No death? Not even cellular?

[shernren]

Why the false Hellenistic-Gnostic distinction between physical death and spiritual death? A person who isn't "spiritually dead" has nothing to fear of "physical death". A person is afraid of physical death not because of what happens at point of death but because nobody can tell him what happens after - unless s/he chooses to believe Jesus.

Why do non-believers reap the benefits of Jesus' resurrection in the form of eternal physical life?

Round 2!

I'm curious though, in your opinion what word would Moses (or whichever author it was ) use had he meant spiritual death?

 

[gluadys]

Seems to me we are getting dragged off topic here. What the term "death" means in Gen. 2:17 is irrelevant, since it applies to Adam. The OP asks about cellular death or all non-human death.

I, for one, am quite willing to concede that, depending on one's definition of the term, no human died before the fall.

What astounds me is the contention (which I never heard or conceived of until I met it on this board within the last year) that nothing died before the fall. Although I don't go along with the idea that A&E were created immortal.

Quite apart from the question of evolution, I never considered this a possibility, even in my teens when I was still a creationist myself. I see no place in Genesis where the Tree of Life is given to animals. I see no reference to plants not dying. And the biblical writer was not even aware of microscopic life.

Furthermore it is the nature of living things to die. That is simply the way biology works.

And finally, it is plainly a fact that many species did live and die before humans existed, so non-human death before the fall is reality. And I believe the bible must always be interpreted in the light of reality.

 

[Dracil]

Ugh, my browser crashed just as I had finished writing a response. Let's see how much I remember...

I disagree. I believe it is possible to read something and look for the author's intended meaning without changing the meaning of his/her words and the context of that which it is in.

Then we have to agree to disagree. For example, the usage of dust. The actual meaning of the word *is* dust, but I do not believe that was the author's intended meaning, but rather that we were made of small particles, which we now know are molecules, atoms, or their even smaller constituents, etc.

I assume you don't have a Hebrew font installed on your computer. What I wrote was in Hebrew and "muwth" is the transliteration of the word.

Nope, that's probably why.

I would say that the author didn't know that there was going to be a Bible, let alone 61 other books written by another 40 or so authors, within a span of 1600 or so years.

More than 61 books, if you know what I mean. (Feel free to ignore this, as it's not really relevant to te discussion)

Because the author was limited in knowledge of what the future held, he wrote with the inspired intent to tell of what he did know, by divine inspiration from the Almighty God.

Ok, no disagreements there.

I don't see it as trampling over yec's understanding of their hermeneutical approach. I see it as correcting the name of their approach. I think often people don't take the time to think out completely what some words implications are. Literalists means one who takes everything literally. To say yec's are literalists is a fallacy because many have stated here that they don't take Psalms to be literal in every verse and chapter therein.

So, literalists is an incorrect word to use to describe them. Most yec's that I have come across don't call themselves literalists, but are rather called literalists by those who object to their interpretation. It is simply an over exaggerated remark meant to make yec's look stupid. It is also used to trap yec's into a complete literal interpretation of everything, otherwise they will be called inconsistent with their hermeneutical approach.

It is simply a dishonest tactic and that is how I see it.

Then why do YECs call us "non-literalists," as if to imply that they were not non-literalists, i.e. literalists? If your point is that, there are no real literalists at all, then why is it everytime we don't take a passage literally we get jumped on and told that if we don't take X passage literally, then how can we take Y passage (which often deals with things such as Christ's Resurrection) literally, usually with the added implications that we aren't "real" Christians?

You have to recognize that there is an other side to this fence, before making it sound like YECs are the underdogs here. They are just as responsible for this label being in use.

If we are still on the same subject: Genesis 2:17, then I believe the author's intended meaning is not spiritual death but physical death. I believe the author already knew and understood that it is sin that separates man from God and that because of their sin, one of their consequences was not being able to eat of the Tree of Life, which would result in physical death.

The phrase "in the day" is a figurative phrase used in the OT several times, and in Genesis 2:17 it is meant to refer to "in the day of disobedience." The passage starts off with saying what not to do, then says if you do do it, which is disobedience, then you will die in the day of your sin(disobeying God).

