Is death just another life?

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
If what you've written below is supposed to explain this statement, I'm still not getting it. But see what I respond with below to determine if we're at least communicating on the same plane.

I contend that your definition is made in order to rectify a supposed inconsistency, that Adam DIDN'T die in the day he ate the fruit, and without that supposed inconsistency, there's no need to redefine death. It will be difficult for you to see it this way, as you are both content and accustomed to your definition. However, it is inconsistent with all other uses of death in our language, which means it is a "redefinition", not a "definition".


Not a "redefinition" at all.

My definition is consistent with how we speak of death, how Paul spoke ("absent" from the body), and with what happened in Genesis 3, where God kicked man out of the garden in the day [the very same one] that he ate of the fruit.

Adam wasn't told he would "die when he ate the fruit", but that he would die "in the day he ate the fruit". That difference is subtle, but necessary to point out.

You seem to think that "in the day" is referring somehow to when Adam would die.

It's not.

Read the verse again slowly:

Genesis 2:16-17:
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you[f] shall surely die.

The "in the day" is modifying when the fruit is eaten, not when man will die.

In other words, God is saying that by eating the fruit, whenever that may be, he will die.

Satan didn't say Adam wouldn't die in the day, he said he would NEVER die. Are you suggesting that I'm in agreement that Adam would NEVER die? I'd like to see how you get that from my posts.

Again, your definition of death is "cessation of existence."

God said "in the day that you eat of it ..." (referring to a yet future undefined moment, as explained earlier in this post) "... dying you shall die."

Satan said "You shall not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:4-5)

"In the day [Adam ate] of it," he did not "cease to exist."

So far in scripture, "in the day" has referred to 'a week' and 'a yet future undefined moment' (As W2G has said, Eating a single fruit doesn't take 930 years.) Adam did not cease to exist over the course of 930 years, he died (whatever the definition) at the END of 930 years.

Not if put in opposition to what Satan said, which is that Adam would NEVER die.

Satan did not say "you shall never die."

He said, "you shall not surely die" (or "not dying you will not die," if we look at the Hebrew) in the day you eat of the fruit.

If Adam understood God, and we should believe God was able to program Adam with language to be able understand the most significant command He ever gave to any man, then that is the most important thing regarding the phrase in chapter 2, even if we need chapter 5 to understand it fully.

We have something said in chapter 3 regarding that phrase within the context of the story that allows us to understand it fully, without going to something two chapters later being talked about in a completely different context.

It's called "So He drove out the man."

"In the day you eat of the fruit, you shall surely die.

In the day that man ate of the fruit, he did die, because God drove him out of the garden.

And we already have the different use of "day" IN THE SAME CHAPTER.

This is similar, but less asinine, than the suggestion from way 2 go that the eating has to continue until Adam dies.

We recognize that we do have a dying process that can be visibly or physically observed. For instance, I have much more grey hair now than I did 10 years ago. I'm am closer to death than I was then, therefore in dying I shall die. Or I will continue dying until I'm fully dead, at which time, the loss of existence is complete, whereas until it is complete, first I lose hair, then I lose memory, then I lose kidney function, then...

Supra.

My admission was regarding what happens AFTER the definition is changed. But that changing of definition is quite significant--we really don't want to use a different dictionary than God does when God tells us something. Then "murder" is not really murder, and "adultery" is not really adultery...it allows for all kinds of things God didn't intend.

Definitions are part of the truth. It really does matter what "is" means.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Not a "redefinition" at all.

My definition is consistent with how we speak of death, how Paul spoke ("absent" from the body), and with what happened in Genesis 3, where God kicked man out of the garden in the day [the very same one] that he ate of the fruit.
Well, not a redefinition from TheFreeDictionary.com, I agree. Surely a usage of a word that has persisted for well over a thousand years, much longer than our English language has existed, would be included in most English dictionaries. But I’m contending that it’s a redefinition from what God intended.
You seem to think that "in the day" is referring somehow to when Adam would die.

It's not.

Read the verse again slowly:

Genesis 2:16-17:
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you[f] shall surely die.

The "in the day" is modifying when the fruit is eaten, not when man will die.

In other words, God is saying that by eating the fruit, whenever that may be, he will die.
I’ll disagree with you on the modifications in that sentence. The word “that” introduces a dependent clause, and “in the day” is not part of that clause. The sentence will read acceptably well, grammatically, without the dependent clause. And if you remove it, you can see that the prepositional phrase “in the day” still fits as a modifier of “you will surely die” and specifically as an adverbial modifier of the verb “die”. “That you eat of the [tree]” actually modifies “day”—it tells which day. Then “you will surely die” tells the pertinent event that will take place “in the day”.
Again, your definition of death is "cessation of existence."
That’s one I propose, as I don’t yet have a better one to offer. But I agree it is somewhat deficient. I’m trying to keep it distinct from “soul sleep”, which also has some deficiencies.
God said "in the day that you eat of it ..." (referring to a yet future undefined moment, as explained earlier in this post) "... dying you shall die."

