 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Exegetes, HO! Eternal Conscious Punishment vs Annihilationism | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 8/9/2005 9:11 AM (GMT -6) |   |
klock said...
What do you mean by we have eternal life now? We do not physically posess eternal life at this time, you and I are still immortal. Lock, lock, lock, still as incoherent as ever.
I think you meant to say "mortal" not "immortal". LOL
If you're so unclear in your own thinking, how hard do you think it is for us to understand your inanity?
Yes, we are immortal NOW.
1 John 5:13These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
Post Edited (ThatDarnCat) : 8/9/2005 9:15:10 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
klock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 8/9/2005 9:12 AM (GMT -6) | | | Humphrey said...
As I have pointed out before, the present participle does not indicate action in the present. It derives the time of action from the main verb, which in this case is aorist active indicative, indicating a past event. So your translation is plain wrong, which is not surprising, since it's clear from your posts that you don't know Greek. If you won't believe me (or Wenham, whom I quoted above), check all the translations.
My actual knowledge of Greek is elementary and a learning process, so our conversation has been helpful. But from reading what experts have written about the "aorist" tense and how it is used in other places in scripture proves that it is not used only to "indicate a past event". Instead the aorist speaks of a timeless act. For exmple in John 3:16 "God so loved the world"; this translation makes it sound like only a past event as if God only loved the world in the past, but instead God loves the world, obviously a timeless act. Also in Romans 8:30 all three verbs used are in the aorist; God predestinates (past), God calls (present), and God glorifies (future). A you pointed out, most translators blanket the aorist as a past tense when translating to the English, but this does not make it right.
Klock | | Back to Top | | |
|
klock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 8/9/2005 9:18 AM (GMT -6) | |
ThatDarnCat said...
klock said...
What do you mean by we have eternal life now? We do not physically posess eternal life at this time, you and I are still immortal. Lock, lock, lock, still as incoherent as ever.
I think you meant to say "mortal" not "immortal". LOL
If you're so unclear in your own thinking, how hard do you think it is for us to understand your inanity?
Yes, we are immortal NOW.
1 John 5:13These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
Universalists, as incoherent as ever, pulling whimsy out of their substantial backends.
That Darn Cat,
Ah, thanks for the correction, and yes I did mean mortal. The difference is that I do not believe in an "immortal soul". Plato has much to say and teach on the immortal soul! I also believe that this belief in an immortal soul agrees with Satan's lie; "You surely will not die" being that both the believer and the unbeliever has an immortal soul, it just depends on what direction it goes upon death. The bible clearly teaches that in death there is no perception. WE have the seal of the holy spirit and the promise that God wil resurrect us out from among the dead.
Klock | | Back to Top | | |
|
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 8/9/2005 9:19 AM (GMT -6) | |
klock said...
My actual knowledge of Greek is elementary and a learning process, so our conversation has been helpful. But from reading what experts have written about the "aorist" tense and how it is used in other places in scripture proves that it is not used only to "indicate a past event". Instead the aorist speaks of a timeless act. For exmple in John 3:16 "God so loved the world"; this translation makes it sound like only a past event as if God only loved the world in the past, but instead God loves the world, obviously a timeless act. Now look at the whole phrase, "God so loved the world that He gave (at ONE time) His only Son".
The "God so loved the world" in John 3:16 is tied to a singular event, "giving His only Son".
That doesn't mean God only loved the world once, it just means that the "God so loved the world" at the beginning of the phrase is tied to the singular act "that He gave His only Son" at the end of the phrase.
And Jesus death on the cross was not a "timeless" act, otherwise Jesus would ALWAYS be hanging on the cross separated from His Father due to sin.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 8/9/2005 9:20 AM (GMT -6) | |
klock said...
ThatDarnCat said...
klock said...
What do you mean by we have eternal life now? We do not physically posess eternal life at this time, you and I are still immortal. Lock, lock, lock, still as incoherent as ever.
I think you meant to say "mortal" not "immortal". LOL
If you're so unclear in your own thinking, how hard do you think it is for us to understand your inanity?
Yes, we are immortal NOW.
1 John 5:13These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
Universalists, as incoherent as ever, pulling whimsy out of their substantial backends.
That Darn Cat,
Ah, thanks for the correction, and yes I did mean mortal. The differense is that I do not believe in an "immortal soul". Because you cannot even read scripture and comprehend what it's saying. If you're so unclear in your thinking, why do you think you can convince us of anything?
1 John 5:13These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
Sounds pretty immortal to me.
What's your native language, btw?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
klock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 8/9/2005 9:50 AM (GMT -6) | |
ThatDarnCat said...
klock said...
My actual knowledge of Greek is elementary and a learning process, so our conversation has been helpful. But from reading what experts have written about the "aorist" tense and how it is used in other places in scripture proves that it is not used only to "indicate a past event". Instead the aorist speaks of a timeless act. For exmple in John 3:16 "God so loved the world"; this translation makes it sound like only a past event as if God only loved the world in the past, but instead God loves the world, obviously a timeless act. Now look at the whole phrase, "God so loved the world that He gave (at ONE time) His only Son".
