What is death?

[from scratch]

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.

LOL!!! Well at lest I understand what tangent means to you.

Now lets address my talking dust.

When the body dies it returns to dust. 19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. Gen 3

We have people here saying that the soul also dies at this time meaning that it disinaggrates or disppears into nothing.

Yet we have Jesus saying these non existant (dead) beings are talking (at least the one in hell) with someone.

Now what is talking? The only thing that remains of a man as some would have us believe is dust. He no longer has a soul because God took it back (indian giver) or it must have been on loan to a mud pile (human - we are 75% water and 25% dust, I'd call that sloppy mud). Is the breath God breathed into man a soul? Or did man become a living soul when God breathed into him (the breath of life) and he became a living soul.

Some here wish to put man on the same level of animals. But I ask where did God breathe into them? All animal life was spoken into existence as it is even today. There is no indication that animals can or will be redeemed.

We also have the problem of Jesus saying both body and soul. So they must be 2 different items. There are words in the Greek for the words 'both,' 'body' and 'soul.' So it isn't some thing peculiar to English to make sense with our language to use all 3 words.

So if the breath (soul as some insist) of all (as in everyone - no exceptions) goes back to heaven, what is it that is being tomented in hell or is that really heaven because that is where all souls (breath) are as some insist? It has to be dust because it is the only thing left. This is also universal salvation of all - willing or not.

So now we have a problem with what heaven and hell are. If I poke a little fun of the the idea that torment occurs in heaven would it be a problem for you? Torment in heaven just doesn't work for me.

In light of the above and the discussion in this thread I have trouble placing the soul which isn't talked about returning anywhere or even dying in the sense of being non functional or lacking in emotional or communicative functions. Breath has no emotional capabilities, it can't speak nor does it have a tongue.

 

[from scratch]

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.

No I don't think I confused you with anybody else. But I did throw everyone in the thread into the same pot of stew including myself. This is a public discussion and not a private conversation.

I have no problem with you presenting what you believe. If you wish to provide uncontested doctrine, GT isn't the place.

I do find it interesting that even the wicked get to enjoy heaven for a period of time. Just more reason to party hearty cause they get to go to heaven just like those holier than thou types. So what is the value of being holier than thou? None that I can see. Of course this is from your perspective and not mine.

I would really love to see evidence that the wicked go to heaven, especially from the Scripture. Should prove interesting and eye opening for me.

 

[Timothew]

Note: It is definitely NOT good to be "Holier than Thou"

Here is Isaiah 65:1-8
I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name.

I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;
A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick;
Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels;
Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.
Behold, it is written before me: I will not keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into their bosom,
Your iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers together, saith the LORD, which have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me upon the hills: therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom. Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all.

So what is the value of being holier than thou? None at all, they are the ones who will be destroyed by God.

 

[from scratch]

that is one of your confused areas.
I never said or implied that the soul is destroyed at flesh death...
nope, not me.

From your discussion of the is able phrase I pointed out I gather that that you believe the soul of the wicked will be destroyed as in annihilated. I don't get this view from Scripture. The English doesn't read destroy(ed) fully. Considering Jesus' statement in Luke 16 that I posted I don't see how one can come to your conclusion on Mat 10:28. One must take the whole counsel of Scripture.

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.

In my hard copy dictionary the word destroy has no meaning to provide the idea of annihiliation. The word annihiliation doesn't appear in the list of synonyms either. To fully destroy something doesn't include the connotation of non existence in any form.

I've looked at your cited site version of Strongs and have no problem with it. I ask you to comapre each word in both sites. I think you will find both sites/versions containing the same exact words. My site/citation does include a little more but nothing that interfers with the truth that I can see. If you think so, please discuss and not just bold and say you disagree. Because my site doesn't match your site is no cause to say mine is wrong. As you indicated that is being childish in a I'm right and your wrong nanna, nannah, nanna attitude as the expresses.

 

[from scratch]

at judgement...not before.
everyone not written in the Lamb's book of life.

The above is a response to the following -

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.

I humbly ask where is the Scripture? Did I make an unreasonable request?

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 could communicate and see each other.

Is this not convoluted and not found in the Scripture? It doesn't mean the same place as previously indicated (by you I think) from all souls going to heaven. Lots of difference there.

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.

OK are you going to make me search the thread or can you kindly repeat what you said about death? I can. Generally my comments are in reference to the whole thread and not focused specifically on you or your commments. Again this is a public discussion.

 

[from scratch]

Note: It is definitely NOT good to be "Holier than Thou"

Here is Isaiah 65:1-8
I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name.

