not imput sin.
"because, "without the sheding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
First this was done through the blood of Bulls and Goats, (ADAM NEEDED NO SACRIFICES before the fall because there was no sin. afterwards these sacrifices served as a mediator, but forgiveness was not complete, it was only rolled forward to the perfect sacrifice which removed the sins completley and forever,
Why can't God be considered merciful in the A&E story?
The story does not imply spiritual separation from God. They still had a relationship with God after they left the Garden.
he did show them mercy when he made them clothing from animal skins.
I do not see how the account mentions any such continued relationship with God. It speaks of them being expelled from the garden and condemned to death...how can those circumstances mean they still had a relationship with God? And what versus are you reading to draw that conclusion?
purpledawn writes:
In chapter 4 Eve said she had gotten a man from the Lord. In 4:25, Eve said God gave her another son to replace Abel. Although they suffered the penalty for their disobedience God was still with them.
yes thats what she said...but did God confirm her belief? Is there a verse to show he agreed with her? What she believed may just have been a belief of her own...just as she believed she would be in a better position if she ate from the tree. Do you have a verse in genesis that shows otherwise??
purpledawn writes:
Now you've stated that spiritual death deals with the removal of the Holy Spirit from the people. Now you are saying they left God spiritually. What do you mean by that? Just the worship practices? What in the text shows that all the Israelites weren't worshipping God?
you really are complicating things and im not even sure how you are understanding 'spirit' as opposed to 'holy spirit' as opposed to 'spiritual'
a spiritual person = a person who persues things, or is interested in things pertaining to God. A spiritual person puts more emphasis on those things then on material things. But they do not necesarily have Gods holy spirit because that is a gift from God.
holy spirit = Gods active force or power that he uses to accomplish things. He can give to his people to perform powerful works, or he can give it to them to comfort them or to teach them, or to make them feel a sense of inner peace....there are many ways he uses the holy spirit but it doesnt mean that once you've been given some, you have it forever more. He has to keep giving it to you and you only get it by maintaining a relationship with him.
Spirit has more then 1 meaning. The hebrew and greek words Ruach and pneuma, have a general meaning of breath but also have extended meanings beyond that basic sense. They can mean wind, the vital force in living creatures, a persons demenor, spirit persons including God and his angels
So how are you applying the term 'spirit' in this discussion? When you say A&E did not die a 'spiritual' death, what is the spriitual death you are refering to?
purpledawn writes:
Show me in the text that they weren't living according to God's spirit. They boys were making sacrifices to God. God gave Adam and Eve children. Adam and Eve are not described as doing anything else wrong in the story. Now they knew right from wrong.
if A&E were living according to Gods spirit, they would have been loyal and obedient but they werent. They beleived the lie of the serpant, they questioned Gods law, then they willfully disobeyed him. After that they tried to hide from God, then they tried to put the blame on someone else for thier actions.
so if you think that they were acting in harmony with Gods spirit, you are wrong. Gods spirit is holy and pure and innocent...they lost any holiness, purity and innocence when they disobeyed him and acted decietfully.
thier sons are a different matter. They were born into a condition of sinfulness and therefore cannot be compared with A&E. If you think that A&E werent too bad, then you do not have Gods view on the seriousness of their actions. They introduced sin and death on the whole human race. It is because of them that God does not speak with us, or govern us directly today.
And really, they knew right from wrong before they ate from the tree. They knew what the law about the tree was and they knew not to touch it. So they did know right from wrong. Even Eve said "from all the trees God said we may eat, but from the tree of knowledge of good and bad he has said we must not eat from it"
purpledawn writes:
But it isn't presented in the story. You're placing a Christian concept on a very old Hebrew story. Show me that the words express spiritual death.
yep, i already did that
"In the DAY of your eating from it, you positively will die"
quote:The two trees existed in the Garden before and after the fall. Before the fall they had no need of the tree of life, because if they had not sinned they would not have died, immediatley or later. After the fall God recognized that because they are NOW in a position where they would need the tree again, they may attempt to regain what they had lost, so he said,
"let US go down and stop them , lest they put forth thier hand, eat of the tree of life and live forever"
There is nothing in the story that states A&E did or didn't need the tree of life before they gained knowledge. We've become so accustomed to adding to the story, we miss the basic components. Adding to stories is what people do. They add to make it fit the current circumstances. But it is nice to just see what is really there.