The "God so loved the world" in John 3:16 is tied to a singular event, "giving His only Son".
That doesn't mean God only loved the world once, it just means that the "God so loved the world" at the beginning of the phrase is tied to the singular act "that He gave His only Son" at the end of the phrase.
And Jesus death on the cross was not a "timeless" act, otherwise Jesus would ALWAYS be hanging on the cross separated from His Father due to sin.
This expression is describing the character of God's love which is timeless. The gift of His only Son is an expression of His timeless love.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 8/9/2005 1:30 PM (GMT -6) | |
klock said...
ThatDarnCat said...
klock said...
My actual knowledge of Greek is elementary and a learning process, so our conversation has been helpful. But from reading what experts have written about the "aorist" tense and how it is used in other places in scripture proves that it is not used only to "indicate a past event". Instead the aorist speaks of a timeless act. For exmple in John 3:16 "God so loved the world"; this translation makes it sound like only a past event as if God only loved the world in the past, but instead God loves the world, obviously a timeless act. Now look at the whole phrase, "God so loved the world that He gave (at ONE time) His only Son".
The "God so loved the world" in John 3:16 is tied to a singular event, "giving His only Son".
That doesn't mean God only loved the world once, it just means that the "God so loved the world" at the beginning of the phrase is tied to the singular act "that He gave His only Son" at the end of the phrase.
And Jesus death on the cross was not a "timeless" act, otherwise Jesus would ALWAYS be hanging on the cross separated from His Father due to sin.
This expression is describing the character of God's love which is timeless. The gift of His only Son is an expression of His timeless love.
The "For God so loved the world" at the beginning of the phrase explains the "that He gave His only Son" at the end of the phrase. A singular, temporal act of love, giving His Son, is described in John 3:16
It's effects are eternal and effective for all durational sequences.
Jesus is currently not hanging on the cross separated from His Father due to sin.
It's puzzling why you quote verses you obviously don't read (like Jude 1:7 and John 3:16) and then state that they say something they actually don't.
1 John 5:13These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
Post Edited (ThatDarnCat) : 8/9/2005 6:01:45 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 8/9/2005 9:22 PM (GMT -6) | | klock said...
But from reading what experts have written about the "aorist" tense and how it is used in other places in scripture proves that it is not used only to "indicate a past event". Instead the aorist speaks of a timeless act. For exmple in John 3:16 "God so loved the world"; this translation makes it sound like only a past event as if God only loved the world in the past, but instead God loves the world, obviously a timeless act. Also in Romans 8:30 all three verbs used are in the aorist; God predestinates (past), God calls (present), and God glorifies (future). A you pointed out, most translators blanket the aorist as a past tense when translating to the English, but this does not make it right.
It isn't the aorist in general that indicates a past event. It's the aorist indicative that usually indicates a past event. There are exceptions, but they are unusual and they are dictated by other grammatically considerations. To quote from Wenham again, under the heading The Meaning of the Aorist Indicative, pp. 96 (my emphasis):
J.W. Wenham (The Elements of NT Greek) said...
This means that in the Indicative the sense of the Imperfect approximates to that of the English Past Continuous: `I was loosing', while that of the Aorist approximates to that of the English Past simple: `I loosed'.
And, as ThatDarnCat has correctly noted, in John 3:16 it is talking about God's past loving, because it is explaining why he sent his Son. He loved past tense the world so he gave past tense his Son. The fact that God still loves the world is not what is being referred to; what is referred to is God's original love in time past that accounts for why he sent his Son. Again, note the translations:
For God so loved past tense the world, that he gave past tense his only begotten Son, (KJV)
"For God so loved past tense the world, that He gave past tense His only begotten Son, (NASB)
"For God so loved past tense the world that he gave past tense his one and only Son, (NIV)
"For God so loved past tense the world that he gave past tense his only Son, (NRSV)
Again in Romans 8:30, all the statements are in the past tense, not the present or future, as you claim. This is what the text says. Please note the translations:
Moreover whom he did predestinate past tense, them he also called past tense: and whom he called past tense, them he also justified past tense: and whom he justified past tense, them he also glorified past tense. (KJV)
and whom He predestined past tense, these He also called past tense; and whom He called past tense, these He also justified past tense; and whom He justified past tense, these He also glorified past tense. (NASB)
And those he predestined past tense, he also called past tense; those he called past tense, he also justified past tense; those he justified past tense, he also glorified past tense. (NIV)
And those whom he predestined past tense he also called past tense; and those whom he called past tense he also justified past tense; and those whom he justified past tense he also glorified past tense. (NRSV)
BUT GETTING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POINT (Ephesians 2:1-2) ...
