What is death?

[Zaac]

Death is the state of not being alive.

DEAD is the state of not being alive.

Death is Death.

 

[from scratch]

what is a "tude"? attitude? you clearly are angry and are resorting to namecalling and making light of things.

you are not sorry, obvioiusly, as your attitude continues in your next sentence.

OK What name did I call somebody? I didn't find it. I guess it has something to do with my background. So help me out here and and post something like this is what you called me (or someone else) ________.

see....
attitude....

and, take what public? what are you on about? why this tangent?

Oh maybe you haven't seen these talk shows that always have some sensation. Those guests are paid. Now if you had some emotional dust that could speak, that indeed would be sensational at least in my eyes. I just don't understand that being a tude. Of course I'm agreeing with you (for the purpose of discussion) that one's body returns to dust and the breath goes back to God and that is all there is to it. If so then life is all there is. I certianly understand how one could come to that conclusion by your idea. Yet Jesus said the deceased or what ever you wish to call them experienced emotions, pain and could talk after ceasing life function. Now that is some dust, I'd say. IOW physical death must not be the end.


What is resurrected? The body of flesh which has ceased to exist? Hardly. What happened to the soul? If death then terminates the soul man then can destroy the soul. Jesus disagrees. Please explain how Jesus could be felt, eat physical items and appear in a secured room by passing the guarded entrances. Yet we shall be like Him. The Scripture says those alive at the 2nd coming will be changed - I Cor 15:52. What will they be changed to or into? A spirit being? Aren't we already a spirit being? What is born agian? Why did Nicodemus a learned man not understand this and ask how he could enter his mother's womb a second time?

good for you...is able shows that that is one of the choices.
if scripture had said, unable, you'd have a leg to stand on.

While it is within the realm of possibilities I don't see it as done or even promised in the Scripture. I suppose you have a Scripture to support such a thing. I'd love to see it. That would certianly refute my idea.

absolutely.

OK so show that I'm wrong. I merely left you an open. So what does absolutley prove? Nothing. I certianly didn't say I was wrong as that response would indicate to me.

what things? you have not articulated yourself well enough for me to know what you are going on about????

You said unable is the opposite of able. Hey I can accept that without a problem. My question is how is that something that happened or will happen? Is it promised somewhere. Please don't just give a reference or quote a verse. Explain it. It is clear to me that we don't think of words the same way. I do use a dictionary and don't take what someone says over such. I use Webster's and Strong's Concordance. If those aren't credible let me know and tell me why. Otherwise provide your own dictionary and tell me where I can get one like yours.

i never called a possiility a historical fact...especially when the event that we are discussing is not history, but future...lol.

Did you say this -

the quote you are arguing says "is able", which means the opposite of "unable".

What are you trying to say? Is it connected to this -

as for annihilationism....
28And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Who is arguing for annihilation? It isn't me. If you're not what are you saying? What I pointed out is the phrase is able. I take what you're to be something different. Sure I understand that doesn't mean unable. You did say some about 'tude and name calling. I suggest that you've simply ignored or changed the phrase. I used your quote to make my point. It seems to me that you believe the is able to meand does. I simply disagree. Can you show some source to back you up. Is able simply doesn't mean does to me. Perhaps you can explain how is able means does.

What do you mean by emphasizing destroy? Do you you really mean souls are destroyed as in not existing any longer? Is that what the verse says?

i didn't think anyone here needed that explanaition...
most of us leared that word in early grade school.

what do you suppose it means if not annihilation?

First I assunme you mean exclusive as that is what you're arguing and seem to say.
destroy (apollymi) from Strong's means -
1) to destroy
a) to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin
b) render useless
c) to kill
d) to declare that one must be put to death
e) metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell
f) to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed
2) to destroy
a) to lose

I got this from Websters at m-w.com
transitive verb
1
: to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of <destroyed the files>; also: to ruin as if by tearing to shreds <their reputation was destroyed>

2
a: to put out of existence : kill <destroy an injured horse> b: neutralize <the moon destroys the light of the stars> c: annihilate, vanquish <armies had been crippled but not destroyed— W. L. Shirer>


annihiliate

1
a: to cause to be of no effect : nullify b: to destroy the substance or force of
2
: to regard as of no consequence

3
: to cause to cease to exist; especially: kill

4
a: to destroy a considerable part of <bombs annihilated the city> b: to vanquish completely : rout <annihilated the visitors 56–0>

5
: to cause (a particle and its antiparticle) to vanish by annihilating

One should note the word annilate or variation there of doesn't exist in Scripture. It is therefore a doctrine or teaching from some other source.

Above I have provided full definitions of the words in question. So it appears to me to be pick and chose deal depending on what one wishes to say or draw their support from. I find no clue from the Greek for the word to mean or imply annhiliation. Obviously some do. So where does the concept come from? It isn't the Scripture.