The narrator tells us that both trees are in the Garden. We know that A&E were allowed to eat from any tree except the tree of knowledge. What we don't know is if A&E did eat from the tree of life or knew that it was a tree of life. We also don't know if one only has to eat once from the tree and live forever or continue to eat from the tree to live forever.
Genesis 3:22 doesn't carry the meaning that they had already eaten from the tree of life. Maybe they did and that's why they lived longer than most humans.
quote:now notice they were NOT instructed to NOT eat of the tree of life before hand, because such a warning would have been senseless sense they were in an immortal state already, it was only after the fall that this exclaimation was pronounced. So the simple reader would be able to deduce this fact and your contention falls to the ground.
this why the Apostle Paul speaks about the first and second Adam in the book of Romans, Christ gave us back what was lost in Adam, a DIRECT relationship with God and eternal life (John 3:16)
That doesn't mean they were immortal, it just means God had no problem with them eating from the tree of life and living forever. They didn't have the knowledge. Genesis 3:22 is saying God didn't want them to be able to live forever because they now had the knowledge.
Paul and John are a later teaching. How do their words change the simple reading of the text?
quote:So your other contention about them knowing about the tree also falls to the ground (no pun intended) The trees were there and aparently they did know, because God said let us go down and stop them. Why would he need to worry about it if they were unaware.
We can't tell from the story if they knew what the tree of life did or not. Once they gained knowledge all we can tell from the story is that God didn't want them to live forever. Whether A&E knew at any time that the tree of life would allow them to live forever we can't tell from the story. The information isn't there.
Just a thought, A&E didn't complain about not being able to live forever once they were removed from the garden. That would tell me that they didn't know.
quote:To further demonstrate the faulty character of your point about the simple reader scnerio, I dont know ANYONE besides you that does not after a simple reading of the text come away with the idea that Adam and Eve were not ALREADY in an immortal state. I mean, isnt that the common understanding in the biblical world, that they were already It seems you are outwieghed by the majority of the world on this point, and by all the simple readers
It depends on the lesson being taught with the story. The information just isn't there which allows the story to be molded as needed for lessons.
The fact that the tree of life existed tell me they were not immortal.
quote:One more thing. I have repeadley stated that it is sensless to keep bringing up what the readers perspective would involve compared to what Gods intended purpose are in relaying a message. What is this obssesion you have with the readers perspective. The readers perspective does not make or break Gods word.
Without readers or listeners the word falls on rocky ground. The words have to be understood by the intended audience. The message of the story had to be understood my the intended audience otherwise it would not have continued. People don't usually save or repeat what they don't understand.
Edited by purpledawn, : Typo
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
Genesis 3:22 doesn't carry the meaning that they had already eaten from the tree of life. Maybe they did and that's why they lived longer than most humans.
lol, i thought you didnt like it when people add to the story
purpledawn writes:
That doesn't mean they were immortal, it just means God had no problem with them eating from the tree of life and living forever.
your right. If they could die, then they were never immortal. Immortality means one cannot die. God is immortal and the Jesus are immortal as are those who rule as Kings with Christ...yet everyone else including angels are mortal.
purpledawn writes:
Just a thought, A&E didn't complain about not being able to live forever once they were removed from the garden. That would tell me that they didn't know.
quote:lol, i thought you didnt like it when people add to the story
You're right, my bad. The story of Adam and Eve does not say how old Adam was when he died. That was added by the redactor after the exile, so we really don't know if they ate from the tree of life before removal from the garden or not.
quote:there you go adding to the story again lol
That's not an addition to the story that is my conclusion given what the story said. They didn't complain about losing immortality. I would think that would be a bigger deal than having to plow the fields. Since they made no mention of it, my conclusion would be that they probably didn't know.
quote:They did not have the same relationship. Before the fall God walked with Adam and Eve through the garden as HIMSELF, with no mediatorship. After the fall he would barely show himself to Moses in the mount.. The fact that God oversaw his world in the giving of sons and daughters, etc, etc, has nothing to do with the fact that FROM man to God, there was now a different set of circumstances. The rain falls on the just and the unjust
You're jumping from A&E to Moses.