The verb in question is periepatesate, the 4th word in verse 2. This talks of how they previously walked "according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience". It is absolutely clear that the aorist indicative here is past tense. If your interpretation of the aorist were correct, klock, Paul would be saying to these Christians that they still walk according to the prince of the power of the air, and would always walk according to the prince of the power of the air! Do you think that's likely? The fact that he explicitly contrasts these Christians with unbelievers who are now (nun) walking in that way, also makes 100% absolutely certain that the aorist indicative here refers to the past. If that were not enough, the next verse starts out "Among them we too all formerly lived", using the aorist indicative again, but adding for emphasis the word "formerly" (pote). I can't see how Paul could have made it any clearer that the aorist indicative periepatesate here means walked in the past tense.
So will you please be honest, klock, and admit that you mistranslated the participle ontas in verse 1, and that it does in fact teach the doctrine of spiritual death (as do many other verses).
klock said...
Plato has much to say and teach on the immortal soul!
And Friedrich Nietzsche had much to say against the doctrine of an immortal soul. So are you influenced by Nietzsche? Are you an atheist? What you are doing is called "guilt by association", and it's very, very poor logic. But look who you are in company with: Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, Seventh Day Adventists. They share your beliefs, which orthodox Christians have rejected for good reason. So I could easily accuse you on the basis of guilt by association with these cults.
You might say that the Christian and Biblical doctrine of an immortal soul developed in an environment when Plato was well known. But denials of the doctrine of an immortal soul had their revival in mid to late 19th century Europe and America - the JWs, the Christadelphians, the SDA, and Bullinger. Just as good a case can be made that they absorbed this doctrine under the influence of secular 19th century materialist thought, as can be made for Platonic influence on orthodox Christian anthropology.
The point is, two can play the "guilt by association" game.
Friedrich Nietzsche, (Thus Spake Zarathustra) said...
"Body am I, and soul"--so saith the child. And why should one not speak like children? But the awakened one, the knowing one, saith: "Body am I entirely, and nothing more; and soul is only the name of something in the body."
The old German windbag sounds like klock, doesn't he?
Finally, anyone who has read early Christian writers who championed the doctrine of the Trinity, such as Athanasius and the Cappadocians, knows that their expression of those doctrines was quite influenced by Platonism. So if we must chuck out any doctrines that might be contaminated by Platonic influence, we are going to have to do away with the Trinity. The same can be said for the hypostatic union. The fact that there was a Greek philosophical influence from Plato, doesn't mean that they didn't get their theology fundamentally correct. They were men of their time, but they also knew their Bibles very, very well.
klock said...
I also believe that this belief in an immortal soul agrees with Satan's lie; "You surely will not die" being that both the believer and the unbeliever has an immortal soul, it just depends on what direction it goes upon death.
Actually, it's the denial of an immortal soul that agrees with Satan's lie. You will notice that God said that "in the day that you eat of it you shall die.". The Hebrew is very clear here; the expression beyom ("in the day" ) carries the meaning "when" or "at once", - see e.g. W.L. Holliday (ed), "A concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the OT". The verse states emphatically that as soon as they eat of the tree they will certainly die. It cannot mean any extended period of time later. But if "death" only means physical death, then they did not die "in the day" or "at once" when they ate, and hence you make the Serpent's lie become the truth. But they did die, spiritually, as soon as they ate. Physical death came much later.Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 8/10/2005 1:28:57 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 8/10/2005 10:05 PM (GMT -6) | | jefscott said...
I agree Luke could prophecy two separate events, 70 AD and the eschaton. But what would "Jerusalem shall be trodden down until the times of the gentiles be fulfilled" mean in both prophetic interpretations?
In my opinion, the "times of the gentiles" has a dual application. The common element in both times is that they commence with the Gentiles trampling Jerusalem under foot and defiling the temple in an "abomination of desolation". The two times of the Gentiles, then, are:
1. From 70 AD until the start of Daniel's 70th week. Within one generation (40 years) from the time of the rejection of Christ by the Jewish people, "all these things" came upon them - but only in the first fulfillment. The destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and the defilement of the temple, marked the commencement of the times of the gentiles, mark I. This is the period, I believe, that Paul refers to in Romans 11:25 when he says "a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in".
2. From the mid-point of Daniel's 70th week until the second coming and establishment of the millennial kingdom. I think there will be an "action replay" of the events of 70 AD at this time. There will be another, and final, "abomination of desolation". Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot once more. This is the second, and ultimate, fulfillment.
But we're really getting into detailed eschatological issues here, and it's all a bit speculative. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 8/10/2005 10:23 PM (GMT -6) | | I'd like to take a moment for some further words for klock, if I may. Let's have a look at John chapter 3, and do a bit of exegesis.
Nicodemus comes to Jesus by night. Jesus says to him:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (verse 3).
Now how does Nicodemus respond? As follows:
"How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" (verse 4).