Satan said "You shall not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:4-5)

"In the day [Adam ate] of it," he did not "cease to exist."

So far in scripture, "in the day" has referred to 'a week' and 'a yet future undefined moment' (As W2G has said, Eating a single fruit doesn't take 930 years.) Adam did not cease to exist over the course of 930 years, he died (whatever the definition) at the END of 930 years.
If “dying you shall die” suggests an ongoing event, as the present participle suggests, it seems unlikely that it could happen in a single moment, when Adam was kicked out of the garden.

How long does it take to die?


Satan did not say "you shall never die."

He said, "you shall not surely die" (or "not dying you will not die," if we look at the Hebrew) in the day you eat of the fruit.
I’m struggling to find a difference in your distinction.
We have something said in chapter 3 regarding that phrase within the context of the story that allows us to understand it fully, without going to something two chapters later being talked about in a completely different context.
It's called "So He drove out the man."

"In the day you eat of the fruit, you shall surely die.

In the day that man ate of the fruit, he did die, because God drove him out of the garden.
No, it explicitly says the reason God drove him out, which wasn’t because he ate the tree—it was to take away access to the tree of life AFTER he was told he would return to dust.

I’ll have to think about your good point about Paul’s use of “absence”.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
What could this passage possibly mean? :unsure:
Colossians 2:11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.​
What?....

Romans 6:4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.​

How can this possibly be true...

Romans 7:8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Well, not a redefinition from TheFreeDictionary.com, I agree. Surely a usage of a word that has persisted for well over a thousand years, much longer than our English language has existed, would be included in most English dictionaries. But I’m contending that it’s a redefinition from what God intended.

And yet, I gave you TWO instances in scripture where separation was how "death" was intended.

If I hadn't done that, then you might have a point.

I’ll disagree with you on the modifications in that sentence. The word “that” introduces a dependent clause, and “in the day” is not part of that clause. The sentence will read acceptably well, grammatically, without the dependent clause. And if you remove it, you can see that the prepositional phrase “in the day” still fits as a modifier of “you will surely die” and specifically as an adverbial modifier of the verb “die”. “That you eat of the [tree]” actually modifies “day”—it tells which day. Then “you will surely die” tells the pertinent event that will take place “in the day”.

You just get done telling me about how long our English language has existed, then immediately go into the grammar of the English version of the text.

That’s one I propose, as I don’t yet have a better one to offer. But I agree it is somewhat deficient. I’m trying to keep it distinct from “soul sleep”, which also has some deficiencies.

The better one that solves the problems you have is the one I and Clete are offering, that death means separation.

If “dying you shall die” suggests an ongoing event, as the present participle suggests, it seems unlikely that it could happen in a single moment, when Adam was kicked out of the garden.

It's the "dying" part that you seem to be focusing on, to the point where you're ignoring the rest of the phrase, or at the very least, just tacking it on as if it doesn't change anything.

"Dying" implies an ongoing process.

"Die" implies a singular event.

"Dying (the body starts to decay) you shall die (the singular separation, either of body and soul/spirit, or of man and God)."

How long does it take to die?

Depends on which kind of death your talking about.

Spiritual death is instantaneous.

Physical death is also instantaneous, when the body is separated from the soul/spirit.

Dying is a lifelong process (as GD suggested).

I’m struggling to find a difference in your distinction.

Consider: You keep saying "you will never die." What I've pointed out is that what Satan said is that something will not occur in the yet future event "in the day that you eat of it," but it COULD be read as if it won't ever happen.

In other words: Your phrase is clear cut. Satan's was intentionally deceptive to make Adam think that what he meant was your phrase, while meaning that "death will not occur at the point where one eats the fruit."

God's command was clear: In the day that you eat of the fruit, you shall surely die.
Satan's lie was deceptive: In the day that you eat of the fruit, you shall not surely die.

Both God and Satan were referring to a yet future event in the day where Adam ate the fruit.

No, it explicitly says the reason God drove him out, which wasn’t because he ate the tree—it was to take away access to the tree of life AFTER he was told he would return to dust.

Scripture says that God said this:

Genesis 3:22
22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever..."

BECAUSE:

Genesis 2:17
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Thus, by Adam:

Genesis 3:6-7
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

I’ll have to think about your good point about Paul’s use of “absence”.

Now you're going to think about it, after the many times, even in this thread, that you have been presented with "absent from the body"?

Absent from the body == separated from the body == body and soul/spirit are separated = physical death
 

Idolater

Well-known member
If Adam and Eve were expelled from God's presence, and if Christ is God, and if Christ is really present whenever we gather in His name, then what does that say about the idea that in the day that Adam died, when he was expelled from the Garden, that his death was due to his 'separation' from God? Doesn't it somehow reconcile it?
 
Top