I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;
A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick;
Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels;
Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.
Behold, it is written before me: I will not keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into their bosom,
Your iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers together, saith the LORD, which have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me upon the hills: therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom. Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all.

So what is the value of being holier than thou? None at all, they are the ones who will be destroyed by God.

Thanks for your post. I really am not interested in discussing this rabbit trail. I was making a point and not opening a side discussion.

 

[from scratch]

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.

How is the above a definition of the word thanatos? All I see is the translated word death. I see no explanation of the word thanatos.

i don't know what you are on about here anyway.
couple Mat10:28 with the above, and it certainly does imply destroy fully.

Again, how do you connect destroy even destroy fully with annihilation?

it means absolutely, no question about it.

I have no problems with the word absoultely. I'm clearly requesting information about your use and purpose. Are you going to own up or avoid what you meant with your incomplete one word statement in reply to what I said?

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.

Will you please show how is able means does? If I've not covered the annihilation part suffiently please let me know. Is gehenna destroyed? I didn't pick that up from the Scripture. I pick up that gehenna and the lake of fire are combined and thus are the same thing at some point.

this thread is full of my comments.

So. I'm asking for you to make some specific comments. This would mean that either I don't understand what you said or there are no comments pertaining to my request. This is avoidance. Why? Don't you imply I'm being unreasonable? Are you asking me to do something you refuse to do? It appears that way.

yes.

Then provide an explanation.

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.

This seems to imply that I'm using a discredable version for which I see no support. This becomes an accusuation and nothing more. You have accused me of fraud with no support. This is nothing more than childish behavior as I pointed out previously. I made a comment on the Strong's previously. You make no comments except that my site and citation are frauds. Bet you haven't even examined my site or version at all. Do you wish to admit to the truth?

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.

You have bypassed the intent of my statement even with explanation. I don't think I've belittled you at all. You've gotten stuck on the word picture and thrown out the subject. No Problemo - very common and happens all the time

 

[YosemiteSam]

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. . .

Yes peter used used the thousand years for a day. But that is not the only place you find it however it does show the mind of god.

 

[from scratch]

obviously not, as you yourself only "think" you are using the Strong's when you are not.

I provided for your convience the site I c&p from. Yes it isn't your site or demanded format. I still see no comparison argument for proving it to present fraudlent information. Yes you did bold some of the c&p that I provided. I don't see any proof the bolded was fraudulent. All I saw was that you disagreed with my presentation. No problemo. If you wish to establish your point submit proof.

when is the soul destroyed? at judgement....
it is future, not at death.

Where is your support for annihilation? Is able doesn't remotely mean does, did or will.

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.

First of all you must establish that this does or will occur. There is no support in Mat 10:28 for annihilation. You did say if which means there is or can be a question about annihilation. Now there are many Bible versions that use the word can. I understand the the word can and the phrase is able to mean the same thing. So we are still at the same place unless of course you can show the word can to mean did or does.

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.

Sorry I don't follow this in relationship to the topic. I can understand this in relation to something being deprived from me, but not in relationship to my non existance. Yes in that sense I would be deprived from existence. And so what? If one does't exist how is that punishment or a threat? The wicked rejoice at non existence. I think they rightly mock people who have little understanding of what they say. PC speech stinks.

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.

Please show how the c&p I posted is in error. I didn't show how my c&p is different from yours. That is obvious.

and??? not all dictionaries are the same
that goes for our english dictionaries and biblical concordances.

So what makes one wrong or evil? How foolish do you think I am to not realize this? So what is your real point? Mine does appear exactly like yours. I'll let you have it your way - this really is buger King. Isn't this being childish as you pointed out previously? I think so.

ok then.

Do you seem to think that I now agree with your opinion on annihilation or that gehenna is annihilated in the lake of fire? Amazing!

i tried.

What did you try? To convert me?

to what?

I see this as a desire to not communicate. I've had to go back and look for what your simple non attached responses where about. Can't you do the same?

i used the biblical definition, which is destroy fully.

Yes you did. I asked about your definition and got no response. I discussed the word destroy and fully destroy. I'm missing your similar response.

this is a discussion, even if a poor one.

OK I can agree without going back to look at what you're saying here.

i'm not flaming at all... i know better.
you however are being childish with your tv talk show and talking dirt comments.

Isn't grace wonderful?

 

[YosemiteSam]

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. . .

I hope you go back and read my post to you about 3 of my post ago...Adam did die that day in the sense that death was now the penalty he would have to pay...he just didn't experience death the moment he ate of the tree... Now we all know that Adam did not die that day because had he, there would be none of us! We are all descendants...

