Spiritual or Physical Death

[Guest shiloh357]

3 hours ago, Marilyn C said:

Hi Shiloh,

I notice that you do not use scripture to prove what you are saying.

I am using Scripture.  I am using all of the information available from Genesis 1-3, as those are the relevant passages dealing with the Tree of Life in Genesis. 

Quote

Adam was of the dust of the earth & needed communion with God to continue in life. That is not inherent immortal life, however Adam would not have died if he had kept obeying God and thus kept in communion with him.

Right, that is called eternal life.   Prior to Adam's sin, he had eternal life.   When Adam sinned, he lost eternal life and was subject to death.  Adam could not die prior to his sin.   He had something better than immortality; he had the very life of God.   But in his fallen state, subject to death, had Adam eaten of the tree of life, he would live forever in cursed, nonredeemable state.   

You are trying to present the Tree of Life as a picture of the eternal life we receive from Christ, but the facts of Genesis don't line up with that fake typology you are trying manufacture because the life we receive from Christ doesn't keep us in cursed state and He doesn't leave us unredeemable.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

5 hours ago, frienduff thaylorde said:

Let us test what both Shiloh and Marilyn C said and see who is correct.

Its real easy to see.   ready.     wait for it.........................getting closer..............

WHY DID GOD SET THE CHERAB .   TO guard what.................so that adam could not eat from what

THE TREE OF LIFE and LIVE FOREVER.    MARILYN C...................is correct.    Adam was not created immortal.   the Death GOD spoke of was SPIRITIUAL DEATH .

Marilyn    you be blessed dear sister.     OH, we love you too Shiloh.   But its best to just always correct with scripture.  

This is more of the same kind of sloppy handling of Scripture that is so characteristic of Marilyn's approach to the Bible.   If Adam was not immortal, then God engineered death into creation.   Physical death was part of the curse that God pronounced on Adam:  "Dust you are and to dust you shall return."   Dying physically was part of the curse and when sin is eradicated in the future, physical death will be eradicated as well.  

God never intended for Adam to die.  God did not create Adam with the ability to die.  Adam was only capable of dying AFTER the fall, not before it.

[Guest shiloh357]

5 hours ago, Marilyn C said:

Hi Shiloh,

You may not realize it but you are using certain emotive statements to back up your theory and NOT using God`s word. I read all your comments to me from page 7 - now (14) and you have only used one scripture - Gen. 2: 22 - 24. (the scripture in question).You have not backed up your theory using any other scriptures.  

Actually, when asked the Scripture I cited was Genesis 3:22-24.   But I am using all of Genesis 1-3.    There are no other Scriptures that speak about the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden.  Unlike you, I don't take every reference to a tree of life and force them on to the text of Genesis 3.   That's an illegitimate use of the Bible, but that is what YOU do.    I use all of the Scriptures that are relevant to the issue at hand.   And Genesis 1-3 is the relevant portion of Scripture.

Quote

Every part of scripture needs to fit in with the whole of Scripture.

Yes and I can connect what happened in Genesis 1-3 with the rest of Scripture, but there are rules for doing that.   You cannot manufacture connections simply because you see the same words used in various passages.  It doesn't work that way.   And you have realize that in Genesis 1-3 your dealing with a historical narrative and treat it as such.   I am treating Genesis 1-3, as historical narrative and I am staying inside the boundaries of proper hermeneutics, something you don't understand.   Your unsophisticated, backwards approach to the Bible are a good example of the kind of false teaching that stems from an unskilled handling of Scripture.
 

Quote

 

Here is an example of your false logic -

You believe that `The tree of life,` - is a real tree because `tree` is written there.

Let`s apply this to another example -

Jesus is `the Lamb of God.` - this is a real lamb, because `lamb` is written there.

 

 

 

I believe the tree of life is a real tree because in this historical narrative it is treated as a real tree.  The Bible does not assign any figurative value to it.   You are assigning false values to the text because you don't really believe what you're reading.  

