Spiritual Death is Not Biblical

Pd, Sorry for the delay, Admin had to educate me about Spam and how to find my Password. I loved it when Chris Farley use to hit himself in the head and say, "You stuuuuupid idiot!!!!EMA

PD writes:Instead of rehearsing all of the things in your latest post, to which i have replied and responded numerous times, I will only address the central theme to keep us on track and maybe we can move forward.Difficulty has very little to do with simple avoidance of a simple concept. It is the worst form of contradiction to accuse someone of the very same thing that they are participating in.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.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.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.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.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.Its not necessary for you agree with these conclusions only that the plain and simple text certainly allows such a conclusion, which it most certainly does. if you have every right to assume that they did not eat, I certainly have a right to assume that because he gave them free access, told them of its existence, that is, in the exact same place as the other significant tree ("in the middle of the garden"), there is no reason to assume they did not eat, as you assume they did not.if God was not concerned if they did or did not, we MUST assume they complied with the free offer, to, "eat of every tree freely". this is the more reasnable assumptionIll have you notice, that your disagreemnts as to whether they were eternal or not are based on assumptions (above) and conclusions derived from your assumptions, based on what you believe to be the PLAIN and SIMPLE text and, guess what, so are mine. but both can be justified from the so called, PLAIN and SIMPLE text.Your argument therefore that eternality and spiritual death are not taught or implied in these verses falls to the ground.On top of all of this the VAST majority of all people that have ever studied these passages, have came to the same conclusions that are indicated in my conclusions. Therefore, which is the more reasonable assumption.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.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
EMAEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

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

PurpleDawn writes:In the same way one may assume that this is a literal story and that because God was actually talking to someone when he said, "of all the trees thouest may freely eat", one may assume they were aware of its existence. there is no valid REASON to assume otherwise They do however indirectly mention the TOL when they A&E say, while speaking to the Serpent. "we may eat of every tree except"...You use of ASSUMPTION in both determining the negative and positive in these instances almost violates your own principles and contentions in the first placeNow watch this carefully.
In Gen 3:22, God makes it very clear that A&E are AWARE of its (TOL)location. If you argue this is after the fall, you will be obligated to demonstrate why what they had before (Intelligence,
etc) would not allow them to know such a simple thing beforehand. If we are going to ASSUME then, the best assumption is that they did know before hand due to Gods statement of exclamation.How will you demonstrate otherwise, that God makes it clear they are aware of its location and existence, for fear that they may eat of it, again, that is, when he didnt care before. Gods words in Gen 3:22 CLOSE the door on you contentions. Oh yes it does. This is only one of two reasonable conclusions about what inspiration is indicating. My assumption is more than valid and the REST of INSPIRATION backs it up. Ill take the Apostle Paul over Purpledawn hands down Why would God need to state the obvious. God does not state before the fall that there was no pain or sickness either, but afterwards he does. Afterwards God indicates they had immortality before and after the fall. God indicates in Gen 3:22 that they were aware of its location and properties
You are aware of 'Indirect Implication', correct ? You indirect implication here is that my ASSUMPTION may be correct. Not at all.No they are later extrapalations and explanations of inspiration of what Genesis already teaches. the same way the rest of the scriptures are an explanation of Gods words to satan about emnity.. your assuming that the Later extrpalations are not insipred, but then you wont even tell me if you believe the Torah and Prophets are inspired and you see WHERE that leaves us correct I have now, already demonstrated to many times now why Genesis is a perfect example of why your theory is unreasonable and much to exlusive and restrictive. Think about it, here we are dealing with God (Spirit), Everlasting life, immortality, Trees of Life, trees of death, etc etc, etc. We are dealing with Humans who God gives access to all these things and the best you can come up with is ASSUMPTION AFTER ASSUMTION, trailed by "Well we just dont know", Your words are your own best advice, "read the text"Now you give me the nonsensical challenge of using the rest of the inspired word to demonstrate that point. Your kidding right? Such a challenge is to ridiculous to grace with a response at present. Not that I am not willing though.I tell you what though, I will be happy to start on that simple adventure if you will do one simple thing for me. Tell me plainly what you consider as the Inspired word of God,or if you consider any of it Inspired by God at all., these so called 'Christian Overlays, that is. Now thats a fair trade isint it?However, I dont need christian overlays as you call them to demonstrate any of these points. the text is to plain and simple for you to miss its implications or intimations. You simply do not want to believe that God has endowed man with such an characteristic. 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.No matter all of this, because all you can offer in a counterfactual manner is ASSUMPTIONS that you beleive the text is indicating. The text allows the interpretation I am advancing and as a matter of fact it almost demands it. Perhaps you would like to start on another adventure with another passage from the Torah and prophets that more closely supports your contentions, here in Genesis you have failed to demonstrate your position.As a matter a fact you have now implied that immortality was a very realconcept for and about them, but all you can do is assume they did not have it. A correct interpretation would allow such a conclusion. "Of every tree thou mayest freely eat". Think about it, it aint rocket science
You have already indirectly implied that you do not believe the later concepts to be inspired by God by refering to them as Christian Overalys. Now my intimation here could be incorect and i will admit that , but perhaps you could clear that up for us?EMAEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