So far, spiritual death has been presented as an alienation of the soul from God or as the removal of the Holy Spirit from the person. What you're saying now is that it is a change in relationship. What meaning does spiritual carry in that phrase? Does it deal with the persons own spirit or soul or is it the Holy Spirit?
In the A&E story the relationship changed, but they still had contact with God. There was no mediator mentioned when God spoke to Cain. The story doesn't present a mediator.
quote:The law (Mosaic)and the Gentile law (Romans 2:14-16), anticipating the mediatorship of Christ allowed a certain amount of contact with God, but not a direct relationship of forgiveness, hence the statement,
It is interesting the the word translated as forgive (to pardon) doesn't show up until Exodus 34, but the Adam and Eve story doesn't mention they had a need to be pardoned or had a lack of communication from God. The text of the story does not present spiritual separation as it has been defined so far.
quote:First this was done through the blood of Bulls and Goats, (ADAM NEEDED NO SACRIFICES before the fall because there was no sin. afterwards these sacrifices served as a mediator, but forgiveness was not complete, it was only rolled forward to the perfect sacrifice which removed the sins completley and forever,
There is no mention in the story of A&E that they (A&E) made sacrifices to God. The fist mention of sacrifice is when Cain and Abel make offerings to God. These are not sin offerings these are offerings given for worship or devotion, or a gift showing respect or gratitude.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
quote:I do not see how the account mentions any such continued relationship with God. It speaks of them being expelled from the garden and condemned to death...how can those circumstances mean they still had a relationship with God? And what versus are you reading to draw that conclusion?
As you noted he made clothes for them. In Chapter 4, Eve said: "I have produced a man with the help of the Lord." She also says later: "God has appointed for me another child instead of Abel, because Cain killed him.
Adam and Eve aren't mentioned much in the C&A story because the story is about Cain and Abel. Cain and God carried on a conversation. Genesis 4:8-16
quote:yes thats what she said...but did God confirm her belief? Is there a verse to show he agreed with her? What she believed may just have been a belief of her own...just as she believed she would be in a better position if she ate from the tree. Do you have a verse in genesis that shows otherwise??
We only know what the text said. It doesn't say she believed or felt God helped her. She said he did.
The story does not tell us that Adam and Eve's relationship with God ceased.
quote:you really are complicating things and im not even sure how you are understanding 'spirit' as opposed to 'holy spirit' as opposed to 'spiritual'
a spiritual person = a person who persues things, or is interested in things pertaining to God. A spiritual person puts more emphasis on those things then on material things. But they do not necesarily have Gods holy spirit because that is a gift from God.
holy spirit = Gods active force or power that he uses to accomplish things. He can give to his people to perform powerful works, or he can give it to them to comfort them or to teach them, or to make them feel a sense of inner peace....there are many ways he uses the holy spirit but it doesnt mean that once you've been given some, you have it forever more. He has to keep giving it to you and you only get it by maintaining a relationship with him.
Spirit has more then 1 meaning. The hebrew and greek words Ruach and pneuma, have a general meaning of breath but also have extended meanings beyond that basic sense. They can mean wind, the vital force in living creatures, a persons demenor, spirit persons including God and his angels
So how are you applying the term 'spirit' in this discussion? When you say A&E did not die a 'spiritual' death, what is the spriitual death you are refering to?
I'm asking you what spiritual is referring to in the phrase "spiritual death".
How I apply the word spirit depends on how it is used in the text and what word is used in the text.
I think we're still talking about Ezekiel 37:9 and the dead bones. You stated that they had left God spiritually.