Now klock, can you see, you are Nicodemus. You are trying to understand a spiritual truth as a literal physical one. If the Bible says the word "dead", you insist that it must always mean literal, physical death. But this is exactly what Nicodemus was doing! And what he was saying was not entirely unreasonable, either. After all, the word "born" has a clearcut, literal meaning. It refers to a baby being born from its mother. But Jesus replies:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
You see, there is a physical, fleshly birth, and their is a spiritual birth. This is what you are missing. Jesus said, the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. This is true of all the Bible's teaching. You need to go beyond the "Nicodemus approach" to scripture. There is physical death, but there is also spiritual death. There is physical birth, but there is also spiritual birth. There is a physical, fleshly Israel, but there is also a spiritual Israel.
By eliminating the spiritual dimension of reality, you have to get rid of (or explain away) all the Bible's teaching about what is called realized eschatology. This is why you can't accept that we have eternal life now. But we do, if we believe, because we have been spiritually reborn. It is your rejection of realized eschatology that has led to your full-on confrontation with the book of Ephesians, because that book is tremendously rich in realized eschatology. We are, presently, now, seated with Christ in the heavenly places (2:6). This is a spiritual reality now, due to our present union with him spiritually in his death and resurrection. And, by the way, this explains the past tenses in Romans 8:30 that you referred to. Realized eschatology, my friend!
There is also a future, physical aspect of eschatology. We will be bodily resurrected at the end of the age. But you can't take one at the exclusion of the other; they are closely interconnected. A theology that just focuses on realized eschatology, or a theology like yours that just focuses on future eschatology, are both deficient. It is both/and. It is "now but not yet".
For spiritual death and coming to new life, see John 5:25, and for bodily resurrection, see John 5:28-29. Note that when Jesus speaks of the resurrection in verse 25, he states that the hour "now is" when that resurrection is occurring. In other words, it was something that was happening at that very moment. But in verses 28-29, he refers to a future time, and he uses the words "those in the tombs" rather than just "the dead" to emphasize that he is then talking about physical, bodily resurrection.Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 8/10/2005 10:30:55 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
klock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 8/11/2005 11:59 PM (GMT -6) | | | Humphrey said...
So will you please be honest, klock, and admit that you mistranslated the participle ontas in verse 1, and that it does in fact teach the doctrine of spiritual death (as do many other verses).
No, this passage does not teach the doctrine of spiritual death, but when correctly translated, perfectly fits into the teachings of God through Paul.
The teaching of an "immortal soul" makes void what the bible teaches us about the state of death. Death is a return; the body returns to the soil (Gen. 3:19), the spirit returns to God (Ecc. 12:7), the soul, which is the product of the combining of the spirit from God and the body, returns to the unseen (Ps. 9:17 and Acts 2:27, 31).
Humphrey said...
Actually, it's the denial of an immortal soul that agrees with Satan's lie. You will notice that God said that "in the day that you eat of it you shall die.". The Hebrew is very clear here; the expression beyom ("in the day" ) carries the meaning "when" or "at once", - see e.g. W.L. Holliday (ed), "A concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the OT". The verse states emphatically that as soon as they eat of the tree they will certainly die. It cannot mean any extended period of time later. But if "death" only means physical death, then they did not die "in the day" or "at once" when they ate, and hence you make the Serpent's lie become the truth. But they did die, spiritually, as soon as they ate. Physical death came much later.
A notable passage—which, indeed, contains the very first mention of death in the Word of God—is the penalty imposed on Adam in case of his disobedience.
“In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Gen.2:17, AV).
How are we to understand this statement? That Adam lived on for nine hundred years is beyond dispute (Gen.5:5).
The most plausible explanation—spiritual death—becomes more impossible the closer it is considered. “Spiritual” death is figurative. It depends on a knowledge of literal death for its understanding. Now it is an unbreakable law of figures such as this that the literal must come first, then the figurative. But death was unknown to Adam before this. Literal death would be difficult for him to apprehend, much less “spiritual.” Another consideration confirms this conclusion. In all the references to death in the Hebrew scriptures not once is spiritual death referred to. It is a thought beyond the range of those who received that installment of God’s revelation.
Besides, death was not confined to Adam’s spirit. The pronoun “you” cannot be so interpreted, for we are never told that Adam was spirit, but often that he was soil. If we confine it to any part of him it will be necessary to refer it to his body, for he was not only formed from the soil but it is distinctly stated “soil you are, and to soil are you returning” (Gen.3:19, CV).
The key to the solution of our difficulty lies in the notable expression which our translators have rendered “surely die.” In the Hebrew it is unlike anything which we have in English. It reads literally, if we accept current standards of translation, “to die shall you be dying.” That is, the verb “die” is repeated in two different forms. First it is in the so-called “construct infinitive.” Our infinitive is “to die.” Being in the “construct state” shows that it is limited or restricted in its meaning by the following word. In the phrase “the word of the Lord,” for instance, the word “word” is in the construct state because not every one’s word is intended, but only the Lord’s. So here, the thought of dying is restricted by the following verb “you shall be dying.” From this we gather that it is only in a restricted sense that Adam would die that day. “To die shall you be dying” brings before us a process of death, culminating, indeed, in actual death, but of indefinite duration in its operation.