With a problem using 2 Pet 3:8 why would you have such? All scripture is given for the correction, reproof and instruction. All scripture points to how God thinks...the bible is the mind of God in print per se...

Peter might have used it (the thousand day for a day) in his addressing the 2 coming of Christ but David also used it in Psalms 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. KJ

So here Peter didn't use it David did...It shows the passing of time as we count it is nothing to God. He is Eternal!

gota go again,,,will get back to ya....Y

Wanted to add one more thing...the thousand years for a day is very important to understanding Gods overall plan for man...without going much into detail...man has been given 6000 years or 6 days...the Christ will bring in His government conquering the rest of the governments...His government here on earth is the 7 millennium or seventh day...a time of rest for the whole world...during this time Satan will be put away...God speed that day...

 

[bugkiller]

Interesting thread. Yeah somethings besides the law.

 

[bugkiller]

I hope you go back and read my post to you about 3 of my post ago...Adam did die that day in the sense that death was now the penalty he would have to pay...he just didn't experience death the moment he ate of the tree... Now we all know that Adam did not die that day because had he, there would be none of us! We are all descendants...

With a problem using 2 Pet 3:8 why would you have such? All scripture is given for the correction, reproof and instruction. All scripture points to how God thinks...the bible is the mind of God in print per se...

Peter might have used it (the thousand day for a day) in his addressing the 2 coming of Christ but David also used it in Psalms 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. KJ

So here Peter didn't use it David did...It shows the passing of time as we count it is nothing to God. He is Eternal!

gota go again,,,will get back to ya....Y

Does this verse promote that time is insignificant to God? Or is it really saying a day is a thousand years? Did someone replace the word as with is?

 

[bugkiller]

I provided for your convience the site I c&p from. Yes it isn't your site or demanded format. I still see no comparison argument for proving it to present fraudlent information. Yes you did bold some of the c&p that I provided. I don't see any proof the bolded was fraudulent. All I saw was that you disagreed with my presentation. No problemo. If you wish to establish your point submit proof.Where is your support for annihilation? Is able doesn't remotely mean does, did or will.First of all you must establish that this does or will occur. There is no support in Mat 10:28 for annihilation. You did say if which means there is or can be a question about annihilation. Now there are many Bible versions that use the word can. I understand the the word can and the phrase to to mean the same thing. So we are still at the same place unless of course you can show the word can to mean did or does. Sorry I don't follow this in relationship to the topic. I can understand this in relation to something being deprived from me, but not in relationship to my non existance. Yes in that sense I would be deprived from existence. And so what? If one does't exist how is that punishment or a threat? The wicked rejoice at non existence. I think they rightly mock people who have little understanding of what they say. PC speech stinks.Please show how the c&p I posted is in error. I didn't show how my c&p is different from yours. That is obvious.So what makes one wrong or evil? How foolish do you think I am to not realize this? So what is your real point? Mine does appear exactly like yours. I'll let you have it your way - this really is buger King. Isn't this being childish as you pointed out previously? I think so. Do you seem to think that I now agree with your opinion on annihilation or that gehenna is annihilated in the lake of fire? Amazing! What did you try? To convert me?I see this as a desire to not communicate. I've had to go back and look for what your simple non attached responses where about. Can't you do the same?Yes you did. I asked about your definition and got no response. I discussed the word destroy and fully destroy. I'm missing your similar response.OK I can agree without going back to look at what you're saying here.Isn't grace wonderful?

Nice series of posts! Well done. Good attention to detail and good patience.

 

[bugkiller]

sure there has been...you simply do not accept it.
not only that but you confused what i believed anyway.
I did't think i had a part in that, but if i did, my appologies.
i do not believe that the soul dies at flesh death.
i believe that flesh death is the first death.
i believe that any soul destroyed fully in hell at judgement, represents the second death.


i did not belittle you, only called yuo on your shobby attitude.
you did the belittling.


of course not...lol.


i have.
for some, the second death is not an issue...they are good to go.
but not for those that are not written in the Lamb's book of life.


no, you do not even know what church i belong to if any...
hint, look at the denom or lack of denom beside my name in the title of each post...
scroll your mouse over the cross beside my name.


yepp. the whole of scripture rather than a single verse or two.


already have...but not every on accepts proof when shown.


ummmm, I gave you the proper Strong's definition, which is destroy fully.
that is annihilation.
deal with it.
the evil folks will be annihilated/destroed fully, at judgement....not at flesh death.


ya what about it? i love and use that scripture set all the time in my discussions.


plenty...including that all the dead are in heaven,
and that is where the rich man was as well, in the condition of hell,
not tormented with literal flames.


sure.

