Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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 mind is death but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Really?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.
Nice post, good discussion and points.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.
Nice post, good discussion and points.
Adam became carnally minded - that's what I believe died in Adam when he ate of the tree - the spirit from God - and that is why we are to be reconciled back to God through Christ by the new birth - being born again of the Spirit.
Maybe God meant that "in that day you shall surely spiritually die". Its my guess, but im not saying its true, just an opinion.
Well, I wonder why scripture says: "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"?
if a day = a thousand years, then adam died before that day ended.
your tangent is was when you start implying wierd things like taking dust etc, on talk shows etc.Would you kindly mind posting them again.What tangent?So explain where I'm confudes about what you're saying. Claiming I'm confused helps no one.What is a tangent, anyway? Are you just heckling me?Is this tangent thing you're talking about the same thing each time you mention it?
your tv talk show discussion.What isn't logical?
that is one of your confused areas.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.
as i have always said.but the soucan be destroyed by God.
at judgement...not before.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.
one was in bliss, and one was in a condition of torment, not physical torment.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.
well, i prefer the real Strong's definition over the one you posted.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 -
it means absolutely, no question about it.So what was the purpose of saying absolutely?What did you mean?
i really don't understand your objection.Thank you.Well So where does the text say it does, did or will?I see no support for you POV. Why is this? How do you expect me to come to your conclusions?Thanks I woud have never guessed.
this thread is full of my comments.Now if you only present Scripture and no comments how do you expect me to come to your understanding?
of course.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.
yes.Hmmm! do you wish to be understood?
ok.I'm not a mind reading physic or something.
i use the real Strong's Exhaustive Concordance all the time. Both hard copy and on-line.Great we have something common to use.Great then use it and post from it as I do.
honesty would not have been implying that i go on talks shows with talking dirt.Following the discussion I wonder.Great! I think of myself as honest and straight forward.
obviously not, as you yourself only "think" you are using the Strong's when you are not.When I use something else I say so.
when is the soul destroyed? at judgement....Otherwise it is obvious and I don't mind being checked out.Explain how the verse indicates future.
how so? the threat of nothingness instead of life ever after (eternity), is a great deterrant.Thanks.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.
it's not mine, it's from the Strong's Concordance.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.
and??? not all dictionaries are the sameI've posted a full definition of the word as found in the dictionary.
ok then.I believe that hell (hades) is thrown into the lake of fire as written in Rev 20:14.
i tried.Not good enought to get the desired response.
to what?So why no response to it?
i used the biblical definition, which is destroy fully.You only emphasized or made a comment on destroy. I responded to both.
this is a discussion, even if a poor one.Could I ask what exactly is your remarks? There certianly is no discussion.
i'm not flaming at all... i know better.I call what you have been doing as nothing more than catty inflaming remarks.
littleThere has been little to no discussion.
sure doesDoes leave one wondering.
sure there has been...you simply do not accept it.There has been no support of your position.
i did not belittle you, only called yuo on your shobby attitude.Just those belittling remarks which say loads.
of course not...lol.At this point I don't recall and ain't going to go looking for some possiblity to comment on.
i have.You are invited to show how it will for some.
no, you do not even know what church i belong to if any...I don't think the verse says or implies such as I've already discussed. Yes I understand your churches position.
yepp. the whole of scripture rather than a single verse or two.Your position comes from somewhere.
already have...but not every on accepts proof when shown.If it is from Scripture alone prove it.
ummmm, I gave you the proper Strong's definition, which is destroy fully.Beg your pardon. Where? You presented a Scripture with no discussion and no response to my specific statement and request.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.
ya what about it? i love and use that scripture set all the time in my discussions.How? Didn't you read the Luke 16 narrative I posted?
plenty...including that all the dead are in heaven,What does Jesus show in it?
How?
sure.I understand. So would you like to do this in smaller posts? I would. It is easier to go one point at a time.
Originally Posted by zeke37
that is from another lexicon using Dr. Strong's numbering system only, but using their own definitions.
a little...not fluently.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...Is this from a Sacred Name Site?