The same phrase is used in a similar sense in Genesis 29:7; 1 Samuel 14:44; 22:16; 1 Kings 2:37,42; 2 Kings 1:4,16; Jeremiah 26:8; Ezekiel 3:18; 33:8,14.
A PARALLEL CASE
The most interesting of these occurrences is 1 Kings 2:37, where we have the identical statement made to Shimei by Solomon in case he should dare to leave the confines of Jerusalem. “In the day...to die shall you be dying” gives us a perfect parallel case. And, like Adam, Shimei transgressed. And like him he did not die on the day he crossed the brook Kidron, but went to Gath after his servants and returned. This would not be so notable if Solomon had offered some excuse for not keeping his word and sending after him to fulfill his threat. Indeed, Solomon reiterates his previous words, not omitting the phrase “in the day” and proposes to carry it into execution several days afterward! It is evident that his understanding of this phrase was quite different from the impression conveyed by our usual English translation.
Such evidence as this is valuable—far more valuable than the labored efforts of Hebrew scholarship. Learning is ever lame, but here is evidence of Solomon’s interpretation of this phrase—and how many would dispute his knowledge of Hebrew?
But we have still stronger evidence from Him Who is greater than Solomon.
Humphrey said...
For spiritual death and coming to new life, see John 5:25, and for bodily resurrection, see John 5:28-29. Note that when Jesus speaks of the resurrection in verse 25, he states that the hour "now is" when that resurrection is occurring. In other words, it was something that was happening at that very moment. But in verses 28-29, he refers to a future time, and he uses the words "those in the tombs" rather than just "the dead" to emphasize that he is then talking about physical, bodily resurrection.
Again we disagree on interpretation. Jesus preached that the Kingdom was near. The Jews of His time knew perfectly well that Jesus was referring to the end of the 70 weeks of Daniel and the resurrection spoken of in Daniel 12. This period was near, and had Isreal repented the 70th week would have been completed at that time. The doctrine of spiritual death is not taught in the bible. One will never find the words "spiritual death" in holy writ. You know your theology well and can dress it up to look very convincing, but still it makes void what the bible teaches about the state of death, God's victory over death, and the creation of humankind.
Klock
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 8/12/2005 1:14 AM (GMT -6) | | klock said...
No, this passage does not teach the doctrine of spiritual death, but when correctly translated, perfectly fits into the teachings of God through Paul.
I've already demonstrated that you mistranslated it. It's not something that can be subject to debate. Your refusal to acknowledge this shows that you are not willing to subject yourself to the Word of God, but instead remain determined to alter the Word of God to make it fit your theology.
Because of your refusal to be honest about Ephesians 2:1, I don't think there's much point in my continuing to respond to you. However, I feel obliged to do so one more time, because you have again badly mistranslated, in this case, two Hebrew texts. Please note though: I'm not going to enter into debate about this. What I say below is simply a fact, and a fact which anyone who knows Hebrew is well aware.
klock said...
In the Hebrew it is unlike anything which we have in English. It reads literally, if we accept current standards of translation, “to die shall you be dying.” That is, the verb “die” is repeated in two different forms. First it is in the so-called “construct infinitive.” Our infinitive is “to die.” Being in the “construct state” shows that it is limited or restricted in its meaning by the following word.
This paragraph involves a series of errors.
Firstly, the verb occurs first in the infinitive absolute, not the infinitive construct, as you claim. Whoever you got this from lacked the most basic Hebrew skills.
Secondly, when the infinitive absolute of a verb occurs immediately before the cognate verb in the same stem (in this case, the qal), it always serves merely to reinforce and intensify the meaning of the following verb. This grammatical construction occurs hundreds of times in the OT with many different verbs and you can consult any work on Hebrew grammar - or ask anyone who actually knows Hebrew - to confirm this. It cannot be translated "to die shall you be dying", or anything like that - that is sheer rubbish. The correct translation is "you shall surely die", "you shall certainly die".
klock said...
The most interesting of these occurrences is 1 Kings 2:37, where we have the identical statement made to Shimei by Solomon in case he should dare to leave the confines of Jerusalem. “In the day...to die shall you be dying” gives us a perfect parallel case. And, like Adam, Shimei transgressed. And like him he did not die on the day he crossed the brook Kidron, but went to Gath after his servants and returned. This would not be so notable if Solomon had offered some excuse for not keeping his word and sending after him to fulfill his threat. Indeed, Solomon reiterates his previous words, not omitting the phrase “in the day” and proposes to carry it into execution several days afterward! It is evident that his understanding of this phrase was quite different from the impression conveyed by our usual English translation.