"Lamb of God"  is a metaphor.   "Tree of life"  in Genesis is not a metaphor.   The phrase "tree of life"  may be used metaphorically in other places in the Bible, but that does not give us license to force "tree of life"  to be metaphorical in Genesis 3.   We can't just assign values to text willy nilly, whenever it suits us.  We have to follow the rules of literary analysis.

Quote

Thus when a topic comes up we read all connected to that topic. Your error is to just look at the one part without putting it into the context of the whole of scripture.

You don't possess the skills to do that.   You are approaching the text with an assumption and you are molding the Bible around that assumption.  That is how false teachers operate and you make the Bible say anything you want it to say with that kind of approach.

When it comes to viewing Genesis 1-3 in the context of Scripture, that context is the plan of redemption.   Genesis 1-3 shows us why we needed Jesus' finished work on the cross.    Genesis 3 gives us the origin of sin and both physical and spiritual death that stemmed from Adam's disobedience.  Rom. 5:12-21 is Paul's masterful explanation about the origin of sin and death.   Jesus is the Last Adam who died physically, redeem us from all of the effects of curse of sin, both the physical and the spiritual effects.

Our redemption from sin and death includes a redemption from physical death and in the final installment of the blessings of redemption we will receive is our final deliverance from physical death.  In this world, if the Lord tarries all of us will die physically as our bodies are still in their fallen state.   But once we are no longer in these fallen bodies, we will have eternal life and will no longer suffer under the curse.

The tree of life in the garden was not a picture of Jesus.  We didn't need a tree of life.  We need Jesus who provides us so much more than a tree of life that would have left us in a cursed state and forever outside the possibility of redemption and forever separated from God.   God didn't want us to take from the tree of life.   He wants us to partake of Him.   He and not the tree is source of life.

Quote

The whole basis of your theory is `what God says.` However you have NOT used any other scriptures to prove this. Merely repeating ad infinitum that it is God`s word. That is NOT proof. We all think we are believing God`s word.

I have used all of the relevant passages.   And no, you're not believing God's word.  God's word said it was a real tree and you say it is not.   You say that it is a picture of Christ, and the Bible doesn't say that.   So no, you're not believing Scripture. 

Quote

Also you have inferred many times that I am not trusting God, or His word or His integrity. Strong accusations there bro. (see quotes above)

And BTW we are not in a debate here, just discussing, along with some others, some of which believe as I do also.

Don't kid yourself;  it's a debate and truth isn't based on how many people agree with you.   Truth is based a solid competent handling of Scripture.

 

 

[frienduff thaylorde]

9 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

This is more of the same kind of sloppy handling of Scripture that is so characteristic of Marilyn's approach to the Bible.   If Adam was not immortal, then God engineered death into creation.   Physical death was part of the curse that God pronounced on Adam:  "Dust you are and to dust you shall return."   Dying physically was part of the curse and when sin is eradicated in the future, physical death will be eradicated as well.  

God never intended for Adam to die.  God did not create Adam with the ability to die.  Adam was only capable of dying AFTER the fall, not before it.

You will find I do not argue over things like this .  Due to I myself focus on correction and edification of the body.   It almost seems like you and Marilynn agree on this.

IN part anyway.

[Marilyn C]

I have to go out today but will reply tomorrow. You all have a good night.

Marilyn.

[Marilyn C]

On ‎14‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 6:03 PM, shiloh357 said:

This is more of the same kind of sloppy handling of Scripture that is so characteristic of Marilyn's approach to the Bible.  

 

On ‎14‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 5:59 PM, shiloh357 said:

the facts of Genesis don't line up with that fake typology you are trying manufacture

On ‎14‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 6:31 PM, shiloh357 said:

   That's an illegitimate use of the Bible, but that is what YOU do.   ...

   You cannot manufacture connections simply because you see the same words used in various passages.

  Your unsophisticated, backwards approach to the Bible are a good example of the kind of false teaching that stems from an unskilled handling of Scriptu

You don't possess the skills to do that.  

Don't kid yourself;  it's a debate and truth isn't based on how many people agree with you.   Truth is based a solid competent handling of Scripture.