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

I only claimed that yours were assumptions, because you demanded that your interpretations and estimations were the only correct ones, I demonstrated with the force of reason and scripture that yours, were not the only possible conclusions. As of yet you have provided no evidence to demonstrate that your conclusions are the only possible ones. That is, if you actually understand how debate works and I dont think you do. I will demonstrate that in minute as well. I never said that the word death refers to spiritual only. I have only maintained that the word death means DEATH, after that one needs the CONTEXT to determine what type of death is under consideration Oh, thats rich. Because I dont come to the same conclusions based on PDs preconcieved ideas I dont understand the stories meaning. its not necessary to keep reapeating yourself, since both positions in Genesis are plausible and the context will allow either by itself. so move forward here to determine what its actual meaning is. In other words, what do you mean by "later Concepts", are you implying that only the bools you have designated here, should be considered as inspired? Or that none of it is inspired and we are simply dealing with the words of men. Fair play, common sense and good debating rules would demand that you reveal such ideas to make any sense of your words. Hardly. Disagreeing with anothers position is not equal to demonstrating that the others persons positon is invalid. what I have done is to demonstrate that the word death in the scriptures has more than a physical conotation. I dont need to demonstrate that A&E had immortality absolutley,to demonstrate that if they did and lost it, that that constitues a tpye of death apart from physical.You youself said, that them being immortal before the fall was not a concern to God. Now by DIRECT implication you yourself are implying a type of death apart from physical, whether we can demonstrate they had it or not.My part was twofold, to show they had immortality, which I easily demonstrated and to show that immortality when LOST, constitues a type of spiritual death. But I dont need the former to demonstrate the later, EVEN BY YOUR OWN ADMISSIONS. Or do you now deny making that comment? Besides being a one deminsional character, you seem to be down right unreasonable in the fact that you cannot see that your positions on a specific verse or term (death) are based in assumptions as well. You are quick to point this out in others positions but ignore it in yourself.What will it take for you to understand that the context and then the whole context demand that we make a determination on certain ideas and terms in the scriptures, only after having considering these two principles will a term or idea make any sense. When dealing with the Bible, God, and spiritual matters a term may have a EXPANDED meaning to God that is not present to the hearer., ie I gave you specific examples in the words to Satan and Abraham. Neither of these two individuals understood the ramifications of the statements by God at present.The word death by its definiton only means death.Your dogmatic stance that the word should be limited to physical properties is nonsense at best, especially when dealing with the scriptures.And Finally, your refusal to make clear or indicate whether any of this has to do with God, insipration or the Spiritual per say, demonstrates a lack of understanding of how debating works. Your initial claim was that "Spiritual death is not BIBLICAL". By Biblical you said, that which relates to they Bible, yet you wont even make clear what consitutes, "the BIBLE". The best you have done is limit anything outside of the Torah and prophets to a designation of "later Concepts", which tells us virtually nothing on your positon about either the Torah, prophets or the rest of the scriptures.After I demonstrated, by using only the genesis scenerio, that immortality and spiritual death are a very real possibily, it then becomes ABSOLUTLEY NECESSARY to understand WHAT your positon may be on the rest of the scriptures or later concepts as you call them. This would go along way in determining whether we are dealing with the words of men or the words of God and what constitues or encompasses the ideas involved.Therefore a SIMPLE READING of the scripture, will mean ten thousand different things to ten thousand different people depending on thier stance and position about who the author is, why it is written and what the context is or is not.Your tactic in limiting it (in this instance the word Death)to the verse or its basic definiton and then limiting it to a few books that you have chosen to use is a sloppy and obvious debating tactic, easily observable to anyone that is knowledgable of how debate works.So come on out of your self-involved methodology and tell us who and what we are dealing with here. You contentions, your topic, your stances, your assumptions, your conclusions all demand that according to any commonsense rules of debating, you let us know these simple principles.Since I have now demonstrated that even in one or two passages with in the parameters you perscribed, that Spiritual death or at best immortality is A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY for Humans, be a big person and move forward with the discussion in that context.In message ten you wrote:This I have done, and you have done it by your own wordsNow 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.EMAEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