No, all this proves is that you do not read scripture very carefully. This verse does not say that in the day that Shimei crosses the Wady Kidron he will certainly die. It says that in the day that Shimei crosses the Wady Kidron he will (or should - see note below) certainly know that (ki) he will certainly die. The word beyom is connected to the verb that means "to know" (yada`), not to the verb that means "to die" (mut). This statement gives no time frame whatsoever for the dying. Again, this is just a fact of the Hebrew grammar, not something that can be subject to dispute. Furthermore, (and this is quite amusingly ironic), if you actually looked at the verse in Hebrew and were capable of parsing it, you would find that the verb "to know" has exactly the same grammatical construction that occurs in relation to the verb "to die" later in the verse and in Genesis 2:17 - that is, the qal infinitive absolute occurs directly before the qal imperfect. So if we were going to translate the verse on the basis of your strange grammar, this would have to read "to know shall you be knowing that to die shall you be dying"! Wow, that makes a lot of sense.
And if you check the usage of beyom in the OT, you will find it is not mere scholarly opinion: this word always has the sense of "when", "straight away", "right then and there". There is no example where it means an extended period of time. This example illustrates that well; as soon as Shimei crosses the Wady, he should know that the king is going to get him.
A technical note: The imperfect here is used with the force of an imperative, which is quite often the case. King Solomon is not making a prophecy, but rather, is making a threat. He is saying, "if you cross the Wady, at the moment you do, know for sure that I will hunt you down and kill you because of it". In other words, the king is saying, "don't be under any misapprehension, buddy; if you cross the Wady, then you better spend the rest of your life looking over your shoulder".
EPILOGUE
A final piece of advice, klock. It is admirable to want to know more about the Biblical languages. However, you cannot possibly understand them unless you learn them properly, which involves the complexities of studying the grammars of the languages. We are all familiar with example of products, most notoriously from places like China, that have really bad English on the labels. For example, a CD case which has "Bear and take the CD is handy" written on it. Or I have a folder made in China which has on it the following touching poem (I've corrected the spelling):
For you best friendship:
What thought life conspire to cheat you.
Do not sorrow or complain.
Lie still on the day of pain.
And the day of joy will greet you.
Now, what has gone wrong? They have tried to translate into English in the same way that you have tried to translate from Greek and Hebrew, without understanding the grammar of the language, and just looking things up in a dictionary or lexicon. Now, don't you think it is just a little ridiculous of you to frivolously toss aside the unanimous verdict of all the English translations of the Bible, which were translated by people who were experts in these languages, on the basis of your exceedingly limited knowledge? I can tell you, if all the English translations of the Bible translate something a certain way, then there is virtually always a very good reason that is so. You might be well advised to seek out the reason, rather than just deciding that you know best.
Goodbye, klock. All the best. I hope that one day the world championship wrestling match of "klock vs. the book of Ephesians" resolves itself in favour of Ephesians, and that you do come to a knowledge of the truth. However, I, for one, am now going away to "lie still on the day of pain" created from reading your posts.Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 8/12/2005 5:24:44 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
klock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 8/15/2005 9:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Humprey,
Would you please define "spiritual death" and all that it involves from a biblical standpoint? Even if you describe it you own words give the passage from which the concept is drawn.
Klock | | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 8/16/2005 2:35 AM (GMT -6) | | klock said...
ould you please define "spiritual death" and all that it involves from a biblical standpoint? Even if you describe it you own words give the passage from which the concept is drawn.
I'm about to go away on holidays, and I can't do this now. For my own reasons I'm going to be absent from this discussion board for a while at least. In any case, I'm confident that if you pray to the Lord for guidance and sincerely "search the scriptures" in a manner in which you're willing to submit to what they teach (and not alter them to say what you think they should say, as you have done with Ephesians 2:1 & Genesis 2:17) that God will open your eyes to the truths of his word which you presently can't see. I've given you some clues, but there's plenty more. What we believe and teach has eternal consequences, and we will stand before the Lord one day to give an account. I'd rather be embarrassed here than there.
A word of advice, though. Discard anything written by Bullinger. His writings are about as reliable as Watchtower publications. It might help to read some stuff by more orthodox writers.
This goes for you too, jefscott ...
jefscott said...
a metaphorical affirmation
Tut, tut. I thought you guys were trying to be "literal". 
Since I know klock is heavily influenced by Bullinger, and I seem to recall that jefscott also is/was an ultradispensationalist (sorry if I misremember), I'll end on a personal note so that you know why I am so aware of the subject. When I was young, my family attended a church in a mainline denomination which has since gone quite liberal, but at the time (the late 1970s) was still fairly Biblical. Anyway, the minister at the church got involved in an ultradispensationalist group and began to preach it every week from the pulpit. Both my parents were theologically trained, and although they had never heard of Bullinger before (not many people have), they began to research the subject and study his writings in depth. The more they did, they more alarmed they became. The minister refused to budge, so over a two-year period my parents struggled within the denomination to deal with the issue. In the end the denomination put out an official statement that Bullinger's teaching were false, and that such teachings were not to be taught in their churches. However, by that time my parents were so drained at the way in which the denomination was so unwilling to confront any kind of false teaching, that they moved on to other, more conservative churches. I was aged between about 10 and 12 at the time, and this whole incident was a defining event in my family's life. The point is, that both Bullinger and ultradispensationalism loom large in my personal history. I've looked into the issue since and heartily agree with my parents', and the denomination's, conclusions. The man was a false teacher of major proportions.