 

 

 

Hi Shiloh,

Now I do recognise the gifting of God upon your life, however those emotive phrases you are using to `put me down` are not how we should discus God`s word, bro. How would you like it if I said those phrases to you? Remember you are not the judge of this forum. Our responsibility is -

`in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth...` (2 Tim. 2: 25)

Your `attacking` approach actually does you more harm, as it shows that you have a weak theory because you have to put down another who disagrees. It is the word we are discussing, with reverence and humility towards one another.

Let us focus on the word and not writing rude comments about another. (which I might add is not permissible on this forum). So I am pointing this out to you before any other steps that could be taken.

Marilyn.

[Guest shiloh357]

6 hours ago, Marilyn C said:

 

Hi Shiloh,

Now I do recognise the gifting of God upon your life, however those emotive phrases you are using to `put me down` are not how we should discus God`s word, bro. How would you like it if I said those phrases to you? Remember you are not the judge of this forum. Our responsibility is -`

Those are an accurate assessment of the lack of skill that characterize your approach to the text.   I am not putting you down, but your exegesis is sloppy.  I am sure you are a nice person, and a good Christian, but you don't have a clue about what you're doing when you handle the Bible in an interpretative fashion.  You don't have even a basic grasp on the rules of literary analysis. 

You need some classes in biblical hermeneutics.

That is just the facts.  You try to teach, but you really need to understand what you lack in that area.

[Marilyn C]

43 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Those are an accurate assessment of the lack of skill that characterize your approach to the text.   I am not putting you down, but your exegesis is sloppy.  I am sure you are a nice person, and a good Christian, but you don't have a clue about what you're doing when you handle the Bible in an interpretative fashion.  You don't have even a basic grasp on the rules of literary analysis. 

You need some classes in biblical hermeneutics.

That is just the facts.  You try to teach, but you really need to understand what you lack in that area.

Hi Shiloh,

But, dear bro that is just YOUR opinion. I did go to Bible College and have been a school teacher as a profession. It is just that you and I see differently in SOME areas.

So you are being judgmental concerning how you speak of my comments. As I said you need to leave them out otherwise I will continue to remind you and have to report you. Not that I want to but it is just so unnecessary for us each to label each other like that.

regards, Marilyn,

 

[Guest shiloh357]

27 minutes ago, Marilyn C said:

Hi Shiloh,

But, dear bro that is just YOUR opinion. I did go to Bible College and have been a school teacher as a profession. It is just that you and I see differently in SOME areas.

There are Bible colleges and there are Bible colleges.   Not all Bible colleges are created equal and I shudder to think that there are Bible colleges that would validate your completely subjective approach to Scripture.

You are not applying sound hermeneutics, nonetheless.   You operate from a set of rules that allows you to arrive at the interpretative conclusion you want.   I, on the other hand,  am operating from an objective set of rules of literary analysis that allows me to arrive at the meaning the author intends.   We have two different objectives.   You are trying to validate your theology.   But, I am seeking the meaning of text of Scripture that author is seeking to communicate.    I am not trying to make invalid connections between Genesis 3 and other parts of the Bible the way you do.

Quote

So you are being judgmental concerning how you speak of my comments.

Yes, I am passing judgment on your comments.   Just the same way you falsely accused to me of going into occultic mysticism.

Quote

As I said you need to leave them out otherwise I will continue to remind you and have to report you.

I can judge your comments.  That's the nature of debate.  I judge the validity of your approach and the comments that rise from that approach.  But, I am not judging YOU.  As I said, I am sure you are good person and a good Christian, and I would not take anything away from you in that regard.   I am not judging your standing with God, nor your heart.

  But that doesn't change the fact that  your comments in this thread are based on invalid principles of interpretation that would allow anyone arrive at any conclusion they want, and make the Bible say whatever they want it to say.   I do pass judgement on that approach to Scripture, whether you like it or not.

   Simply being a school teacher doesn't gift you with an ability to do hermeneutics.  Hermeneutics is a learned skill.

[Marilyn C]

24 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

 

Hi Shiloh,

Thought you may be interested to read my thread regarding `Principles of Interpretation - Hermeneutics.`

Marilyn.