Now I humbly asked what was taught in grade school? Is it just one sole definition of a word?

maybe you got confused or something, seeing that you are arguing with multiple folks here...
my point was that i believe that the evil folks will be completely destroyed at judgement. i believe in annihilationism.

I fully understand you so believe. I however am considering the whole of the thread. This isn't a private exclusive conversation with one person. It is public conversation.

that is pretty much the opposite of univeralism.
lol.

I can't relate you last comment to anything else in the post. In a previous post you said the dead are in heaven. So which dead are you talking about if you don't mean all dead?

 

[from scratch]

Death is the state of not being alive. Some believe that people are still conscious after they are dead. Death is the state of not being alive, it is not "separation" it is separation from life. I can't believe you don't know what death is.

It is just a little difficult for me to accept that in light of this statement by God (Jesus) -
19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. LK 16

 

[from scratch]

The biblical definition of death is not separation. Where does the the bible say that death actually means separation? This is really a stretch. If you wish to assert this, please provide some sort of proof.

Well what is the definition of death from the Bible? What happened in the garden? Did God lie? Was there a change? Did Adam and Eve die or was there a seperation from God. Are you demanding physical death?

Here is what Clarke's Commentary on the Bible has to say -
Thou shalt surely die - &#1502;&#1493;&#1514; &#1514;&#1502;&#1493;&#1514; moth tamuth; Literally, a death thou shalt die; or, dying thou shalt die. Thou shalt not only die spiritually, by losing the life of God, but from that moment thou shalt become mortal, and shalt continue in a dying state till thou die. This we find literally accomplished; every moment of man's life may be considered as an act of dying, till soul and body are separated. Other meanings have been given of this passage, but they are in general either fanciful or incorrect.

Here is Gill's Exposition of them Entire Bible-
for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die; or "in dying, die" (z); which denotes the certainty of it, as our version expresses it; and may have regard to more deaths than one; not only a corporeal one, which in some sense immediately took place, man became at once a mortal creature, who otherwise continuing in a state of innocence, and by eating of the tree of life, he was allowed to do, would have lived an immortal life; of the eating of which tree, by sinning he was debarred, his natural life not now to be continued long, at least not for ever; he was immediately arraigned, tried, and condemned to death, was found guilty of it, and became obnoxious to it, and death at once began to work in him; sin sowed the seeds of it in his body, and a train of miseries, afflictions, and diseases, began to appear, which at length issued in death. Moreover, a spiritual or moral death immediately ensued; he lost his original righteousness, in which he was created; the image of God in him was deformed; the powers and faculties of his soul were corrupted, and he became dead in sins and trespasses; the consequence of which, had it not been for the interposition of a surety and Saviour, who engaged to make satisfaction to law and justice, must have been eternal death, or an everlasting separation from God, to him and all his posterity; for the wages of sin is death, even death eternal, Romans 6:23. So the Jews (a) interpret this of death, both in this world and in the world to come.

Matthew Henry's commentary also favors my poition. Yes I understand that doesn' make me correct.

I've quoted these reference works above because it was easier to express what I believe.

 

[patience7]

Interesting. Is the soul the spiritual connection? If it is then the soul died that day. The narrative certianly notes a difference in Adam and Eve.

Soul and spirit are not the same. Soul is breath life - as it clearly states in Genesis 2:7 man became a living soul and the soul did not die that day. Adam was spiritually perfect - then he wasn't - so his spiritual connection or spirit died that day.

We have no further discussion of Adam and Eve so we can't really say what the end results were. Death has been defined in this thread as seperation. I think this fully occured. Being born again rekindles this relationship.

Separation would be the same as the spiritual connection dying, i.e. separation from God. And yes we are reconciled - Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature . . .And all things are of God who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ. . .to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. . . .(2 Corinthians 5:17,18,19)You being in Christ and Christ being in you via the holy Spirit - the new birth - wherein we are again body, soul, and spirit creatures. When we die - "the breath goes forth" (stops breathing), the body returns to dust, the spirit "returns to God who gave it" until the resurrection.

I believe that more than the named people of the OT had full fellowship with God. There simply isn't room in a book to list all of them. Lets name the 7,000 that God said loved Him. I'm sure that there were more. How many more doesn't matter.

I do not know how many in the OT had the spirit of God upon them but full restoration/reconciliation did not occur until Jesus Christ died and was resurrected.

 

[zeke37]

zeke said...
what is a "tude"? attitude? you clearly are angry and are resorting to namecalling and making light of things.

you are not sorry, obvioiusly, as your attitude continues in your next sentence.
​

see....
attitude....

and, take what public? what are you on about? why this tangent?
​

Oh maybe you haven't seen these talk shows that always have some sensation. Those guests are paid. Now if you had some emotional dust that could speak, that indeed would be sensational at least in my eyes. I just don't understand that being a tude.

grow up

Of course I'm agreeing with you (for the purpose of discussion) that one's body returns to dust and the breath goes back to God and that is all there is to it.

ok then....

