Sheniy

I have to say I agree with Spock. This doesn't really prove anything (except maybe that this guy knows his waw conjunctives or whatever; I am impressed by that). If one was to read Genesis as an historical narrative and not hyper-literal (taken at face value, which I don't believe was necessarily intended by the author/Author), this (clearly biased) article really doesn't add anything. Although... This could be used to defend my earlier suggestion that physical death is not evil and, while it is still a consequence of sin, was part of the natural world before the fall. And also: Thread is now irrelevant. That is highly illogical. (<--spockface) I completely understand your frustration. Don't say away too long, though. I enjoyed your perspective.

Seems to be a bit New Age-y with the universal consciousness or whatever he said, but I think I see what you're talking about. Unfortunately, they spent so much time avoid "the G-word" or offending people, I didn't get much out of it on the first watch. There were a couple of interesting things, though. I'll have to re-watch it later. Thanks for the link, nebula.

Looks interesting. Watching it now.

I used to think we'd sit on clouds and play the harp for all eternity, and that we'd like it because...it was heaven. Haha. I don't know what it will be like in heaven exactly, but I do know it will be awesome. Are we reading the same article? I just read almost this exact thing yesterday. lol Good stuff.

^^ THIS ^^ If the Tree of Life give physical eternal life, than remove it and we physically die/decay/become dust.

Sort of...I think. I need to re-organize this idea a bit, especially with clb's thing on the Holy of Holies and the temple in the Garden. It gave me another idea. lol And that bit on choshek is interesting. I'm going to look into that, too.

Okay, I just have to say that this is awesome.

"I got down on my knees and said, 'What took y'all so long?'" Wow. My dad loves their show. I should send him this.

Yes I can. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, which is a standard reference for students of Hebrew has this to say about the word, "mut" (Heb. to die): "The normative OT teaching about death is presented i Gen. 3:3 where God warns Adam and EVe that death is the result of rebellion against His commands. Since God's purpose for our first parents was never ending life, the introduction of death was an undresiralbe, but necessary result of disobedience. The physical corruption of the physical of the human body and the consequent suffering and pain brought about by the Fall were only the obvious symptoms of death. Death is the consequence and the punishment of sin. It originated with sin. A grand theme of the OT is God's holiness, which separates Him from all that is not in harmony with His character. Death, then in the OT means ulimate separation from God due to sin and sin is any rebellion or lack of conformity to His holy will. All men are then in a sense what the Hebrews call, "sons of death," that is, they deserve to die because they are sinners." (TWOT, vol. 1, p 497) This really doesn't disagree with anything I've previously stated. Uh, yeah it does. Your position is that physical death was not caused by the fall. In this context we have been talking about Adam's physical death and the source I cited above states that physical death is a direct result of the fall. Hmm. I still don't see any conflict there. But I do see the confusion. Let me explain. Cause = n. events that provide the generative force that is the origin of something result - n. a phenomenon that follows and is caused by some previous phenomenon v. come about or follow as a consequence What you just said (emphasis mine): Quote from the text above (emphasis mine): Quote from me: My argument was that death is caused by the absence of life (Tree of Life and access to the Garden taken away). Death is also the result/consequence of sin. I believe both statements are true. Sorry if I didn't explain it well. I sort of developed this idea on the fly, so it might have shifted a bit in the process. If there's something I've said that doesn't match up, let me know. I will explain (or concede if I'm wrong). I can do that, but there are no Heberw parsing/grammar sources that directly address that particular phrase. It simply reads, "in dying you will die. It doesn't use the noun "death" (met) It uses the verb (mut) twice. Which is an interesting phraseology in Hebrew. "In the process of dying you will die," is connotation. You can believe me or not, but that is how it reads. It certainly makes room for physical death. I believe you. Thank you. This is what I was looking for. If you are familiar with Hebrew and can use Driver Brown and Briggs Hebrew lexicon. If you are not familiar with the Hebrew alphabet and don't know the Hebrew word you are looking for, it will be difficult to use. Hmm. I can't read or speak Hebrew, but I have studied it quite a bit. Do you recommend this over the other one? The point I am arguing that we can see that Adam's physical death and our physical death is the direct result of sin. What are YOU trying to argue? The same thing, apparently. lol I think we're getting off track here. I'm going to back up a bit and see what the original discussion was.

