What is death?

[11822]

Maybe God meant that "in that day you shall surely spiritually die". Its my guess, but im not saying its true, just an opinion.

 

[patience7]

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.

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.

 

[from scratch]

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.

Really?

 

[patience7]

Maybe God meant that "in that day you shall surely spiritually die". Its my guess, but im not saying its true, just an opinion.

Yes - that's what I have been trying to say!!! You said it simply whereas I took the long way around!!!!

 

[from scratch]

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.

 

[martymonster]

Nice post, good discussion and points.

Thank you from scratch.st

I can supply scriptures for that as well but only from memory as I'm not able to post exact scriptures at this time as I'm literally about to drive 3000 Kms in about to15 minutes time but I'll do my best ok.


When Christ went raise the girls to life in the gospels He said she was sleeping even though it was understood by all that she was dead.

There is also the scripture that I quoted before that to be carnally minded is death but to spiritually minded is life and peace.

There also what Paul said about being crucified with Christ never the less I live not I but Christ that lives.

You need to go a look these scriptures for yourself and do your own research however I will say this.

What then is the second death?

I don't ask because I don't know but do you?

 

[YosemiteSam]

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.

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!

 

[zeke37]

Maybe God meant that "in that day you shall surely spiritually die". Its my guess, but im not saying its true, just an opinion.

if a day = a thousand years, then adam died before that day ended.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Maybe God meant that "in that day you shall surely spiritually die". Its my guess, but im not saying its true, just an opinion.

thats not what the bible says...you would be adding to scripture to do that...

 

[JohnRabbit]

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.

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.

 

[zeke37]

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 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.

What isn't logical?

your tv talk show discussion.

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.

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

but the soucan be destroyed by God.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 -

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.

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

it means absolutely, no question about it.

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.

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.

Now if you only present Scripture and no comments how do you expect me to come to your understanding?

this thread is full of my comments.

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.

of course.

Hmmm! do you wish to be understood?

yes.

I'm not a mind reading physic or something.

ok.

Great we have something common to use.Great then use it and post from it as I do.

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.

Following the discussion I wonder.Great! I think of myself as honest and straight forward.

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.

When I use something else I say so.

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

Otherwise it is obvious and I don't mind being checked out.Explain how the verse indicates future.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I've posted a full definition of the word as found in the dictionary.

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

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

ok then.

Not good enought to get the desired response.

i tried.

So why no response to it?

to what?

You only emphasized or made a comment on destroy. I responded to both.

i used the biblical definition, which is destroy fully.

Could I ask what exactly is your remarks? There certianly is no discussion.

this is a discussion, even if a poor one.

I call what you have been doing as nothing more than catty inflaming remarks.

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

There has been little to no discussion.

little

Does leave one wondering.

sure does

 

[zeke37]

There has been no support of your position.

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.

Just those belittling remarks which say loads.

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

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

of course not...lol.

You are invited to show how it will for some.

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.

I don't think the verse says or implies such as I've already discussed. Yes I understand your churches position.

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.

Your position comes from somewhere.

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

If it is from Scripture alone prove it.

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

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.

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.

How? Didn't you read the Luke 16 narrative I posted?

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

What does Jesus show in it?

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.

How?

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

sure.

 

[zeke37]

Originally Posted by zeke37

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.

friend, that is NOT the Strong's definition.
as I said, many make that mistake. please look into it.

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?

a little...not fluently.

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?

​

i do not know anything of the website that is providing the Strong's except the address.
they have a real legitimate Strong's Concordance, free to use for anyone that wants to.
i am not affiliated nor support that site, actually i am ignorant about them...
but the Strong's is the real Strong's...unlike the one that you are quoting from.

 

[zeke37]

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?

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.

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

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.

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

ummmm. it is in the STRONG'S Concordance....
maybe not in the lexicon you are using, that you claim to be the Strong's.

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?

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 doesn't require or prove non existence.

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.

You're clearly promoting I'm right and your wrong over the truth.

no, i am promoting that i am right, over you.
and i see that as the truth

Just compare what each of us has posted on destroy.

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.

OK We'll never come to be friends. I can accept that.

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

All the dead being in heaven is universal salvation.

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.

Have you looked at the site I provided?

no, did you go to 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.

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]

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

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.

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—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.

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

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.

 

[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.

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

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.

See ya tomorrow.

 

[from scratch]

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.

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.

 

[patience7]

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.

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. . .

 

[patience7]

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>

The definition I used came from Strong's Concordance with Greek and Hebrew. . www.tgm.org/bible.htm (Bible Tools)

 

[from scratch]

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 do think many verses are misapplied to prove something. I'm just not ready to start a thread about Adam and Eve.