If so then life is all there is.

what does that mean?

I certianly understand how one could come to that conclusion by your idea.

i don't think you even know what "my idea" is.
I think you've been arguing with too many folks and you are a little confused.

Yet Jesus said the deceased or what ever you wish to call them experienced emotions, pain and could talk after ceasing life function. Now that is some dust, I'd say.

and??? I obviously agree. when have i said otherwise?
in fact I provided plently of scripture that says just that.

so again, why the tangent? i think you are confused.

IOW physical death must not be the end.

i never claimed it was. you are confused.

What is resurrected? The body of flesh which has ceased to exist? Hardly.

again, i agree. the spiritual body is resurrected. so why the tangent?

What happened to the soul? If death then terminates the soul man then can destroy the soul. Jesus disagrees. Please explain how Jesus could be felt, eat physical items and appear in a secured room by passing the guarded entrances. Yet we shall be like Him. The Scripture says those alive at the 2nd coming will be changed - I Cor 15:52. What will they be changed to or into? A spirit being? Aren't we already a spirit being? What is born agian? Why did Nicodemus a learned man not understand this and ask how he could enter his mother's womb a second time?

now i know you are confusing me for someone else.
otherwise, I don't understand why you are on a tangent...
it's not logical, because we mostly agree.

good for you...is able shows that that is one of the choices.
if scripture had said, unable, you'd have a leg to stand on.

While it is within the realm of possibilities I don't see it as done or even promised in the Scripture. I suppose you have a Scripture to support such a thing. I'd love to see it. That would certianly refute my idea.

i gave it already, but i guess you don't accept it.
couple Mat10:28 with Rev20:14-15.
plus, our God is not a sadist.

absolutely.

OK so show that I'm wrong.

attempt in progress.

I merely left you an open. So what does absolutley prove? Nothing.

never said it did.

I certianly didn't say I was wrong as that response would indicate to me.

good for you.

what things? you have not articulated yourself well enough for me to know what you are going on about????
​

You said unable is the opposite of able.

​

well....

Hey I can accept that without a problem. My question is how is that something that happened or will happen?

if it was not "able" to happen, it would not have been mentioned in the context that it was.

Is it promised somewhere.

what, that eveil men will be annihilated?
that is what we are discussing.
I say yes...not sure why you think not?

Please don't just give a reference or quote a verse. Explain it.

i think the bible does a better job than i.
but most of this thread, and most others, are for that purpose... explaination.
hence all the different colors that i use.
in this response, red is my explaination...

It is clear to me that we don't think of words the same way.

probably not.

I do use a dictionary and don't take what someone says over such.

so do I, the Strong's Concordance.

I use Webster's and Strong's Concordance.

good for you. with that and the Strong's we should agree on plenty.

If those aren't credible let me know and tell me why.

why would you assume that i would think they are not credible?

Otherwise provide your own dictionary and tell me where I can get one like yours.

you've got it, if it's the real Strong's and not a lexicon using the Strong's numbering systrem only, and their own different definitions...
i see that a lot.

i never called a possiility a historical fact...especially when the event that we are discussing is not history, but future...lol.
​

Did you say this -


Originally Posted by zeke37

the quote you are arguing says "is able", which means the opposite of "unable".
​

​

of course I did...and it is not about a historical event, but a future one.

What are you trying to say? Is it connected to this -


Originally Posted by zeke37

as for annihilationism....
28And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
​

Who is arguing for annihilation?

i'll clear it up for you....
i believe the evil folks (those not written in the Lambs book of life) will be completely destroyed at judgement,
instead of being tortured forever as others believe.
torturing someone forever, serves no purpose. our God is not a sadist.

It isn't me.

does that mean you don't believe that the evil folks will be destroyed in hell??
or that hell itself is thrown into the lake of fire at judgement?

If you're not what are you saying?

i think i have clarified what i am saying.

What I pointed out is the phrase is able.

i know.

I take what you're to be something different. Sure I understand that doesn't mean unable.

good

You did say some about 'tude and name calling.

i did...you have shown nothing but poor attitude since i have been involved in the thread.

I suggest that you've simply ignored or changed the phrase.

what phrase?

I used your quote to make my point. It seems to me that you believe the is able to meand does.

it means will, for some...., but there are conditions.
it won't happen to all of us...only the evil folks.
iow, if you fail "life", that is what will happen...
if you pass, then you don't have to fear the second death (annihilation)

I simply disagree. Can you show some source to back you up. Is able simply doesn't mean does to me. Perhaps you can explain how is able means does.

i think i did above.
had God not wanted us to consider it, He would not have said it.
if the fear was not real, and possible, then it would not mean anything.
which path are you (us) on?