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

Im trying to but you wont let us move forward. We have discussed to death (no pun intended) the concept of how death may be used from a simple passage from the only areas you will let us use. I have
played by your rules and context, but now it is time to move forward. dont you agree We done this to death. hey look at that, I used the word death in another means besides physical.Gooooleee.is your implication here that the only possible explanation and interpretation of a word is to use only the simple reading? I have already done this by indicating that a plain and simple reading of the word will not meet the standards of the interpretationFurther,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.Remez whoever that may be, is partially correct in his estimation. It is my guess that he also goes on to indicate that God will reveal its menaing at someother point.Even in the definitions you provided from the Hebrew words, Death only means "TO DIE", what it refers to is dependent upon the text at hand. take a close look again at the words you provided. Even in the Genesis account I have now demonstrated that your exclusive approach is nonsensical and almost not applicable 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. As i suspected, you are willing to debate an issue only if you are allowed to keep it within in the confines that you prescibe. Hey you know what, anyone can come to any conclusion and be justified with any answer they arrive at, with the Purpledawn method of debating.We did it your way, why not be a big person and move forward. Is your implication here that the only way one can come to any conclusion concerning the Bible is to stick with the plain and simple reading, of words and conceptsLets 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.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.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 premisesNow 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.EMAEMAEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

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

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, will not aliviate you of the fact that
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 interpretationBy the simplest and best reading, this interpretation and its conclusions are more accurate, than the one you have purposed. I will demonstrate that further in a moment.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. Only the worst form of exegesis will allow nonsense comments such as these, "Well we dont even know if they knew where the tree was", or Even if they knew where it was, we dont know if they ate of it". Now, how can one can make these types of comments after the text plainly indicates by God himself, that they knew where it was.Only a buffoon touting an agenda to the text would ignore such simple truths. Your not a buffoon are you PD? It doesnt matter whether it means physical death or not, if God is its author it can have an expanded and much more indepth meaning in its context, historical setting and expanded literature. God is across the centuries, he is not limited to a time and a written text. Tell me plainly, in your view is this Gods word or not.They were removed from immortality in a physical body, they moved progressivley twords a physical death, they lost immortality that they earlier possessed in physical form. So, ok, it refers to physical death, I can agree with that as well. But the text clearly indicates immortality in thier makeup, which when lost is a spiritual death. Hence your contentions fall to the ground.Now look at that, all of that WITHOUT reading or adding anything into the context, words or other wise.PD your contention that Spiritual Death is not Biblical is not reasonable, let alone not scriptual. How in the world can you convince anyone that the death they experienced was physical, exclusively, when they didnt even die, according to the text, coupled with the fact that immortality was CLEARLY present in thier