Peg writes:
Ezekiel said that Isreal had become a pile of dead bones becauas they had been unfaithful to God....they were dead in Gods eyes because they left him spiritually. They still dwelt in the promised land, but they were not worshiping him, therefore they were 'spiritually' dead.
You're saying that by not worshiping God that they are spiritually dead. That is a different definition that what you have given before. I'm asking for clarification. Earlier you said it was the removal of the Holy Spirit.
What does the word spiritual in the phrase "spiritual death" refer to?
If it deals with worshiping practices, what in the text shows that all the Israelites weren't worshiping God?
quote:if A&E were living according to Gods spirit, they would have been loyal and obedient but they werent. They beleived the lie of the serpant, they questioned Gods law, then they willfully disobeyed him. After that they tried to hide from God, then they tried to put the blame on someone else for thier actions.
so if you think that they were acting in harmony with Gods spirit, you are wrong. Gods spirit is holy and pure and innocent...they lost any holiness, purity and innocence when they disobeyed him and acted decietfully.
They received a punishment for that disobedience. What about after that? The text does not say whether they continued behaving badly or they learned their lesson after being exiled from the garden. So we can't say that they were or weren't acting in harmony with God's spirit after the exile.
quote:thier sons are a different matter. They were born into a condition of sinfulness and therefore cannot be compared with A&E. If you think that A&E werent too bad, then you do not have Gods view on the seriousness of their actions. They introduced sin and death on the whole human race. It is because of them that God does not speak with us, or govern us directly today.
That's a later teaching. It isn't in the simple reading of the text.
quote:
PurpleDawn writes:
But it isn't presented in the story. You're placing a Christian concept on a very old Hebrew story. Show me that the words express spiritual death.
yep, i already did that
"In the DAY of your eating from it, you positively will die"
What changed for them on the day that they ate?
Nothing in that text speaks of the soul, spirit, or the Holy Spirit. We've already established that the word translated as die, refers to physical death. Where is the spiritual part?
Once they ate, they gained knowledge of good and evil. They now had to work for their food. Snakes no longer have legs. Eve would have pain when bearing children. They no longer had access to the tree of life. Exiled from the garden.
IOW, they matched the culture of the story's audience.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
Thanks for the exchange EMA. Hope things are well ...
EMA writes:
purpledawn writes:
At the time the warning is given, the reader has no indication that A&E would live forever. The story does not imply that A&E knew about the tree of life.
The trees were there and aparently they did know, because God said let us go down and stop them. Why would he need to worry about it if they were unaware.
Why would one need to worry about stubbing their toe, if they knew how things were arranged, as well as, where they were going?
One Love
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
Thank you for the exchange purpledawn ... I hope things are well with you and yours.
purpledawn writes:
EMA writes:
First this was done through the blood of Bulls and Goats, (ADAM NEEDED NO SACRIFICES before the fall because there was no sin. afterwards these sacrifices served as a mediator, but forgiveness was not complete, it was only rolled forward to the perfect sacrifice which removed the sins completley and forever ...
There is no mention in the story of A&E that they (A&E) made sacrifices to God. The fist mention of sacrifice is when Cain and Abel make offerings to God. These are not sin offerings these are offerings given for worship or devotion, or a gift showing respect or gratitude.
Two lil' quibbles here - one is with EMA's guilt/sin offering concept; the other dealing with offerings and sacrifices in general ...
The first being, the Father does not appear to have made request of, much less - required any, 'sin offerings' according to the witness of the Nevi'im ...
Within chapter seven, at verse twenty two of his booklet - while speaking to Yisraeli tribesmen as our Father's representative, our brutha Yirmi declares ...
'When I spoke to your ancestors after I brought them out of Egypt, I did not give them commands regarding burnt offerings and animal sacrifices'.
quote:JPS TaNaKh For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices;
New American Standard Bible(1995) For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
GOD'S WORD Translation(1995) When I brought your ancestors out of Egypt, I did not tell them anything about burnt offerings and sacrifices.