One final point, klock. To illustrate how far Bullinger would go to support his doctrines, besides mistranslating various texts, he actually taught the following, believe it or not. He claimed that when Paul wrote the book of Romans originally, he did not write in the last three verses (16:25-27). Then he claimed that much later, when Paul was imprisoned in Rome, Paul took the letter he had written earlier, and added these three last verses to it. My friend, if you have to resort to that kind of shonk, then you'd better give up the game. And it proves (if further proof were needed) that he fundamentally misunderstood Romans, because these final words are a crucial summary of Paul's whole argument in the rest of the book.Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 8/16/2005 4:44:44 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/16/2005 4:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Albert, the only reason why I wonder if it's metaphorical is I don't know what it means to die, psychologically, as opposed to what we call "physical" death. Paul, in Rom. 7, could have meant that the formal death sentence is realized at the time you sin, for eternal death is not inevitable just because of our mortal bodies, since Christ is a quickening Spirit. But apart from that, I don't know what it means, literally. Regardless, the Fall definitely entailed physical death, since "to dust thou shalt return" seems to clearly refer to it.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 8/16/2005 10:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Doh! Just when I think I am finished, I can't resist responding again. I really am going on holidays on Friday and won't be able to respond after then guys.
jefscott said...
Regardless, the Fall definitely entailed physical death, since "to dust thou shalt return" seems to clearly refer to it.
I fully agree with you here. But what you have overlooked, is that this statement is a part of a series of punishments imposed as part of the curse after the fall. This curse included thorns and thistles, pain in childbirth, a curse on the entire cosmos, and physical death, as you note. But that does not prove that God's statement that as soon as they ate of the tree, they would certainly die, is talking about physical death. As I noted, the Hebrew renders this impossible. I should add, that all Hebrew scholars recognise that the Hebrew is incompatible with deferred fulfillment. In fact there was a paper in JSOT (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament) a while back called "Did the serpent tell the truth?", or something like that, which discusses the issue in detail. The Hebrew leaves absolutely no wriggle room for deferred fulfillment; on the contrary, it would be virtually impossible in the Hebrew language to be more emphatic that the death would follow immediately after the eating.
Of course, most Hebrew scholars do not believe that 2:17 refers to spiritual death, either - but that is because of their hermeneutic, which excludes the possibility that God may have been saying something deeper than what the human author comprehened. In this case the "human authorial intention" hermeneutic is even more unjustified than it usually is, because the statement in question is actually the direct speech of God, recorded by the author, but not necessarily understood by him. But in any case, the scholars are left unable to provide a good explanation for the text. It remains just a deep puzzle for them.
The early chapters of Genesis provide a number of key statements that the human author almost certainly did not understand. An example is the so-called "proto-evangelium" (first gospel) of 3:15. Like most Christians throughout the ages, I believe that the seed here refers to Christ. But no historical-critical scholar is ever going to say that, are they? Similarly, Genesis 2:17 refers to spiritual death, although the human author did not recognise that either (probably), and historical critical scholars cannot recognise it. We know this from revelation contained later in the Bible, especially the NT. We can then look at 2:17 in a new light, and see its full import.
But to repeat: I absolutely agree that physical death was a consequence of the fall. But that punishment was imposed in 3:19, not 2:17. Nor am I denying that physical and spiritual death are closely interconnected: they are. Ultimately the physical realm will always be brought back into line with the spiritual reality. We die and are reborn to life spiritually, and then one day we will die and then be reborn physically. We reign in heavenly places presently in the spirit, and one day we will reign on earth in the body. When Jesus came to the Jews, he first wanted to deal with their spiritual problem of unbelief, before he was willing to deal with their physical problem of a restoration of the Davidic Kingdom. The physical is addressed on the basis of the spiritual. It is for this reason that by denying the reality of the spiritual, you actually render null and void all salvation, including the bodily resurrection of the dead.
It is the fact that we die spiritually to the law and our old way of life, that Paul is referring to in Romans 7. This spiritual dying to the old way of life precedes our physical dying to our old way of life, just as our spiritual resurrection to the new life in Christ precedes the physical resurrection.
By the way, it's interesting to see how selectively "literal" you guys are. In John 5:25 Jesus says that the hour is coming and is now here of the resurrection he is talking about. Again, this is unambiguous: he is saying that this resurrection was actually underway as he spoke. This is spiritual death and resurrection, not bodily death and resurrection. Read it carefully, folks - and maybe try and be a bit more literal. 
Compare and contrast v. 25 with v. 28-29:
1. the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
Summary: the hour is already here, "the dead" will hear Jesus' voice and live, only those who hear will be resurrected. This is spiritual death and resurrection. This "hour" spans the last 2000 years since Christ first preached the gospel (which is, sorry guys, the same gospel that Paul later preached to the Gentiles).
2. for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.