It cannot refer to spiritual death, in the verse, because of the definition of the word muwth is physical death not spiritual death. It does not even give the slightest of hints that it is to be taken as spiritual death. In fact Genesis 3:19, confirms this is physical death by God announcing that Adam will return to the dust from that which he was made.

Ok, so even if the definition of the word "muwth" does mean physical death (which does not seem to be the case, rather, it's a root word that just means "to die"), it also seems that the word can be taken figuratively, and if so, it's not a stretch at all to take it to mean spiritual death.

As for 3:19, the "dust to dust" thing may also have been written for poetic reasons. Furthermore, I do not have compelling reasons why the passage should not be taken figuratively.

Satan, in Genesis 3:4 uses this phrase against Eve telling her that surely she wouldn't die from eating the fruit off the Tree of Knowledge. She wouldn't die from eating the fruit, nor did she die on the day she ate the fruit, but in the day of her sin, she became subject to physical death because God kicked them out of the Garden.

Or, it can be interpreted to say that God's original warning was indeed correct, and the act of eating the apple caused her to die spiritually.

Which word for death is used here in Genesis 3:4?

Sin = separation from God = spiritual death
Muwth = physical death

Both happened at the fall.

Christ's death on the Cross = forgiveness from sin = spiritual life
Christ's resurrection = physical life for eternity

One of those we receive when we believe in Jesus Christ and follow Him.
The other we receive upon Christ's return.

Both are redemption of what happened at the fall.

If I'm understanding you correctly, "Christ's resurrection = physical life for eternity" is "the other" that you say "we receive upon Christ's return." But do correct me if I'm wrong.

If that's correct, then sorry, as a Catholic, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. Yes, our bodies will be resurrected. Yes, it will be the same body. However, it will have been turned into a spiritual body.

--------

Ok, after all that, I need to know more of where you stand on the "physical death" before the Fall. Is it
a) No physical death *at all* before the Fall?
b) No physical death *for humans only* before the Fall?
c) Adam and Eve did not have hair, fingernails, outer skin layer, did not eat, etc. Those things evolved after the Fall.
d) Something else?

If you pick a), then I await your explanation of where all the dead matter necessary for their hair, fingernails, skin, digested food, etc. came from. Basically, I see an inconsistency between believing in the passages talking about "physical death" vs. reality, so I am curious as to how you resolve this tension.

 

[Critias]

Why the false Hellenistic-Gnostic distinction between physical death and spiritual death? A person who isn't "spiritually dead" has nothing to fear of "physical death". A person is afraid of physical death not because of what happens at point of death but because nobody can tell him what happens after - unless s/he chooses to believe Jesus.

Why do non-believers reap the benefits of Jesus' resurrection in the form of eternal physical life?

You have yet show where in the Bible it says non-believers receive the same body as believers. You have only your assertion as evidence of such.

Round 2!

I'm curious though, in your opinion what word would Moses (or whichever author it was ) use had he meant spiritual death?

Maveth or tsalmaveth. Maveth would be the most likely.

 

[TheBear]

Yes death.....from the beginning, to date. There's not one scripture which states that Adam and all animal life were created immortal. Not one. Further, (as was pointed out in another thread), if Adam and all living animal life were created immortal, there would be no purpose for a tree of life.



We are to be honest and diligent in our studies. If we find ourselves fighting the good fight, but have some nagging uncertainty about something we believe in, we need to take a critical look at it, right then and there, and be able to cast it aside in light of a better interpretation. We should not treat our faith, doctrines and beliefs like a house of cards. Most of us who have been around for a while, and sincerely listen to new ideas and different scriptural interpretations, have changed some of our views from time to time.

 

[Crusadar]

"No death? Not even cellular?"

First of all cells die because they can no longer replicate themselves (you could say it has been built in) - now if it were able to continue to replicate then there would be no death. Intrestingly enough the only type of cell that does not stop replicating are cancer cells - ironic isn't it, you die if cells stop replicating, and you die if it continues to replicate - either way death is here to stay (at least for now). The real question is has it always been that way?