character and makeup.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.Creatively and in an expanded sense, describes most of the words in the scriptures and how they (God) are used. You really should get out more often. It seems that your Peshat method and strict word interpretation way of proceeding is both a limiting and unreasonable approach in determining the meaning of the text. Ive refered to and read the links, but the idea of categorigal 'reading styles', is a nonsensical idea, in and of itself Wrong again. If the aspects of the punishment were things they were not PREVIOUSLY experiencing, that would clearly indicate thier earlier state of existence was different than that which they experienced afterwords. That would make the punishment refer back to the word die in this instance. Death was not previously a consideration for them, or anything attach to the word death. Now since they did not immediatley die BUT, began to experience conditions totally different from those before it would make the punishment refer back to the word death. Death is being used in a creative and expanded sense.The original warning wasnt mentioned again, because the promise and threat of death was being experienced BY THEM as God had intended it. They were now PROGRESSIVLEY moving twords a physical death, SOMETHING that was not earlier a consideration.Question, was death a consideration before they sinned? if it was the threat would make no sense.If these conclusions are not valid, why would God ASCRIBE punishments they were already experincing. death and desiease were not anything they knew beforehandThe 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.Tell me PD, what is the opposite of NEVER DYING, even in a physical human state of exsistence?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 you stooped short of learning what you neededActually this should be my statment to you. Come out of your shell and realize you have committed yourself to a method that is too exclusive and restrictive and will not allow proper exegesis.Summary and conclusions, thus far.Even if one wishes to ascribe the definition of "physical only" to the word death or die in the Gen context, it can still be easily demonstrated that the word death involved a spiritual quality known or not known to them.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.The only logical and contextual explanation that makes any sense is that God followed through with his earlier threat and that they began to experience conditions NOT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN TO THEM. Death
became a slow process in them, they lost immortality which the text clearly indicates they had, than not. the opposite of not dying is living indefinitely or forever. if they had never sinned would they have ever died? the answer should be obvious even to you PD.The conditions of thier enviornment changed, something that that was also, not previously known, AS THE TEXT INDICATES.These changes make it PAINFULLY clear that your contention that the punishment is not directly related to the word death and die do not conform to the text. It is the only logical way to make any sense of the fact that they did not die, yet God followed through with his earlier command and threat.The threat of DEATH or to die would make no sense,if this were already a possibility beforehand. death, desiase, pain and suffering were OBVIOUSLY not a consideration beforehand, other wise the threat as a punishment would make no sense.It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that if they had not sinned they would not have died, even in a physical state. the implication is obvious, that they had this quality before they sinned in a physical state.Answer these questions. According to the plain and simple text, would they have died, had they not sinned?What is the opposite of never dying?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?If you had to choose a word to describe not ever dying, what word would you choose PDNow 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.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 mensEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

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 am presently busy and will get back to your latest post this evening or tommorrow.Thanks EMA