What do you mean by emphasizing destroy?

what do you think? destroy is destroy.

Do you you really mean souls are destroyed as in not existing any longer?

if God sends them to be destroyed, yep.

Is that what the verse says?

more than implies.

i didn't think anyone here needed that explanaition...
most of us leared that word in early grade school.

what do you suppose it means if not annihilation?
​

First I assunme you mean exclusive as that is what you're arguing and seem to say.

sorry, i don't follow....

 

[zeke37]

destroy (apollymi) from Strong's means -
1) to destroy
a) to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin
b) render useless
c) to kill
d) to declare that one must be put to death
e) metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell
f) to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed
2) to destroy
a) to lose

that is not a Strong's definition.
that is from another lexicon using Dr. Strong's numbering system only, but using their own definitions.

I warned about that above...it seems you are one that did just that...
you even call it Strong's...and it is not.

here is the Strong's definition for destroy in Mat10:28


622
apollumi
apollumi
ap-ol'-loo-mee
from apo - apo 575 and the base of oleqroV - olethros 3639; to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively:--destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.

One should note the word annilate or variation there of doesn't exist in Scripture. It is therefore a doctrine or teaching from some other source.

lol, no english words were in the bible, until someone decided this word or that word was a good translation...
sometimes they were wrong.
there are sooooooo many translational errors in the translated bibles.
all of them...
that is the whole reason for using the Strong's....
lol. you made no point at all.


destroy FULLY is what the english definition for the greek word apollumi is.

Above I have provided full definitions of the words in question.

not really. here is one of many links that will provide you with Strong's definitions...
this is a great site for that...
HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version

So it appears to me to be pick and chose deal depending on what one wishes to say or draw their support from. I find no clue from the Greek for the word to mean or imply annhiliation. Obviously some do.

that is because the Strong's definition is to destroy fully.
see above.

So where does the concept come from? It isn't the Scripture.

sure it is...Mat10:28, Rev20:9-15

Now I humbly asked what was taught in grade school? Is it just one sole definition of a word?

not sure what you want me to say...you are using an errant lexicon.

maybe you got confused or something, seeing that you are arguing with multiple folks here...
my point was that i believe that the evil folks will be completely destroyed at judgement. i believe in annihilationism.
​

I fully understand you so believe. I however am considering the whole of the thread. This isn't a private exclusive conversation with one person. It is public conversation.

​

and? we are having a discussion. i never claimed that others were not. I never claimed that it was exclusive.

that is pretty much the opposite of univeralism.
lol.
​

I can't relate you last comment to anything else in the post. In a previous post you said the dead are in heaven. So which dead are you talking about if you don't mean all dead?

​

ALL the dead are in heaven....
anyone that has died up until this point in history, is in heaven.

the good will return to earth, from heaven, with Christ
when He leaves heaven for the earth, to gather His elect.

the rest, wait in heaven until judgement, which is after the Millennium,
when they will be raised here on earth again, for that judgement.
that judgement brings their (the evil folks) annihilation.
the second death...that of the soul.

so what is the problem?

 

[JohnRabbit]

[/INDENT]ALL the dead are in heaven....
anyone that has died up until this point in history, is in heaven.

the good will return to earth, from heaven, with Christ
when He leaves heaven for the earth, to gather His elect.

the rest, wait in heaven until judgement, which is after the Millennium,
when they will be raised here on earth again, for that judgement.
that judgement brings their (the evil folks) annihilation.
the second death...that of the soul.

so what is the problem?

can you explain, why what you have stated is different from what the Lord stated?

John 5:28-29(NKJV)
28Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice
29and come forth&#8212;those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

you see? He says they're (all) in the grave. whereas, you say they are in heaven.

He also says that the "hour" is coming, which means that time has not happened yet.

 

[JohnRabbit]

Soul and spirit are not the same. Soul is breath life - as it clearly states in Genesis 2:7 man became a living soul and the soul did not die that day. Adam was spiritually perfect - then he wasn't - so his spiritual connection or spirit died that day.

Genesis 2:7(NKJV)
7And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being (or soul (nephesh) as have some translations).

here's the word translated "soul" from the passage:

H5315 (from strong's)

&#1504;&#1462;&#1508;&#1462;&#1513;&#1473;

nephesh

neh'-fesh

From H5314; properly a breathing creature, that is, animal or (abstractly) vitality; used

very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental):&#8212;any,

appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead (-ly), desire, X [dis-] contented, X fish,

ghost, + greedy, he, heart (-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me,

mind, mortality, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-) self, them (your) -

selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.


man is an air breathing creature, which is a soul.

there are different types of life, you know? there's plant life, for one and angelic life for another, and we know that they are composed of spirit and have eternal life.

and then there's the life that man posses which is temporary and dependent, and just like the animals (eccl 3:19).

i suggest that if man's spirit "died" then he'd be no more than a dumb brute animal!