It must be a good thing than no matter at what level - correct? Just one question if it is such a good thing then why not carry death into the new world which is to come? Why does scripture tell us that death is an intruder? Why does scripture promise us that there shall be no more death - if it is such a good thing?

 

[Dracil]

Physical death good, because it is necessary in this physical world. Spiritual death bad. Spiritual bodies don't die physical deaths.

 

[TheBear]

Physical death good, because it is necessary in this physical world. Spiritual death bad. Spiritual bodies don't die physical deaths.

Absolutely right.

Spiritual death = the spiritual separation from God.

 

[Crusadar]

There is only one problem with asserting that physical death is good - no one grieves because they are spiritually dead, in fact one doesn't even know if they are spiritually dead. It is physical death that brings us pain and sorrow, not spiritual death. It is physical death that we fear, not spiritual death. In fact many enjoy being spiritually dead! It is the thought of coming to a physical end that motivates us into finding an answer to this dilemma of death.

 

[The Lady Kate]

"No death? Not even cellular?"

First of all cells die because they can no longer replicate themselves (you could say it has been built in) - now if it were able to continue to replicate then there would be no death. Intrestingly enough the only type of cell that does not stop replicating are cancer cells - ironic isn't it, you die if cells stop replicating, and you die if it continues to replicate - either way death is here to stay (at least for now). The real question is has it always been that way?

Well, if not, then Adam and Eve who have some serious problems... without hair, skin, and fingernails, notably aesthetic.

It must be a good thing than no matter at what level - correct?

Certainly a necessary thing... "Good" is a loaded term.

Just one question if it is such a good thing then why not carry death into the new world which is to come? Why does scripture tell us that death is an intruder? Why does scripture promise us that there shall be no more death - if it is such a good thing?

Becuase physical death is a necessary process through which this world operates on ever level. In the New World to come, it will no longer be necessary.

 

[Dracil]

There is only one problem with asserting that physical death is good - no one grieves because they are spiritually dead, in fact one doesn't even know if they are spiritually dead. It is physical death that brings us pain and sorrow, not spiritual death. It is physical death that we fear, not spiritual death. In fact many enjoy being spiritually dead! It is the thought of coming to a physical end that motivates us into finding an answer to this dilemma of death.

That only shows that humans are naive creatures who don't understand the true value of things.

 

[shernren]

Well Critias I'm right now away from my beloved Firefox browser and Scriptural reference materials so I'll have to wait for about 4 more days (am at a camp) before I can check out maveth. Where in the OT is it used? And maveth is the same kind of transliteration as muwth, right?

You have yet show where in the Bible it says non-believers receive the same body as believers. You have only your assertion as evidence of such.

In the first place dualism is a foreign doctrine and without any Biblical evidence for it I do not see why I have to accept it. If I do not accept dualism I believe in holism, and when viewed through "holistic" glasses the Bible makes more sense. What you have shown basically is that Christians receive something that non-Christians don't. I contend that this something is a difference in location and relationship to God, and not necessarily in the difference of the substance of their to-be eternal bodies. The Christian's anatomy is no different from the non-Christian's anatomy on earth: can you show me where the Bible promises me it will be different in the hereafter?

There is only one problem with asserting that physical death is good - no one grieves because they are spiritually dead, in fact one doesn't even know if they are spiritually dead. It is physical death that brings us pain and sorrow, not spiritual death. It is physical death that we fear, not spiritual death. In fact many enjoy being spiritually dead! It is the thought of coming to a physical end that motivates us into finding an answer to this dilemma of death.

Only spiritually dead people fear physical death. For we who are spiritually alive and who discern God's will for the hereafter, there is no fear and no uncertainty. We have the word of Jesus, which is authoritative because He has been dead and back, and we have no fear as long as we trust God. Furthermore, just because some who are spiritually dead enjoy it, doesn't in any way make it less fearsome than physical death.

And now for the punchline: I don't really believe in either. Ask me why.