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
Hi...that is not the Strong's definition.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?
and? since when is that the determining factor.Make a comparison with our citations. They're very favorable. I see them as in agreement.
ummmm. it is in the STRONG'S Concordance....Now define the English words found in both. The word destroy isn't a definition.
lol. that is what you are saying...by implication.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 means just that, if it is context to our soul.To destroy fully doesn't require or prove non existence.
no, i am promoting that i am right, over you.You're clearly promoting I'm right and your wrong over the truth.
and? numbers don't mean what you think they do.Just compare what each of us has posted on destroy.
why not?OKWe'll never come to be friends. I can accept that.
no...all the dead who have died up till now, are in heaven now.All the dead being in heaven is universal salvation.
no, did you go to the site I provided?Have you looked at the site I provided?
there are plenty of good sites out there, and plenty of bad ones/misleading ones.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.
no it is not...i hate when folks say that.can you explain, why what you have stated is different from what the Lord stated?
the grave here, refers to where the dead's earthly bodies reside...not their soul. their soul and spirit is in heaven.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 forththose 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's talking about the resurrection of the dead. that has not happened yet.He also says that the "hour" is coming, which means that time has not happened yet.
OK I'll go slower for you. My sister says I leap and she can't keep up with a discussion from me. Hey even my fingers can't keep up with me and I have to come back and fix mistakes all the time and sometimes 4 and 5 times. I leave out many details thinking them to be commonly understood as I've rarely had a problem myself. It does get a bit tedious. And when I'm looking at details from other it gets what some would call assinine. I get bored rather quickly. One thing that gets me is proof reading. Hate it. It is late and I'll need to break this down into several posts.your tangent is was when you start implying wierd things like taking dust etc, on talk shows etc.
that is childish, demeaning and completely off point.
you not only misunderstood me, or confused me with someone else, but you also repeated this tangent multiple times.
i have already explained my understanding.
all dead, whether good or bad, are currently in heaven.
the good wait there until Christ's 2nd Coming.
they return here with Him and are raised here at the rapture/gathering to Christ.
the rest of the dead remain in heaven until judgement, which is at least a 1000 years later,
when they will be raised here and destroyed in the fire that comes from heaven.
your tv talk show discussion.
that is one of your confused areas.
I never said or implied that the soul is destroyed at flesh death...
nope, not me.
as i have always said.
the proper strong's concordance definition shows destroyed fully as the meaning, whether literal or figurative.
you are not using the Strong's Concordance, although granted that MANY Christians THINK that they are.
lots of errant copycats out there.
at judgement...not before.
everyone not written in the Lamb's book of life.
one was in bliss, and one was in a condition of torment, not physical torment.
they were on the same plain of existance, as they cpould communicate and see each other.
and again, i have never said that the soul ceases to exist at flesh death....
rather at judgement.
i think that is where you got confused. it happens.
well, i prefer the real Strong's definition over the one you posted.
2288
qanatoV
thanatos
than'-at-os
from qnhskw - thnesko 2348; (properly, an adjective used as a noun) death (literally or figuratively):--X deadly, (be...) death.
i don't know what you are on about here anyway.
couple Mat10:28 with the above, and it certainly does imply destroy fully.
it means absolutely, no question about it.
i really don't understand your objection.
the evil men of the world will be destroeyed fully, soul and all, in hell.
i assume that is when gehenna itself is thrown in the lake of fire.
this thread is full of my comments.
of course.
yes.
ok.
i use the real Strong's Exhaustive Concordance all the time. Both hard copy and on-line.
i quote from it all the time too.
unfortunately, it seems you have been dooped into accepting a fasle version, or another lexicon using it's name or numbering system.
i invite you to research the Strong's and see for yourself...because Bro, you ain't using it at all right now.
honesty would not have been implying that i go on talks shows with talking dirt.
not only did you misunderstand or confuse my words, but you purposefully be-littled me.
that is why i called you out.
obviously not, as you yourself only "think" you are using the Strong's when you are not.
when is the soul destroyed? at judgement....
it is future, not at death.
so don't fear man that can only kill your body,
but rather fear God Who can fully destroy your very soul in hell.
obviously the soul, if it is destroyed, is destroyed after the body is killed.