1 Corinthians 2:11(NKJV)
11For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

there is a spirit in man, but it is not a soul, or an "air breathing creature" and, it is not the man!

however, without that spirit, how would a man know what he knows?

 

[from scratch]

Soul and spirit are not the same. Soul is breath life - as it clearly states in Genesis 2:7 man became a living soul and the soul did not die that day. Adam was spiritually perfect - then he wasn't - so his spiritual connection or spirit died that day.

I agree that soul and spirit aren't the same thing. The soul isn't breath? Breath didn't become a living soul. Man did. Breath became nothing. Amen the soul didn't die the day it was created. Something sure happened when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. God said they would die not become scared and hide. Their behavior was a result of something caused by the eating of the fruit. The eating of the fruit changed the heart/soul.

Separation would be the same as the spiritual connection dying, i.e. separation from God. And yes we are reconciled - Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature . . .And all things are of God who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ. . .to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. . . .(2 Corinthians 5:17,18,19)You being in Christ and Christ being in you via the holy Spirit - the new birth - wherein we are again body, soul, and spirit creatures. When we die - "the breath goes forth" (stops breathing), the body returns to dust, the spirit "returns to God who gave it" until the resurrection.

Whose spirit returns to God Who gae it? Everyone's? Wouldn't this mean even the spirit of the wicked? Or does man's spirit simply go into non existence. Wouldn't that be annihilation of both the righteous and the wicked? Is God's Spirit in the wicked? Then what difference is there when the Spirit lives in a person as a result of salvation? Doesn't the Scripture say that God's Spirit won't always strive with man? Does this mean that man will discontinue to exist? I don't find any Scripture suggesting that.

I do not know how many in the OT had the spirit of God upon them but full restoration/reconciliation did not occur until Jesus Christ died and was resurrected.

Were those mentioned in the OT actually Christians? Technically no one was saved or possessed salvation in the OT as it wasn't provided for then. They simply couldn't accept something that didn't exist.

 

[JohnRabbit]

So what ever are you talking about? I'm talking about death and not just about the physical body as you seem to be doing. Yes both animals and humans have breath and require it to live. However the breathe that God breathed into man does something different to man the the air that both animals and man breathe. Both require oxygen to live. Oxygen doesn't comprise the soul. Jesus spoke of them as 2 different items in Mat 10:28.

Soul is -
1) breath
a) the breath of life
1) the vital force which animates the body and shows itself in breathing
a) of animals
b) of men
b) life
c) that in which there is life
1) a living being, a living soul
2) the soul
a) the seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions (our heart, soul etc.)
b) the (human) soul in so far as it is constituted that by the right use of the aids offered it by God it can attain its highest end and secure eternal blessedness, the soul regarded as a moral being designed for everlasting life
c) the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death (distinguished from other parts of the body)


Body is -
1) the body both of men or animals
a) a dead body or corpse
b) the living body
1) of animals
2) the bodies of planets and of stars (heavenly bodies)
3) is used of a (large or small) number of men closely united into one society, or family as it were; a social, ethical, mystical body
a) so in the NT of the church
4) that which casts a shadow as distinguished from the shadow itself

Now please consider all the definition of each word. I used the whole definition so that you couldn't accuse me of being selective and ignoring your POV. The definitions provide for a distinctive difference between animals and mankind.

Now you are free to expalin how and where the Scripture indicates that animals are spoken of as having redeemable souls. Animals and humans are on a different level in relationship to God. Please show where animals are in rebellion to God in any sense especially as in the sense of man. Show anywhere that animals are redeemed except the first born which has nothing to do with the animal itself or its life, function and relationship with God.

Where does the Scripture refer to animals as a living soul? The breath of life isn't the soul.

no, the breath of life is not the soul, it's just the air we breathe.

man is a soul just like an animal is a soul, the definition of the word "nephesh", from which the english word soul translates.

the bible doesn't teach that man or beast have a soul, but rather, they are souls.

the bible, however, does state that man has a spirit within him:

1 Corinthians 2:11(NKJV)
11For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

the spirit is not the man nor is the spirit alive. the man is alive due to the physical process God set forth to allow the man to live, i.e., breathe and pump blood.

without the spirit, that's in each and every one of us, we would be as dumb as the animals. it is also by which we are able to pray to God.

notice this:

2 Chronicles 36:22(NKJV)
22Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and also put it in writing, saying,

here, God worked through the spirit of cyrus!

cyrus' spirit is identified as being his, or rather, belonging to him! - "the spirit of cyrus".

the way i see it, the "spirit in man" and the soul are two different things.