 

[Critias]

Well Critias I'm right now away from my beloved Firefox browser and Scriptural reference materials so I'll have to wait for about 4 more days (am at a camp) before I can check out maveth. Where in the OT is it used? And maveth is the same kind of transliteration as muwth, right?

I believe I told you, in the Psalms; everytime death is used except twice.

I hope you have fun at camp and be safe!

In the first place dualism is a foreign doctrine and without any Biblical evidence for it I do not see why I have to accept it. If I do not accept dualism I believe in holism, and when viewed through "holistic" glasses the Bible makes more sense. What you have shown basically is that Christians receive something that non-Christians don't. I contend that this something is a difference in location and relationship to God, and not necessarily in the difference of the substance of their to-be eternal bodies. The Christian's anatomy is no different from the non-Christian's anatomy on earth: can you show me where the Bible promises me it will be different in the hereafter?

I think you have misunderstood. 1 Corinthians 15, is talking directly to Christians and Christians only about the body they will receive. This does not talk about non-Christians and the body they will receive.

I asked you to support your view point that 1 Corinthians 15 description of the Christian body, is not really just for Christians but for all people, even those who don't want it.

Only spiritually dead people fear physical death. For we who are spiritually alive and who discern God's will for the hereafter, there is no fear and no uncertainty. We have the word of Jesus, which is authoritative because He has been dead and back, and we have no fear as long as we trust God. Furthermore, just because some who are spiritually dead enjoy it, doesn't in any way make it less fearsome than physical death.

And now for the punchline: I don't really believe in either. Ask me why.

People who are spiritually dead are usually ignorant to the fact that they are spiritually dead.

I think it is rather far fetched to say Christian don't fear dying. It isn't where we are going that we might fear, it is the pain involved in the dying process that we tend to fear. Many te's I have talked with think God likes us to feel that pain; it was His intention for us to suffer that pain involved in death.

Are you saying you don't believe in Spiritual death or physical death?

I believe I remember you saying something about the spirit and body do not live independently from one another, thus if one is absent, both are dead.

If that is your position you will have to reinterpret by imposing your own meaning into the BIble where it says the body dies and the spirit goes to be with God. Also, Revelations where the dead's spirits are with God, standing before His throne, speaking to Him.

 

[theywhosowintears]

Never mind a bellybutton; did Adam and Eve have hair and fingernails?

And suppose A+E had spent a little too much time sitting around eating fruit off the trees... how would they lose the weight...without burning off and killing millions of fat cells?

Silly questions ? perhaps, but it's late.

I assume that people who lived for 600 - 900 years would be quite extraordinary...

Do you think that 'cellular death' is relevannt unless it is in a single celled organism? I think God probably intruduced the current order of things (cells dying off & being replaced...the human losing genetic information... and eventually dying) when He limited a mans days on earth.

Peace

 

[theywhosowintears]

That only shows that humans are naive creatures who don't understand the true value of things.

-yup-

 

[shernren]

If that is your position you will have to reinterpret by imposing your own meaning into the BIble where it says the body dies and the spirit goes to be with God. Also, Revelations where the dead's spirits are with God, standing before His throne, speaking to Him.

First part "body dies and spirit goes to be with God": you're still talking about the Ecclesiastes verse right? I thought I said this on the other thread: when it says "when his spirit departs his body" it means his breath. In other words when your life goes back to God. It does not have to mean spirit (ruach). Don't play only with English translations. Sometimes you shouldn't settle for kissing the bride through the veil.

Secondly, about that Revelations. First I don't have my Bible with me right now so can you quote where / if it specifically states "spirits", instead of "persons/people"? Secondly I believe that those are already resurrected people.

I have explained my views on 1 Cor 15. I believe my explanation is logical but I'll have to be a bit illogical at camp. (It's a motivational camp - not much physical danger, but it's risky since I'm getting soaked in humanistic psychological junk and it takes lots of work to extract God's truth from it.) But to reiterate, the gist of it is that 1 Cor 15 does not speak of an advantage to believers in terms of their substance in eternity but rather their location in eternity.