We got a fued going here or something?

 

[bugkiller]

Patience,
What was before Adam.... The tree of life (eternal life) and the tree of "good and evil"...

Adam was like a baby,,,he didn't know good nor evil...until he ate of the tree of course...

Adam was flesh because that is the way he was created...he was a created body or a created soul as the bible says and God breathed into him a breath of life...he became at that time a "living soul." Adam was the first one to get CPR so to speak...God breath air (breath of life) into him...

Adam by eating of the tree of Good and Evil could now sin! He now had the knowledge to sin...God kicked them out of the garden of eden so they would not partake of the tree of life...

Look at Gen 2 again...what does it say? "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat" cont v 17 " But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it;"

God gave man a direct command....and what would be the penalty if he ate of that tree? cont same verse "for in the day that thou eat thereof thou shall surely die"

There is the sentence, the penalty if you may, if Adam disobeyed God...that he would DIE... the penalty for disobedience is DEATH... The day he ate of the tree the penalty was accessed to him and all of man after him. Did God live up to His word? Absolutely! Adam died! Adam died an old man 900 plus years old! But he died! In the day Adam ate of the tree the penalty for the disobedience was passed.

Many try to read that Adam would be killed that very hour he ate of it...the sentence says no such thing...it says "for in the day that thou eat thereof thou shall surely die" shall is future tense

Now lets look at "for in the day"...how does God view time? 2 Pet 3:8 "But forget not this one thing, dear friends. With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.."

The sentence in 2:17 does not imply that Adam would die the very moment he ate of the tree, it just says that he would DIE! And he did during the first day or first thousand years of mankind on earth!...

So nothing died in Adam...Adam himself died! Just think, had he not ate of that tree...he would still be alive today!

What happened that day? Did God say Adam when you eat the fruit from this tree you will be cursed? Or did God say you will die of old age? Would in the day imply immediate results? Something happened that day. What did God say?

So man was created as an immortal never expiring soul. Interesting after reading this thread.

 

[patience7]

I hope you go back and read my post to you about 3 of my post ago...Adam did die that day in the sense that death was now the penalty he would have to pay...he just didn't experience death the moment he ate of the tree... Now we all know that Adam did not die that day because had he, there would be none of us! We are all descendants...

I did read your previous post - I know that the "curse of death" passed to all of us as a result of his eating of the tree but God said "in the day that thou (you) eatest thereof thou (you) shalt surely die." Something in Adam died that day - and I know that he did not die physically because he was still breathing! BUT something died or God lied to him. I don't believe God lied to him - I believe that he died spiritually and that is why we must be born again and that is why we need Jesus Christ to reconcile us back to God.

With a problem using 2 Pet 3:8 why would you have such? All scripture is given for the correction, reproof and instruction. All scripture points to how God thinks...the bible is the mind of God in print per se...

Peter might have used it (the thousand day for a day) in his addressing the 2 coming of Christ but David also used it in Psalms 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. KJ

So here Peter didn't use it David did...It shows the passing of time as we count it is nothing to God. He is Eternal!

gota go again,,,will get back to ya....Y[/quote]
I don't believe those scriptures mean that a day is actually a thousand years but that time means nothing to God. By saying that something in Adam didn't die that day is the same lie the serpent told Eve when she was being tempted: From previous post: #1 Doesn't that sound like the same lie the serpent gave Eve in Gen. 3:4; ye shall not surely die?

 

[YosemiteSam]

Does this verse promote that time is insignificant to God? Or is it really saying a day is a thousand years? Did someone replace the word as with is?

Part I added to my last post when i got back from work...

Wanted to add one more thing...the thousand years for a day is very important to understanding Gods overall plan for man...without going much into detail...man has been given 6000 years or 6 days...the Christ will bring in His government conquering the rest of the governments...His government here on earth is the 7 millennium or seventh day...a time of rest for the whole world...during this time Satan will be put away...God speed that day...

 

[YosemiteSam]

I did read your previous post - I know that the "curse of death" passed to all of us as a result of his eating of the tree but God said "in the day that thou (you) eatest thereof thou (you) shalt surely die." Something in Adam died that day - and I know that he did not die physically because he was still breathing! BUT something died or God lied to him. I don't believe God lied to him - I believe that he died spiritually and that is why we must be born again and that is why we need Jesus Christ to reconcile us back to God.

With a problem using 2 Pet 3:8 why would you have such? All scripture is given for the correction, reproof and instruction. All scripture points to how God thinks...the bible is the mind of God in print per se...