 

[from scratch]

grow up

Not a bad idea. Aren't you tired of slamming people? Isn't that what children do with name calling? What is the difference in your grow up statement? Does it discuss the issues of the thread?

ok then....

So do you think I saying the soul ceases to exist or goes to God at death. I said nothing about the soul. And neither die you. What dies because of sin? Breath? Is breath born? Where is support for this?

what does that mean?

I don't know what you're getting at. Your comments are so disjoined.

i don't think you even know what "my idea" is.
I think you've been arguing with too many folks and you are a little confused.

You have the opportunity to make it clear what your idea is. So if you haven't stated it I invite you to do so. Currently I'm of the opinion that you think the soul ceases to exist at the demise of the flesh. So clear this up.

and??? I obviously agree. when have i said otherwise?
in fact I provided plently of scripture that says just that.

I'm having a little trouble locating such. Would you kindly mind posting them again.

so again, why the tangent? i think you are confused.

What tangent?

i never claimed it was. you are confused.

So explain where I'm confudes about what you're saying. Claiming I'm confused helps no one.

again, i agree. the spiritual body is resurrected. so why the tangent?

What is a tangent, anyway? Are you just heckling me?

now i know you are confusing me for someone else.
otherwise, I don't understand why you are on a tangent...
it's not logical, because we mostly agree.

Is this tangent thing you're talking about the same thing each time you mention it?

What isn't logical?

i gave it already, but i guess you don't accept it.
couple Mat10:28 with Rev20:14-15.
plus, our God is not a sadist.

And your discussion compared is able to unable. I asked how this meant did, does or will be. The verse shows a distinction between body and soul saying that man can't kill the soul. If the soul ceases to exist at death with the body, man can kill the soul. If man became a living soul meaning the body when God breathed into him it also ceases to exist when this breath is with drawn by any force or reason. Mat 10:28 clearly shows this to not be the case. It is impossible for man and possible for God. Now where is your Scripture that says God destroys the soul as in ceasing to exist. Jesus showed that the soul exists after death in Luke 16 which I posted. Jesus placed one of these souls in hell being tormented. The other was in a place of bliss which was seperated by a great gulf.

Rev 20:14-15 doesn't imply destruction of anything. Here is the definition of the Greek word used (thanatos) death as applied to the second death -
1) the death of the body
a) that separation (whether natural or violent) of the soul and the body by which the life on earth is ended
b) with the implied idea of future misery in hell
1) the power of death
c) since the nether world, the abode of the dead, was conceived as being very dark, it is equivalent to the region of thickest darkness i.e. figuratively, a region enveloped in the darkness of ignorance and sin
2) metaph., the loss of that life which alone is worthy of the name,
a) the misery of the soul arising from sin, which begins on earth but lasts and increases after the death of the body in hell
3) the miserable state of the wicked dead in hell
4) in the widest sense, death comprising all the miseries arising from sin, as well physical death as the loss of a life consecrated to God and blessed in him on earth, to be followed by wretchedness in hell

attempt in progress.

never said it did.

So what was the purpose of saying absolutely?What did you mean?

good for you.

Thank you.

well....

Well

if it was not "able" to happen, it would not have been mentioned in the context that it was.

So where does the text say it does, did or will?

what, that eveil men will be annihilated?
that is what we are discussing.
I say yes...not sure why you think not?

I see no support for you POV. Why is this? How do you expect me to come to your conclusions?

i think the bible does a better job than i.
but most of this thread, and most others, are for that purpose... explaination.
hence all the different colors that i use.
in this response, red is my explaination...

Thanks I woud have never guessed.

Now if you only present Scripture and no comments how do you expect me to come to your understanding? It is obvious words mean something different to each of us. So if you don't explain any thing you present don't expect me to change my opinion.

probably not.

Hmmm! do you wish to be understood? I'm not a mind reading physic or something.

so do I, the Strong's Concordance.

Great we have something common to use.

good for you. with that and the Strong's we should agree on plenty.

Great then use it and post from it as I do.

why would you assume that i would think they are not credible?

Following the discussion I wonder.

you've got it, if it's the real Strong's and not a lexicon using the Strong's numbering systrem only, and their own different definitions...
i see that a lot.

Great! I think of myself as honest and straight forward. When I use something else I say so. Otherwise it is obvious and I don't mind being checked out.

of course I did...and it is not about a historical event, but a future one.

Explain how the verse indicates future. Thanks.

i'll clear it up for you....
i believe the evil folks (those not written in the Lambs book of life) will be completely destroyed at judgement,
instead of being tortured forever as others believe.
torturing someone forever, serves no purpose. our God is not a sadist.

I can't and don't discount what one believes. That is personal testimony or POV. That however doesn't establish anything as fact. I'm very familar with a religious group that promotes such. IMHO such a POV destroys motivation to change from one's evil ways.

does that mean you don't believe that the evil folks will be destroyed in hell??