King James Bible For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
American King James Version For I spoke not to your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
American Standard Version For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices:
Bible in Basic English For I said nothing to your fathers, and gave them no orders, on the day when I took them out of Egypt, about burned offerings or offerings of beasts:
For I spoke not to your fathers, and I commanded them not, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning the matter of burnt offerings and sacrifices.
Darby Bible Translation For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them concerning burnt-offerings and sacrifices, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt;
English Revised Version For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
Webster's Bible Translation For I spoke not to your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices:
World English Bible For I didn't speak to your fathers, nor command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
Young's Literal Translation For I did not speak with your fathers, Nor did I command them in the day of My bringing them out of the land of Egypt, Concerning the matters of burnt-offering and sacrifice,
Brutha Yirmi then makes his condemnation of the guilt/sin offering concepts - found within the law books, explicit in the passage that follows (8:8) ...
'How can you say, ‘We are wise, and our Father's ToRaH is with us’? Lo & behold, certainly the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie'.
quote:JPS TaNaKh How do ye say: 'We are wise, and the Law of HaShem is with us'? Lo, certainly in vain hath wrought the vain pen of the scribes.
New American Standard Bible(1995) "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.
GOD'S WORD Translation(1995) " 'How can you say that you are wise and that you have the LORD's teachings? The scribes have used their pens to turn these teachings into lies.
King James Bible How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
American King James Version How do you say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? See, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
American Standard Version How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of Jehovah is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes hath wrought falsely.
Bible in Basic English How is it that you say, We are wise and the law of the Lord is with us? But see, the false pen of the scribes has made it false.
Douay-Rheims Bible How do you say: We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Indeed the lying pen of the scribes hath wrought falsehood.
Darby Bible Translation How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of Jehovah is with us? Behold, certainly the lying pen of the scribes hath made it falsehood.
English Revised Version How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes hath wrought falsely.
Webster's Bible Translation How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain he hath made it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
World English Bible How do you say, We are wise, and the law of Yahweh is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has worked falsely.
Young's Literal Translation How do ye say, We are wise, And the law of Jehovah is with us? Surely, lo, falsely it hath wrought, The false pen of scribes.
As well, the Father does not appear to have made request of, much less - required any, 'sin offerings' according to the witness of the Tehellim ...
You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
Secondly, there appears to be no mention of a 'sacrifice' at all in the the story of the Lovebirds or the Sibling Rivalry.
Granted, the first mention of an 'offering' - or minchah, is established within Cain and Able's approach to the Father.
Please note; these offerings - while some consider them 'sacrificial' at times, are most always bloodless and voluntary.
Now, the first mention of a 'sacrifice' - or zebach, occurs at Gen 31:54, when Yacov offers a sacrifice.
Considering how seldomly and slightly the word used for sacrifice even lends itself the essence of an offering and vice versa...
It should become quite clear by the NASB Word Usage that an 'offering' - or 'minchah' is not at all the same as a 'sacrifice' - or 'zebach'.
Has anyone ever heard of the 'sacrifice plate' being passed at a church service? Probably not, seeing as an offering and a sacrifice are not equivocal.
So then, according to the testimony of Cain and Able as found in the witness of the common bible, they made nosacrifice - much less a blood sacrifice.
The two brother's each appear to have made a bloodless offering - a voluntary 'donation, gift or tribute' towards the Father. I'm in agreement with the one who suggests it does not seem proper to assign whatever definition one so desires to a word, just because it seems to suit their religious position a tad.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
So far, spiritual death has been presented as an alienation of the soul from God or as the removal of the Holy Spirit from the person. What you're saying now is that it is a change in relationship.
i think it has always been presented as a change in relationship in this thread. For as long as a person if obedient and loyal to God, the relationship with him is maintained. As soon as the person turns aside and becomes disobedient and disloyal, they loose their relationship. Remember the holy spirit is a byproduct of having a relationship with God. Its something he CAN give you when you need it or request it, but its not something that you automatically received just because you have a relationship with God.
purpledawn writes:
It is interesting the the word translated as forgive (to pardon) doesn't show up until Exodus 34, but the Adam and Eve story doesn't mention they had a need to be pardoned or had a lack of communication from God. The text of the story does not present spiritual separation as it has been defined so far.
it doesnt mention that they didnt need to be pardoned either
The answer is that they were not forgiven for their error. If they had of been forgiven, they would have stayed in the garden.