Not sure what you were trying to argue here. I honestly don't see anything here I disagree with.Death is the consequence of sin. Ok. Man sinned and spiritually died, God removed the Tree of Life (or removed man from the Garden), man began to revert back to his original state of dust (aka physical death). (This really makes sense if we include clb's Holy of Holies in the Garden idea. I wish he were here to give his thoughts on this) Death isn't a thing to be created or destroyed. It is the absence of life. Same as dark is the absence of light. Cold is the absence of heat. Death, dark, and cold are just names we give to describe the absence of something. They are not things in themselves, therefore can't be made or unmade. If you remove the source of light from a room, you have no light. Flick on the light and the darkness will flee. But you can't add a source of darkness to a lit room. The lowest temperature possible, absolute zero (-273.15 degrees celcius) is the lack of all energy (heat). There is no source of cold. Same goes for death. Remove the Source of Life, and you have no life. When the Source of Life returns, we will all have new bodies, and death will be no more. So could the 'tree of life' be the source of light and energy,(of God) and we must accept to 'tune' into it or we becomecold as death,like the reptiles ,which would not have existed in heaven. I don't know what the Tree of Life would be a source of other than life. John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. I will have to agree with Shiloh about death being both physical and spiritual. The L-rd says that "the wages of sin is DEATH, but the Gift of G-d is Eternal Life through Jesus Christ our L-rd. Adam and Eve were made complete and perfect. G-d does not make any thing void or lacking. What He makes is good and perfect. They were given free will and could choose to disobey. They were allowed to eat from all in the garden, including the Tree of Life, except for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Tree of Life could cause them to live forever. However, when they ate of the forbidden tree, they sinned and their wages for that sin was Death. Now, they would eventually physically die, (no longer access to the Tree of Life), and die spiritually - separation from G-d. We who believe in the L-rd, have passed from death to life, and have been given the gift of eternal life. We are no longer separated from G-d, but we all will still physically die. We will then forever be with the L-rd and we will be granted the right to eat from the Tree of Life. See Rev. 22:14. Good morning shar, Let me get this straight-are You are saying that as long as adam was eating from the tree of life he would have eternal life. This implies he NEEDS to eat and continue to eat of that fruit in order to keep on living physically. Is this what you meant to say? Thus, you said when he sinned, God took away his fruit which I guess means he is losing his source of nourishment to keep on physically living for eternity, and ultimately he died at the age of 930. Is this an accurate assessment of what you are saying? My question is simply this? Are you saying man was not created with a promise for eternal life, but rather HAD to eat of the fruit in order to acquire eternal life? In other words, Adam did not have eternal life apart from eating the fruit? I'm still somewhat fuzzy on this. Thanks. I hope my question isn't frustrating. Spock I don't think Heaven is a lace of stagnation,but a place,like garden,where there are cycles of growth. Perhaps just as a gardener or an agriculturalist needs to sow his seeds regularly,at the right time ,maybe we need to do something like that in heaven. I can't imagine that we sit around all the time doing nothing. I agree with you here (I think). What do you mean by heaven being a place of stagnation? Where did you get that? Edit: fixed quote boxes

Hi organic! Just curious, what else do you look to as God's word? You mentioned the "gift of the Spirit". Is your background pentacostal or something similar? First ,I am horrified by the bad setting of the post ,please excuse,it is a new one,french style,and I must get accustomed to the difference. Dear Sheniy, My background is originally Roman Catholic,but I study a lot ,and worked with people from India ,and other backgrounds. My cousin is a missionary in India! She sends me pictures all the time. Beautiful people. I never would have guess Roman Catholic, though. Do you still consider yourself a Christian?

Yes I can. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, which is a standard reference for students of Hebrew has this to say about the word, "mut" (Heb. to die): "The normative OT teaching about death is presented i Gen. 3:3 where God warns Adam and EVe that death is the result of rebellion against His commands. Since God's purpose for our first parents was never ending life, the introduction of death was an undresiralbe, but necessary result of disobedience. The physical corruption of the physical of the human body and the consequent suffering and pain brought about by the Fall were only the obvious symptoms of death. Death is the consequence and the punishment of sin. It originated with sin. A grand theme of the OT is God's holiness, which separates Him from all that is not in harmony with His character. Death, then in the OT means ulimate separation from God due to sin and sin is any rebellion or lack of conformity to His holy will. All men are then in a sense what the Hebrews call, "sons of death," that is, they deserve to die because they are sinners." (TWOT, vol. 1, p 497) This really doesn't disagree with anything I've previously stated. This isn't the reference I was looking for. There was something on the last half of the verse about the consequences of sin. I was expecting more of a breakdown of the phrase you quoted in Hebrew. Btw, this looks like an excellent resource for studying the bible. I added it to my amazon wishlist. Would you recommend it? The problem with that is that one doesn't need to know one letter of Hebrew to know and understand that God's word. You...just reworded my statement. What's the problem? Not sure what you were trying to argue here. I honestly don't see anything here I disagree with.Death is the consequence of sin. Ok. Man sinned and spiritually died, God removed the Tree of Life (or removed man from the Garden), man began to revert back to his original state of dust (aka physical death). (This really makes sense if we include clb's Holy of Holies in the Garden idea. I wish he were here to give his thoughts on this) Death isn't a thing to be created or destroyed. It is the absence of life. Same as dark is the absence of light. Cold is the absence of heat. Death, dark, and cold are just names we give to describe the absence of something. They are not things in themselves, therefore can't be made or unmade. If you remove the source of light from a room, you have no light. Flick on the light and the darkness will flee. But you can't add a source of darkness to a lit room. The lowest temperature possible, absolute zero (-273.15 degrees celcius) is the lack of all energy (heat). There is no source of cold. Same goes for death. Remove the Source of Life, and you have no life. When the Source of Life returns, we will all have new bodies, and death will be no more.