EMA WRITES: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Purple-d writes: Oh absoutley not, but I think it is simple enough for all to understand, its implications are obvious and further inspiration confirms these conclusions Not at all. there is a difference between adding to it and drawing the most rational, logical conclusions from it which is a clear indication that the interpretation I am ascribing is more than sufficent to establish my position, confirmed by further inspiration. BTW, Is the Torah and Prophets inspired of God? No I have demonstrated this from the text itself, as I will demonstrate further in a moment. What I have demonstrated is that the Gen text indicates and will allow such conclusions as I have set out.You have only disagreed that they were not immortal, you havent dismissed my arguments in any logical fashion. The only thing that resembles an argument is your insistance that the word die, refers to the physical. I have demonstrated that the text will certainly allow the idea that they possessed immortality in a physical sense, even if it doesnt state it directly.You yourself said, "it was not a concern to God if they possessed immortality before the fall"You have insisted from he beginning, that, the idea of Spiritual death IS NOT Biblical, from prescribed text. You did not say it MAY NOT be Biblical. I have now refuted that contention, because the text will allow such conclusions. Your not required to agree with it, your required to refute it. To demonstrate this point i will ask you to present the argument that sets aside (Absolutley refutes) my conclusions. It will have to be more than, "the text does not support it.", thats an assertion not an argumentFurther, is it possible that the later theologies as you describe them, are further explanations in the realm of direct inspiration to make even clearer such ideas as advanced by myself concerning the Gen text and others?You throw around the terms, "Later Concepts" and "Later Theologies", as if they are to be given no credence at all. What of them, are they to be compared to the Torah and Prophets?What is the conclusion or application that one is suppose to gain, from POSSIBLY knowing that some people believed a certain thing at one point in time, verses what others believed at a later date concerning a word or idea. Do you have A DEEPER POINT TO ALL OF THIS, or is it just a history lesson? Why should I have to guess what you believe and why should I have to do your work for you?No, this is called coping out. Whether you believe such things is paramount to understanding the interpretation of these issues for your opponent and for your audience if God is its author it certainly can have an expanded meaning. I have never participated in, watched or attended a debate concerning biblical issues where one or both of the participants wouldnt reveal such FUNDAMENTAL principles to the understanding of the issues being discussed. To insist that this point is irrelevant, is in essence to say that you will withhold vital information for your opponent to make a informed decision concerning such issues.if God is its author here and in the rest of the scriptures, we might be able to get an even better understanding of how and what is being said in Gen. Here I dont mean to imply that I have not already established my case as relates to A&Es status, only that across the centuries Gods meanings will not change and clearer picture will emerge.In contrast, if God is not its author in Gen or anywhere else, any meaning can be ascribed to it depending on the writers and readers perspective. IOW, who cares. The Myans seem to believe that on 21 Dec 2012, some significant event will occur that will be earth shattering (no pun intended). Now since I dont believe thier beliefs and ideas have anything to do with God and they are the ramblings of men, I have no interest in trying to discern the meanings of thier words, nor am I concerned that in 2012 that I will have any concern for worry. Dec 21st, 2012 will come and go as does everyother day and thier prediction will go by the wayside, like all other doomsday prophets.Whether you choose to discuss peoples perspectives, from this time, or that of the far past , you have INTIMATED by direct implication, that a certain idea, doctrine or teaching (spiritual death) is not taught in the scriptures. Now how can any thinking person, when approching the scriptures say that his or her perspective on who the author is or is not, is irrelevant.If i were to engage in a discussion with say a Mormon, and i learned at some point he or she believed the writings of Joseph Smith to be simply Joseph Smiths and not Gods expanded teaching, in his view, ofwhat possible value would the discussion be in determining the VALIDITY and correctness of a doctrinal principle? In contrast if he believes that the BOM is Gods word, we atleast have a common frame of reference to try and establish consistency or contradiction. Leaving God out, leaves everything and every interpretation IN. No the light bulb is on, your are carefully blocking its light to avoid obvious conclusions that controvert your position I think I have have been accomadating and polite staying within the framework you requested. ive tried to limit my arguments and discussion within the parameters you prescribed. Ill try this once again. Pay attention to the argument as indicated from the text.Before the fall, they possessed enough intelligence to understand the basics of comprehension, regulation and simple instruction. Eve engaged in a very analytical conversation with the serpent, that is