I think it is rather far fetched to say Christian don't fear dying. It isn't where we are going that we might fear, it is the pain involved in the dying process that we tend to fear. Many te's I have talked with think God likes us to feel that pain; it was His intention for us to suffer that pain involved in death.

In that sense I agree. Christians can be afraid of death. But Christians do not fear death in itself, rather the pain involved in the process of dying, if I get you right. I would modify my statement to say that Christians may fear dying, but the non-Christian has to fear both dying, and death. I do believe that God never intended human pain and suffering. I don't think that extends to animal death and suffering, though.

Are you saying you don't believe in Spiritual death or physical death?

I believe I remember you saying something about the spirit and body do not live independently from one another, thus if one is absent, both are dead.

I don't believe that physical death is the spirit leaving one body for another like shifting houses. And I don't believe that spiritual death means the spirit dying, whatever that means - since most "spiritually dead" people are treated as if they have a spirit that is quite actively rebellious, instead of being inert! - the spirit dying while potentially leaving of the human a body that can still independently function at all.

I mean to say that to treat the spirit and the body as fundamentally separable entities is misleading at best and deceptive at worst. If you are familiar with quantum physics (I am, as far as I can be from my layman's couch ) I would compare this to another metaphor, that of quarks. Theoretically we can dissect a proton as two quarks of type A and one quark of type B, and a neutron as two quarks of type B and one quark of type A, in the same way that we can dissect a hydrogen atom as a proton and an electron. (Types A and B because I can't remember the terms offhand.) And yet there is a difference. If you do stuff to a hydrogen atom, you can get a viable electron by itself and a viable proton by itself. But as far as I know it's impossible to actually see a quark by itself. Quark theory allows us to answer many questions, and yet the theory itself states that they can never be separated, and "an individual quark" has no real meaning.

I think that contemporary Christianity views the body and the soul as the proton and electron in the hydrogen atom. God comes along and allows the person a solid whack from Death, and the spirit flies off for God to catch it in an eternal body, while the physical body stays behind to rot. I don't think it's like that at all. To me the body and the soul are more like quarks: convenient labels for an inconvenient reality. We call some parts of the human "the body" because we can see and touch and feel them and they fall sick and get broken. We call other parts "the spirit" that we can't see and touch and which apparently interact with God a lot more often than the body. But do we have a body without a spirit? A spirit without a body? Don't think so. Like I explained, I view death more like metamorphosis. The natural person becomes a spiritual / eternal person at point of death, leaving behind a husk that is its "body". I hope gluadys can come along and help explain, seeing as she's expressed interest in this facet of my faith a while ago, and seeing as I'm obviously doing a poor job of it.

 

[shernren]

Okay, so I take it that Psalms uses a different word for "death" from the Torah. Could this be because they were written by different people? Does the psalm attributed to Moses (as I recall, there were some) use the Torah word for "death" or the Psalm word for "death"? Anywhere else? I don't recall you telling me about it before this but I'll check it at blueletterbible when I can.

 

[SuperNova]

I have no problem believing that there was no death before the fall. I have no problem excluding plant life from that because the Lord made it food. I do know 2 things about the world before the fall. 1) The earth, the atmosphere and the environment in general was vastly different and 2) There were no genetic defects in our genome to worry about. This is why in the beginning it was perfectly reasonable for Adam and Eve's children to marry but it eventually became a problem because genetic defects started to emerge. And a hybrid is always stronger than an imbred because of it. You can deduce in the bible that either A) We weren't originally made to die or B) We were ment to have extremely long lifespans and the fall ruined either plan. If you read through Genesis you can see lifespans getting progressivly shorter. Starting in the 1000 year range and ending in the 100 year range until finally you get to today when someone dropping at 50 of a heart attack isn't unheard of. Either death wasn't in the originaly plan or we were ment to live at least 1000 years or so before the fall.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

There were no genetic defects in our genome to worry about.

how do you know this?

 

[shernren]

SuperNova, you sound confident and so let me ask you a question which has been bugging me: How did God intend to keep animal populations stable in a world where animals don't die? And how did God intend to keep the world viable if He was going to let animal populations increase to infinity?