I will have to agree with Shiloh about death being both physical and spiritual. The L-rd says that "the wages of sin is DEATH, but the Gift of G-d is Eternal Life through Jesus Christ our L-rd. Adam and Eve were made complete and perfect. G-d does not make any thing void or lacking. What He makes is good and perfect. They were given free will and could choose to disobey. They were allowed to eat from all in the garden, including the Tree of Life, except for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Tree of Life could cause them to live forever. However, when they ate of the forbidden tree, they sinned and their wages for that sin was Death. Now, they would eventually physically die, (no longer access to the Tree of Life), and die spiritually - separation from G-d. We who believe in the L-rd, have passed from death to life, and have been given the gift of eternal life. We are no longer separated from G-d, but we all will still physically die. We will then forever be with the L-rd and we will be granted the right to eat from the Tree of Life. See Rev. 22:14. This is pretty much what I said

Hi organic! Just curious, what else do you look to as God's word? You mentioned the "gift of the Spirit". Is your background pentacostal or something similar?

1. You've mentioned before that you're not an expert on the hebrew language. Can you please provide references for this interpretation? 2. God's word is intended to be read and understood by all men, not just those with an intimate understanding of the grammatical structure of Hebrew. I still hold to my previous assertion that that verse doesn't necessarily prove that physical death was caused by the fall. The creation account of Genesis 1-3 does not read as a parable by any stretch of the imagination. It has none of the hallmarks of a parable. So talking snakes and "magic" trees aren't the imaginative hallmarks of an Aesop's parable? And I asked you what you thought Genesis 1-3 was, not what you thought it wasn't. Again with the mockery of the word of God. Why do you hate the Bible so much??? Sorry, but you don't anything about how textual analysis works. OldSchool: I think there are a lot of metaphorical aspects of the first few chapters of Genesis. In fact, the whole bible is analogous in nature, including that parts that also happened literally. God definitely uses history to teach us. He also used it as part of prophecy or foreshadowing of the future. There are countless examples of this. As for the "imaginative" parts of the bible: I think we need to be careful rejecting something as actually happening just because it is hard to believe. This, I believe, is the basis for all of Shiloh's arguments and the reason he gets so heated at times. I do agree with him on this...to a point. But the bible was not intended to be taken completely literally in every part. The words it uses don't always refer to physical things. We all see through a glass darkly, we only know in part. I honestly believe when we find out the truth of what actually happened, it will be much different than what we've concocted with our limited, fallible minds and the little information that we have. Shiloh: Was that verbal lashing really necessary? OldSchool has some legitimate questions. And he seems to be a Christian, so why would you assume he hates the bible? Please, could you be a bit kinder in your posts. It is getting harder and harder to remain civil with you. 1Cr 13:2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

I'd be interested in seeing this, too. So I think I misunderstood your earlier post. I was interested in what you said on the Holy of Holies (a favorite subject of mine). Was that what you were referring to here?

There is nothing in this passage that says that death in the physical sense was part of the curse, just that till he died he would have to toil under the curse. I agree. I don't think that verse proves a connection between physical and spiritual death. You seem to be speculating, Shiloh. Gen 2:17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” I think we all agree this refers to Adam's spiritual death, or separation from God, due to Adam's disobedience. However, Adam lived to be 930 years old, so this can't be referring to physical death, which did not occur within a day, as the verse suggests. So, it is possible that physical death was a natural part of God's creation. Immortality was intended for us, given by the tree of life, then taken away at the fall of man (see verse below). Therefore, death is a consequence of the fall, but not necessarily caused by it. Also, as someone else stated (can't find the post), God took away our immortality (the tree of life) after the fall to protect us from the pain and misery of eternal separation from God (aka hell on earth). It will be returned in the new heaven and new earth. Gen 3:23-25 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. I think someone else posted something similar, but I couldn't find it.

Yeah. He seems to be looking for answers.

I would have to say #2.

I'd be interested in seeing this, too. hello, I don't think we've ever spoken. It doesn't matter much, but I am curious, are you.....how should I say........a zealot for the YEarth view? clb I used to be.

Love it! His Simply Nothing album is always on my playlist. I don't have a favorite song, but this one's pretty close. http://youtu.be/UhXYpje7j-Y

I'd be interested in seeing this, too.