I guess every detail must be included in every sentence. Of couse that is exactly what it means. I don't accept your eclusive definition of destroy. I've posted a full definition of the word as found in the dictionary.

or that hell itself is thrown into the lake of fire at judgement?

I believe that hell (hades) is thrown into the lake of fire as written in Rev 20:14.

i think i have clarified what i am saying.

Not good enought to get the desired response.

i know.

So why no response to it? You only emphasized or made a comment on destroy. I responded to both.

good

i did...you have shown nothing but poor attitude since i have been involved in the thread.

Could I ask what exactly is your remarks? There certianly is no discussion. I call what you have been doing as nothing more than catty inflaming remarks. There has been little to no discussion. Does leave one wondering. There has been no support of your position. Just those belittling remarks which say loads.

what phrase?

At this point I don't recall and ain't going to go looking for some possiblity to comment on.

it means will, for some...., but there are conditions.
it won't happen to all of us...only the evil folks.
iow, if you fail "life", that is what will happen...
if you pass, then you don't have to fear the second death (annihilation)

You are invited to show how it will for some. I don't think the verse says or implies such as I've already discussed. Yes I understand your churches position. Your position comes from somewhere. If it is from Scripture alone prove it.

i think i did above.
had God not wanted us to consider it, He would not have said it.
if the fear was not real, and possible, then it would not mean anything.
which path are you (us) on?

Beg your pardon. Where? You presented a Scripture with no discussion and no response to my specific statement and request.

what do you think? destroy is destroy.

I showed with a C&P definition exactly what I mean about destroy. Where is your discussion of distroy? It is absent. All you have provided is the word and expect me to take your opinion.

if God sends them to be destroyed, yep.

How? Didn't you read the Luke 16 narrative I posted? What does Jesus show in it?

more than implies.

How?

sorry, i don't follow....

I understand. So would you like to do this in smaller posts? I would. It is easier to go one point at a time.

 

[from scratch]

that is not a Strong's definition.
that is from another lexicon using Dr. Strong's numbering system only, but using their own definitions.

Here is the site it came from - Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon and it isn't in the format you provided below. I only copied the definition and not all the available information. There is no point is using the original language characters. They mean nothing to either of us as we don't read eithe Hebrew, Chaldee or Greek. Well I don't Do you?

I warned about that above...it seems you are one that did just that...
you even call it Strong's...and it is not.

here is the Strong's definition for destroy in Mat10:28


622
apollumi
apollumi
ap-ol'-loo-mee
from apo - apo 575 and the base of oleqroV - olethros 3639; to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively:--destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.


lol, no english words were in the bible, until someone decided this word or that word was a good translation...
sometimes they were wrong.
there are sooooooo many translational errors in the translated bibles.
all of them...
that is the whole reason for using the Strong's....
lol. you made no point at all.


destroy FULLY is what the english definition for the greek word apollumi is.



not really. here is one of many links that will provide you with Strong's definitions...
this is a great site for that...
HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version

Is this from a Sacred Name Site?

that is because the Strong's definition is to destroy fully.
see above.

sure it is...Mat10:28, Rev20:9-15


not sure what you want me to say...you are using an errant lexicon.

​

and? we are having a discussion. i never claimed that others were not. I never claimed that it was exclusive.

​

ALL the dead are in heaven....
anyone that has died up until this point in history, is in heaven.

the good will return to earth, from heaven, with Christ
when He leaves heaven for the earth, to gather His elect.

the rest, wait in heaven until judgement, which is after the Millennium,
when they will be raised here on earth again, for that judgement.
that judgement brings their (the evil folks) annihilation.
the second death...that of the soul.

so what is the problem?

 

[from scratch]

no, the breath of life is not the soul, it's just the air we breathe.

man is a soul just like an animal is a soul, the definition of the word "nephesh", from which the english word soul translates.

the bible doesn't teach that man or beast have a soul, but rather, they are souls.

the bible, however, does state that man has a spirit within him:

1 Corinthians 2:11(NKJV)
11For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

the spirit is not the man nor is the spirit alive. the man is alive due to the physical process God set forth to allow the man to live, i.e., breathe and pump blood.

without the spirit, that's in each and every one of us, we would be as dumb as the animals. it is also by which we are able to pray to God.

notice this:

2 Chronicles 36:22(NKJV)
22Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and also put it in writing, saying,

here, God worked through the spirit of cyrus!

cyrus' spirit is identified as being his, or rather, belonging to him! - "the spirit of cyrus".

the way i see it, the "spirit in man" and the soul are two different things.

I think that you need to look over your posts and examine your doctrine very closely with the Bible.

You can say there is no difference if you like. Not my problem.