Peter might have used it (the thousand day for a day) in his addressing the 2 coming of Christ but David also used it in Psalms 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. KJ

So here Peter didn't use it David did...It shows the passing of time as we count it is nothing to God. He is Eternal!

gota go again,,,will get back to ya....Y

I don't believe those scriptures mean that a day is actually a thousand years but that time means nothing to God. By saying that something in Adam didn't die that day is the same lie the serpent told Eve when she was being tempted: From previous post: #1 Doesn't that sound like the same lie the serpent gave Eve in Gen. 3:4; ye shall not surely die? [/quote]

Something I added to the post i edited...Wanted to add one more thing...the thousand years for a day is very important to understanding Gods overall plan for man...without going much into detail...man has been given 6000 years or 6 days...the Christ will bring in His government conquering the rest of the governments...His government here on earth is the 7 millennium or seventh day...a time of rest for the whole world...during this time Satan will be put away...God speed that day...

Adam would not have died if he would have choose the tree of life...he choose the tree of the knowledge of good and evil...so he along with the rest of man after him got the death penalty..that he would certainly live a temporary life on this earth...

Do you find it interesting that God the sequence of events...

God told Adam not to eat of the tree...Gen 2:16-17

Satan comes in and beguiles Eve...Gen 3:1-6

God then confronts them concerning their disobedience...and He makes the following statement in Gen 3:17-19 "In the sweat of your face shall you eat bread, till you return unto the ground; for out of it were you taken: for dust are you and unto dust shall you return"

See God originally told Adam what the penalty would be if you disobeyed Gen 2:16-17....Adam did choose to disobey his Father, his God...then God confronts him on the issue...God told him that he would return to the ground....

When? "till you return to the ground"... that's it! Adam would die just as God said he would! Adam would live out his physical life until it was over! Gen 3:17-19 God told him so!

there is no indication here that anything within Adam died...It was he that would die! And he Did!

God is not the author of confusion...God kept His Word!

 

[YosemiteSam]

Adam would not have died if he would have choose the tree of life...he choose the tree of the knowledge of good and evil...so he along with the rest of man after him got the death penalty..that he would certainly live a temporary life on this earth...

Do you find it interesting that God the sequence of events...

God told Adam not to eat of the tree...Gen 2:16-17

Satan comes in and beguiles Eve...Gen 3:1-6

God then confronts them concerning their disobedience...and He makes the following statement in Gen 3:17-19 "In the sweat of your face shall you eat bread, till you return unto the ground; for out of it were you taken: for dust are you and unto dust shall you return"

See God originally told Adam what the penalty would be if you disobeyed Gen 2:16-17....Adam did choose to disobey his Father, his God...then God confronts him on the issue...God told him that he would return to the ground....

When? "till you return to the ground"... that's it! Adam would die just as God said he would! Adam would live out his physical life until it was over! Gen 3:17-19 God told him so!

there is no indication here that anything within Adam died...It was he that would die! And he Did!

God is not the author of confusion...God kept His Word!

Gen 2:16-17 does not mean that Adam would die that very day, just read Gen 317-19...God let him live out his life...Adam had children etc...He live to be 930 years old....in 3:19 God told him that he would live until he died, until he returned to the ground...

A thousand years are as of day to the Lord...2 Peter 3:8, Ps 90:4

God's Word is sure!

 

[listed]

no it is not...i hate when folks say that.
if something doesn't agree with their particular opinion, they say things like the above.

the grave here, refers to where the dead's earthly bodies reside...not their soul. their soul and spirit is in heaven.
it is figurative...
their soul, or spirit, goes to God at flesh death.
it is an easy thing to prove.

the dead are in heaven today...see Matt22, Luk16, 1Thes4 and Rev5/6/12/19/22

the righteous dead leave heaven with Christ at His 2nd Coming,
and they come here with Him,
and are raised here....
then those of us who are alive at that time, are gathered/siezed together with them.

see 1Thes4:13-16


He's talking about the resurrection of the dead. that has not happened yet.

too many Christians errantly think that "resurrection" is for the dead to go from the grave.tombs etc, up to heaven...
when it doesn't mean that at all.

but since they believe that, they believe no one is in heaven today.
problem is that there are MULTIPLE scriptures that plainly show that the dead are in heaven today, concious and some are even working for the Lord.


resurrection means going from heaven, to be raised and live on earth again, as promised.

Hey I am just passing through here on an off day.

But I have to ask if you really believe wicked souls go to heaven? I am referring to your second sentence in the second paragraph.