We only know what the text said. It doesn't say she believed or felt God helped her. She said he did.
The story does not tell us that Adam and Eve's relationship with God ceased.
even though God God pronounced judgment on the woman in Gen3:16? I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in birth pangs you will bring forth children, and your craving will be for your husband, and he will dominate you. You dont think this shows a change in their relationship?
do you think that if God and Eve still had a good relationship, he would allow her to suffer in this way or any other way? It is the very thing he has promised to remove at Isiah 35.
or do you think that if he and Adam still had a good relatioship he would have imposed this sentence on him, Gen 3:17"And to Adam he said: Because you listened to your wife’s voice and took to eating from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. 18And thorns and thistles it will grow for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. 19In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.
why send them out of the garden if they were still in a relatinship with him?
why allow them to suffer under these new conditions if they were forgiven for their error?
God does not do that. He pronounced his judgement on them and sent them away becasue they no longer had a relatioship with him. They lost that when they disobeyed him. The spiritual relationship they previously enjoyed was due to faithfully obeying, but once they disobeyed, they lost it and therefore became spiritually dead towards God.
purpledawn writes:
You're saying that by not worshiping God that they are spiritually dead. That is a different definition that what you have given before. I'm asking for clarification. Earlier you said it was the removal of the Holy Spirit.
What does the word spiritual in the phrase "spiritual death" refer to?
Spiritual death means to loose Gods favor. It is a condition of having no relationship with God, no understanding of God, no love for God.
to be clear - holy spirit is given to Gods worshipers but it doesnt mean that they automatically get it just because they have a relationship with him. Individuals benefit from it as a whole when they are being led by holy spirit, but if those who we are following do not have Gods spirit, then we will not benefit.
When isreal proved unfaithful and turned away from God, he removed himself from their midst and would not lead them. This led to his spirit (holy spirit) not being with them. Think about the good kings in Isreal who had holy spirit such as Solomon and David...the nation benefited greatly because worhship was correctly maintained and Gods blessing was the result.
This did not mean that every individual was given holy spirit. When moses led Isreal, he was full of holy spirit becaues he had a big job to do and was given great powers. But not everyone had such powers. Evidence that not every individual had holy spirit is also seen by the fact that many of them rebelled and complained against moses. Many lacked faith, many wanted to go back to egypt...so they obviously did not have Gods spirit as individuals, however as a whole, the nation were being led by holy spirit and received the benefits of that spirit.
purpledawn writes:
If it deals with worshiping practices, what in the text shows that all the Israelites weren't worshiping God?
Yes, they had introduced idol worship at the temple in Jerusalem
quote:Ezekiel 14:1-5 "And men from the elderly ones of Israel proceeded to come to me and sit down before me. 2Then the word of Jehovah occurred to me, saying: 3Son of man, as regards these men, they have brought up their dungy idols upon their heart, and the stumbling block causing their error they have put in front of their faces. Shall I be inquired of at all by them? 4Therefore speak with them and you must say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: Any man at all of the house of Israel that brings up his dungy idols upon his heart and that places the very stumbling block causing his error in front of his face and that actually comes to the prophet, I, Jehovah, I will let myself be brought to answer him in the matter according to the multitude of his dungy idols, 5for the purpose of catching the house of Israel by their heart, because they have withdrawn themselves from me through their dungy idolsall of them.
purpledawn writes:
They received a punishment for that disobedience. What about after that? The text does not say whether they continued behaving badly or they learned their lesson after being exiled from the garden. So we can't say that they were or weren't acting in harmony with God's spirit after the exile.
thats true, the account speaks no more of them so anything we might add is only speculation. They are no more mentioned in the bible until the NT when Paul explains that Adam became a father giving death to all his offspring, whereas Jesus became a father giving life all those who excersize faith in him.