I am going to disect scribble all over this post with my scalpel blue marker. None. Usually, Christianity is rejected on the grounds that evolution makes more sense. Many atheists on this board who claim to have been Christians before cite evolution as a major enabler for their deconversion from Christianity. Yeah. Because they couldn't accept the claim of a young earth. Isn't this arguing in favor of my point? Well, no. Because they were not rejecting YEC in a vacuum. What...? If you could find someone not already pretty much convinced of an old earth, who had taken science classes in highschool and universities that teach OEC, Evolution, etc. And present THAT person with the YEC, how would they respond? I don't know if that question can be answered. How exactly is that a vacuum? You'd be looking for someone with no exposure to any theories of the creation of the world. Then give them the bible and see what they come up with. If I'd lived, say, 1000 years ago and read the bible for the first time, I likely wouldn't have any issues with the concept of a young earth. I would also likely believe that the earth was flat and that we were the center of the universe. (<---clicky) The reason that people cannot accept YEC is not because YEC on its own has no merit and is just too far out for anyone to believe. It is because most people have already been convinced of the OE or evolutionary models already. They are not blank slates looking at the YEC model for the first time without any preconceptions. That makes a difference. You seem to have misunderstood the original question. I was talking about seekers (meaning anyone searching for truth) rejecting Christianity as a whole because it is so inextricably tied with YEC, which they cannot accept. Your first reply to this seem in line with (and in favor of) this with that example of former Christians rejecting their faith for atheism because evolution made more sense than YEC. Which is why your next sentence doesn't really make sense... YEC has never made anyone an atheist. YEC was rejected in favor of Evolution because to them Evolution is better and more reasonable. Clearly, YEC is at least partially to blame for those people falling away. If we ask them, I'm sure they'd agree. As of yet, I have not met any single person who was actively and consciously seeking deception. I don't know why anyone would want to. I was a YEC for decades. I read the creationist books and websites and argued fervently in favor of a young earth. It was a "truth" I "anchored my heart to" (as you say). So when that specific "truth" came under fire (again and again), my whole faith was shaken. Hard. I took this to God in prayer. I realized that this wasn't a salvation issue, and that my faith would survive without it. So I let it go. IMHO, it wasn't a hill to die on. Maybe I still believe. I don't know. I'm on the fence. And I might just stay here. I have a nice view of both sides. I understand. YEC is mocked and ridiculed, swore at. It isn't easy. I can imagine the prophets in the OT contemplating whether being rejected by the people and having to suffer reproach for their message was really kind of overrated. Just because something isn't a salvation issue, doesn't mean it isn't important. But it is not as important as a salvation issue. We are called on sometimes to stand for something in God's word when it isn't popular and everyone else is telling you are crazy for standing on that part of Gods' word. That's true. Although you're implying I backed down due to pressure from others. Not even kinda true. I had my own questions that YEC couldn't answer. I rejected YEC because I felt it was actually a hindrance to my faith in the validity and inerrancy of the Word of God. It is easier to let go and just roll with the crowd and get along. The problem that I would see in your above comments is this: What's next? What's the next part of God's word that you will let go of when it gets too hot in the kitchen? Where do we stop? Figured this would come up sooner or later. This is the crux of your whole argument, isn't it? If I reject YEC, I reject the God's Word. That's what you're saying, right? I believed that lie once. It lead to fear that my faith would eventually crumble due to lack of foundation. If I question one part of God's Word, I would eventually question all of it until my faith eventually spiraled into the trash. If we surrender Genesis 1 to the world, they won't be satisfied. They will demand more, until the whole Bible is nothing more than an irrelevant, man-made philosphy book and Jesus was just a great guy with some nice things to say, but not to be taken literally. Yeah, this is pretty much what I used to fear.

This made my day! Thank you.

*facepalm* I meant "translations of Hebrew". Oy. Sorry. I'm a bit sleep-deprived. None. Usually, Christianity is rejected on the grounds that evolution makes more sense. Many atheists on this board who claim to have been Christians before cite evolution as a major enabler for their deconversion from Christianity. Yeah. Because they couldn't accept the claim of a young earth. Isn't this arguing in favor of my point? As of yet, I have not met any single person who was actively and consciously seeking deception. I don't know why anyone would want to. I was a YEC for decades. I read the creationist books and websites and argued fervently in favor of a young earth. It was a "truth" I "anchored my heart to" (as you say). So when that specific "truth" came under fire (again and again), my whole faith was shaken. Hard. I took this to God in prayer. I realized that this wasn't a salvation issue, and that my faith would survive without it. So I let it go. IMHO, it wasn't a hill to die on. Maybe I still believe. I don't know. I'm on the fence. And I might just stay here. I have a nice view of both sides.