she understood location and direction as well. Keeping in mind that you have already suggested that God was not concerned that they possessed immortality or not before the fall and gave them directions to all that was in the garden. stay with me now.After the fall, God intimates that them knowing of the TOLs location is not a good thing, because they had sinned, NOT BECAUSE THEY NOW HAD THE ABILITY TO BECOME IMMORTAL. Sin is the difference maker. This BY ITSELF is enough to establish the case that they knew of its location, before the fall. In other words, God would not need to say directly that they were aware of its location before, NOW WATCH
THIS, BECAUSE THERE WAS ON CONCERNS ON GODS PART BEFOREHAND.Therefore your contention that it makes a difference after the fall EXCLUSIVLEY, is of no consequence, for the following reasons.You would need to demonstrate that they possessed less intelligence before and not afterwards, to not know of its location., the text indicates otherwise. Secondly. SOMETHING (sin) was now keeping them from something they had previously had access. God stating the OBVIOUS beforehand is not necessary, since he did not care, correct? Stating it afterwards nails the coffin shut as to whether they knew of its location.Conclusion: Your assumption of whether they knew of its location is a product of your imagination and is in direct conflict with what WE DO KNOW from the text. Your assumption is therefore not applicable to the argument or the text. One may certainly conclude that they may have not ate of it, but it seems there is no need due to the fact that the text clearly indicates they already ahd the trees properties you are manufacturing reasons to ignore the text and support your preconcieved ideas.One would have to believe that countless thousands over the ages have come to the idea of immortality and spiritual death unwarrentedly and on faulty premises, if you were correct. The reason thousands have come to the idea of immortality beforehand is BECAUSE the text supports it and further revelation confirms it. I dont deny absolutley these conclusions either, and you are correct, I dont know THAT ABSOLUTLEY POSITIVELY from the text. I suspect however, that my logical deductions are more valid and resasonable according to the text, than the one you have reached. Either is possible, and this POINT ALONE sets aside your INITIAL
CONTENTION. But now watch this, I dont need to guess what the text is saying because I have other Inspired records in the form of Later Theologies, to tell me exacally what its meaning is or is not.Unless you are prepared at this juncture to explain the Status of the Torah and Prophets in connection with Gods activties in such matters. What about those later concepts, whos are they?EMA writes:Purpledawn writes:In debate this is called evasion. Since they were clearly alive in some fashion your response does not fit.If they had never ate of the TOK&GE, it would be reasonable to assume they would have not died, that God would have sustained thier existence indefinately. Either conclusion is sustanable from the Gen text.Happily we have other inspired writings to confirm the answer for us. Or do we, perhaps you could clear this up for me, FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE OFCOURSE.A more resonable deduction from all of our discussion here is that there were people that had varying and different views on the Genesis text at the earliest possible date. To say or conclude that the idea of Spiritual death, immortality in human form, or the such like was not Biblical from the earliest biblical times is both unreasonable and unlikely, given human behavior. it takes INSPIRATION to clear it all up and BOY DOES IT. Again, evasion. Any thinking person can see your tactic. I have never considered direct and indirect implications, intimations, warrented conclusions, and carrying the discussion to its only possible logical conclusion a WASTE OF ENERGY, WHINING OR RUDENESS. Perhaps you should study further how argumentation actually works. IM pretty sure the reader can see what I am doing . Its not rocket science.I believe the ball is in your court. thanks for the excahnge.EMAEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

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

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 kiddingThe soul that sins it will die, No Im not seriousIf you sin I will kill you, but you dont have to take me literallyIf 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.Why not tell them he would extend mercy in the first place. why all the hoopla,if God did not EVER follow through anyway, how could he ever be taken seriously.If punishment, other than physical death was his intention in the first place, why not just state that in the first place. Does what you have offered in this conctext make sense to you?Or is it possible he did follow through with what he had threatened but you are missing it. Die in these passages does not refer to Spiritual death, only if, you dont believe in it in the first place.Imagine the parent that always threatened a specific thing but never followed through, or always replaced it with something else, what do you think the results would be?GOD did follow through with the warnings, but you are not seeing the big picture. In vision if you will a judgement day where God says, no everybody, even the vilest of sinners, I was not serious about eternal punishment, come on in anyway guys. Does that make sense to you.The Apostle Peter said, "The Lord is not SLACK concerning his PROMISES as some men count slackness, but is not willing that any SHOULD perish, but that, all would come to a knowledge of the truth"These are his wishes but he will also, follow through with his warnings and threatsEMAEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.