So if you take that into consideration, the remembrance of Adams sin remains and therefore it is likely that Adam was never forgiven for his wrongdoing.
purpledawn writes:
That's a later teaching. It isn't in the simple reading of the text.
no its not a later teaching. The idea is throughout the OT and it is developed through the messianic prophecies. Mankind was subjected to a sinful condition Ps 51:5Look! With error I was brought forth with birth pains, And in sin my mother conceived me
quote:Ps49:7Not one of them can by any means redeem even a brother, Nor give to God a ransom for him; 8(And the redemption price of their soul is so precious That it has ceased to time indefinite)
9That he should still live forever [and] not see the pit.
14Like sheep they have been appointed to She′ol itself; Death itself will shepherd them; And the upright ones will have them in subjection in the morning, And their forms are due to wear away; She′ol rather than a lofty abode is for each one.
15However, God himself will redeem my soul from the hand of She′ol,
the isrealites firmly believed in the need for atonement and salvation from sin and death. They believed in the resurrection back to life on earth because that is what A&E lost.
purpledawn writes:
Nothing in that text speaks of the soul, spirit, or the Holy Spirit. We've already established that the word translated as die, refers to physical death. Where is the spiritual part?
the spiritual part is in that they lost their relationship with God. Genesis does say they died ON THAT DAY...yet they didnt die physically on that day.
thats why i asked you what other way could they have died. Think about it and compare it with the rest of the OT and the way the isrealites were considered dead when they left God. Ezekeil is an attestation to this 'spiritual' death.
The people he gave his message to were not dead, yet he called them dead 'a pile of dead bones'
Spiritual death is the result of loosing favor with God. We loose favor with God when we act disobediently.
quote:i think it has always been presented as a change in relationship in this thread. For as long as a person if obedient and loyal to God, the relationship with him is maintained. As soon as the person turns aside and becomes disobedient and disloyal, they loose their relationship. Remember the holy spirit is a byproduct of having a relationship with God. Its something he CAN give you when you need it or request it, but its not something that you automatically received just because you have a relationship with God.
Support please.
So far you're showing me that spiritual death is anything you want it to be.
quote:The answer is that they were not forgiven for their error. If they had of been forgiven, they would have stayed in the garden.
They don't ask to be forgiven in the story. It isn't the point of the story. It is a just-so story. It explains why life is the way it is. It is a foundational myth. That's why you can change it to fit whatever you want it to fit.
The simple reading of the A&E story doesn't speak of spiritual death (alienation of the soul from God) in relation to the word translated as die. The text doesn't support it.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
The simple reading of the A&E story doesn't speak of spiritual death (alienation of the soul from God) in relation to the word translated as die. The text doesn't support it.
you havnt addressed the Ezezkeil scriptures
Your claim at the outset was that the OT doesnt support spiritual death. Genesis is the OT just as Ezekiel is the OT
so please address the Ezekeil scriptures, explain why ezekeil said the nation was a 'pile of dead bones'
How can a living nation be a pile of 'dead bones' if not physically, how? & Why?
Your claim at the outset was that the OT doesnt support spiritual death. Genesis is the OT just as Ezekiel is the OT
so please address the Ezekeil scriptures, explain why ezekeil said the nation was a 'pile of dead bones'
How can a living nation be a pile of 'dead bones' if not physically, how? & Why?
The creative use of dry bones refers to the House of Israel. The nation is dead. (Ezekiel 37:11) The implication is that they have been in exile so long it is doubtful that they will rise as a nation again.
"Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are completely cut off.
Ezekiel then assures his audience that God is still present among them, that God's purpose for Israel continues and that the nation of Israel shall rise again.
The Israelites had lost hope, but that deals with their mood (spirit).
What has been presented so far as definitions for "spiritual death" doesn't reflect it is just a change in relationship with God. The words death or separation used in the phrase gives the impression that the relationship ends, not just changes.
Ezekiel doesn't present God's relationship with the Israelites as ending. Our relationship with our children doesn't end because we are disciplining them.
™ Version 4.2
(1)