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.
how so? the threat of nothingness instead of life ever after (eternity), is a great deterrant.
and in my experience, i fell in love with God well before I ever studied what would happen at judgement.
everlasting torture in hell wasn't even a factor in my being bron again.
it's not mine, it's from the Strong's Concordance.
But I have grown to trust the Strong's.
Just make sure it is the Strong's you are using,
because plently of people, like yourself THINK they are using the worlds most forknown concordance,
and they are not.
and??? not all dictionaries are the same
that goes for our english dictionaries and biblical concordances.
ok then.
i tried.
to what?
i used the biblical definition, which is destroy fully.
this is a discussion, even if a poor one.
i'm not flaming at all... i know better.
you however are being childish with your tv talk show and talking dirt comments.
little
sure does
I have a hard copy that is like your net copy or close. I have bought several in years past. I have noticed there are different versions of the Strong's by the same publisher. One of them only has the words listed that were translated to and how many times. Some of those word in you edition are the words that an original word was translated as. Some editions have also see words. These words are also original words using the same English word. IOW one English word may come formm dirrerent Hebrew or Greek words. The other is also true one Hebrew word may translate to several English words as is often the case. For instance the site I gave includes this feature.Hi...that is not the Strong's definition.
here it is.
5315
nephesh
neh'-fesh
from 'naphash' (5314); properly, a breathing creature, i.e. animal of (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental):--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, mortally, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-)self, them (your)-selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.
and? since when is that the determining factor.
i guarentee you that more folks use the correct Strong's than the errant lexicon that you are using.
ummmm. it is in the STRONG'S Concordance....
maybe not in the lexicon you are using, that you claim to be the Strong's.
lol. that is what you are saying...by implication.
funny thing is that you cannot even see it yourself.
you are trying to tell me that destroy is not there, and i say it is,
just not in the english definition that you use.
it was not an insult.
i thought it was a proper retort to your insult about destroy not being there.
and of course it is, both in english and in the Greek definition, as i showed.
to destroy fully means just that, if it is context to our soul.
just what can exist after the soul is destroyed fully? nothing can.
no, i am promoting that i am right, over you.
and i see that as the truth
and? numbers don't mean what you think they do.
whether two or four or eight or millions post errant things, that does not make them right.
it is not a secret that many confuse theStrong's for other lexicons that happen to have stolen, or use the Strong's NUMBERING system.
they add their OWN definition, dependig on their denom and belief.
why not?
i think it is more a matter of mis communication.
if we were one to one in person, we'd probably have no problem getting our points across
no...all the dead who have died up till now, are in heaven now.
the faithfull get rasied back here for life ever after when Jesus leaves hevaen with them and raises them here on earth.
the evil ones get raised back here a thousand years later, for judgement where they are destroyed forever.
that is not universalism.
no, did you go to the site I provided?
there are plenty of good sites out there, and plenty of bad ones/misleading ones.
who's to say...depends on what you believe....
and btw, there are next to no unbiased sites or theories.
zeke37 has the answer.
2 Peter 3:8(NKJV)
8But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
to look at it logically, we know that adam did not die the day of the event.
that means either God lied or the meaning is not so obvious.
with 2 Peter 3:8, we have more information and based on the verse we can conclude that adam had to die in the first day of man (the first 1000 years of man's existence).
Genesis 5:5(NKJV)
5So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
since he was 930 years old when he died, adam died in the day that he ate of the fruit.
Hi...that is not the Strong's definition.
here it is.
5315
nephesh
neh'-fesh
from 'naphash' (5314); properly, a breathing creature, i.e. animal of (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental):--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, mortally, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-)self, them (your)-selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.
<snip>
I do think many verses are misapplied to prove something. I'm just not ready to start a thread about Adam and Eve.The problem I have with using 2 Peter 3:8 to explain why Adam didn't die "that day" is #1 Doesn't that sound like the same lie the serpent gave Eve in Gen. 3:4; ye shall not surely die? and #2 - 2 Peter 3:8 is referring to the 2nd coming of Christ. 2 Peter 3:4 Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation. . . .v8 "that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years one day The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some men count slackness but is longsuffering to us-ward not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night. . .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?