 

[patience7]

Genesis 2:7(NKJV)
7And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being (or soul (nephesh) as have some translations).

here's the word translated "soul" from the passage:

H5315 (from strong's)

&#1504;&#1462;&#1508;&#1462;&#1513;&#1473;

nephesh

neh'-fesh

From H5314; properly a breathing creature, that is, animal or (abstractly) vitality; used

very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental):&#8212;any,

appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead (-ly), desire, X [dis-] contented, X fish,

ghost, + greedy, he, heart (-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me,

mind, mortality, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-) self, them (your) -

selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.

man is an air breathing creature, which is a soul.

there are different types of life, you know? there's plant life, for one and angelic life for another, and we know that they are composed of spirit and have eternal life.

and then there's the life that man posses which is temporary and dependent, and just like the animals (eccl 3:19).

i suggest that if man's spirit "died" then he'd be no more than a dumb brute animal! <snip>
however without that spirit, how would a man know what he knows?

Here is the definition of nephesh from Strong's concordance and from what I can see that if the spirit within man died, he would still be a man:

1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man
b) living being
c) living being (with life in the blood)
d) the man himself, self, person or individual
e) seat of the appetites
f) seat of emotions and passions
g) activity of mind
1) dubious
h) activity of the will
1) dubious
i) activity of the character
1) dubious

What do you think "died" that day because we know that Adam did not die but lived to a ripe old age?

 

[JohnRabbit]

Here is the definition of nephesh from Strong's concordance and from what I can see that if the spirit within man died, he would still be a man:

1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man
b) living being
c) living being (with life in the blood)
d) the man himself, self, person or individual
e) seat of the appetites
f) seat of emotions and passions
g) activity of mind
1) dubious
h) activity of the will
1) dubious
i) activity of the character
1) dubious

What do you think "died" that day because we know that Adam did not die but lived to a ripe old age?

nobody died the day of the event, although he died within the first "day" of man, or within the first thousand years of man's existence.

 

[JohnRabbit]

I think that you need to look over your posts and examine your doctrine very closely with the Bible.

You can say there is no difference if you like. Not my problem.

didn't say it was your problem.

i was explaining how i see it.

 

[from scratch]

that is not a Strong's definition.
that is from another lexicon using Dr. Strong's numbering system only, but using their own definitions.

I warned about that above...it seems you are one that did just that...
you even call it Strong's...and it is not.

here is the Strong's definition for destroy in Mat10:28


622
apollumi
apollumi
ap-ol'-loo-mee
from apo - apo 575 and the base of oleqroV - olethros 3639; to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively:--destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.


lol, no english words were in the bible, until someone decided this word or that word was a good translation...
sometimes they were wrong.
there are sooooooo many translational errors in the translated bibles.
all of them...
that is the whole reason for using the Strong's....
lol. you made no point at all.


destroy FULLY is what the english definition for the greek word apollumi is.



not really. here is one of many links that will provide you with Strong's definitions...
this is a great site for that...
HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version




that is because the Strong's definition is to destroy fully.
see above.

sure it is...Mat10:28, Rev20:9-15


not sure what you want me to say...you are using an errant lexicon.

​

and? we are having a discussion. i never claimed that others were not. I never claimed that it was exclusive.

​

ALL the dead are in heaven....
anyone that has died up until this point in history, is in heaven.

the good will return to earth, from heaven, with Christ
when He leaves heaven for the earth, to gather His elect.

the rest, wait in heaven until judgement, which is after the Millennium,
when they will be raised here on earth again, for that judgement.
that judgement brings their (the evil folks) annihilation.
the second death...that of the soul.

so what is the problem?

Make a comparison with our citations. They're very favorable. I see them as in agreement.

Now define the English words found in both. The word destroy isn't a definition.

I have no idea why you would think that I believe there are English words in the original text. To me this is an extreme insult. Didn't you say something about being childish?

To destroy fully doesn't require or prove non existence.

You're clearly promoting I'm right and your wrong over the truth. Just compare what each of us has posted on destroy. OK We'll never come to be friends. I can accept that.

All the dead being in heaven is universal salvation.

Have you looked at the site I provided? There are a couple other ones I like with all kinds of Bible helps like this one -Biblos.com: Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages Offers way more and largely unbiased study aides.

 

[martymonster]

Interesting that anyone could even not understand death. NTL there is more than one kind of death. The human can die twice. How is this? The scripture speaks clearly about a sceond death.

Hi there from scratch.

There are only 2 kinds of death in scripture and neither of them are literal.

The first kind of death spiritual death. You are born in this condition, you are born spiritually dead.
The second type of death is the death of the carnal mind which is what it means to be crucified with Christ.

You can either be dead to the spirit or dead to the flesh.

For to be carnally minded is death but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

 

[patience7]

nobody died the day of the event, although he died within the first "day" of man, or within the first thousand years of man's existence.

Well, I wonder why scripture says: "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"?