Summary: the hour is not yet come, those "in their graves" will hear, everybody, both the good and the wicked, will be resurrected. This is physical death and resurrection. This "hour" will span the 1000 years from the first to the second resurrection of Rev. 20.
Man this is fun! You want more verses on spiritual death? OK, here's a few more (there are so many to choose from)!
Luke 9:60: But Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God."
Col. 2:13 (parallel to Eph. 2:1, remember the grammar lesson): And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses,
Jude 12: These are blemishes on your love-feasts, while they feast with you without fear, feeding themselves. They are waterless clouds carried along by the winds; autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, uprooted;
Why twice dead? Because they were dead, then alive, and now are dead again through apostasy (let's be rid of that once saved always saved nonsense).
As for the term "spiritual death", no it does not occur in scripture. Neither does "physical death", or "bodily death". Neither does "trinity", nor "hypostatic union", nor "premillennialism". Funny that, isn't it?
As for what is death, here's a suggestion. It's to be "cut off out of the land of the living". Now physically, the living are other living human beings. Spiritually, who is/are "the living"? Hint: who is called over and over again elohim chayyim, the "living God"?
A general historical summary of Biblical salvation to correct ultradispensational false doctrine:
1. The flesh came first, and fell
2. the spiritual came second, and redeemed
Proof: 1 Cor. 15:46-47: But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
3. this redemption was realized first in the heavenly, spiritual realm (Hebrews 9:24, the book of Ephesians)
4. this redemption will be completed in the earthly, natural realm (2nd coming)
The moral of the story: Deny the spiritual, and you are left with only the flesh and no salvation.
Finally, for a bit of fun, I think I'll alter a few scriptures myself concerning the perils of "literal" interpretation:
John 2:19-21:
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Then Bullinger and other wooden literalists said, "This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?" But he was speaking of the temple of his body.
John 6:51-52:
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." Then Bullinger and other wooden literalists disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
Does anyone see a pattern emerging?
And just for the record ...
There is only one gospel.
There is only one church.
There is only one true Israel which consists of all those who are in Christ.
Romans 2:26-29:
If therefore the uncircumcised man (i.e. a Gentile) keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? And will not he who is physically uncircumcised (i.e. a Gentile), if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
It is crystal clear if verses 28-29 are read in context that when he of those who are inwardly circumcised in verses 28-29, that this must include the inwardly circumcised Gentiles of verses 26-27. That is the very point!
You see, the story of Israel is as follows. Abraham had physical descendents. However, according to the law, the only ones amongst those physical descendents who would not be cut off from Israel were those who kept the law perfectly and without flaw. None of the physical descendents of Abraham achieved this except Jesus. Hence, Israel=Jesus. But God made a way by which those who believed could be united with Jesus by faith. This made a way back into Israel for anyone who would believe.
So sorry, fellows, but according to the Word of God, I am a Jew. All those who believe are spiritually Jews. Ultimately, in the resurrection of the dead, what is presently a spiritual reality will become an earthly one, and "Israel" in the end analysis will consist of resurrected believers only. A person who is a Jew by physical birth, but who never believes, will be cut off from Israel and will become a Gentile in the resurrection of the dead. So all Israel, and only Israel, will be saved.
Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 8/17/2005 12:10:37 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 8/17/2005 12:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Doh! Just when I think I am finished, I can't resist responding again. I really am going on holidays on Friday and won't be able to respond after then guys.
jefscott said...
Regardless, the Fall definitely entailed physical death, since "to dust thou shalt return" seems to clearly refer to it.
I fully agree with you here. But what you have overlooked, is that this statement is a part of a series of punishments imposed as part of the curse after the fall. This curse included thorns and thistles, pain in childbirth, a curse on the entire cosmos, and physical death, as you note. But that does not prove that God's statement that as soon as they ate of the tree, they would certainly die, is talking about physical death. As I noted, the Hebrew renders this impossible. I should add, that all Hebrew scholars recognise that the Hebrew is incompatible with deferred fulfillment. In fact there was a paper in JSOT (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament) a while back called "Did the serpent tell the truth?", or something like that, which discusses the issue in detail. The Hebrew leaves absolutely no wriggle room for deferred fulfillment; on the contrary, it would be virtually impossible in the Hebrew language to be more emphatic that the death would follow immediately after the eating.
Of course, most Hebrew scholars do not believe that 2:17 refers to spiritual death, either - but that is because of their hermeneutic, which excludes the possibility that God may have been saying something deeper than what the human author comprehened. In this case the "human authorial intention" hermeneutic is even more unjustified than it usually is, because the statement in question is actually the direct speech of God, recorded by the author, but not necessarily understood by him. But in any case, the scholars are left unable to provide a good explanation for the text. It remains just a deep puzzle for them.
The early chapters of Genesis provide a number of key statements that the human author almost certainly did not understand. An example is the so-called "proto-evangelium" (first gospel) of 3:15. Like most Christians throughout the ages, I believe that the seed here refers to Christ. But no historical-critical scholar is ever going to say that, are they? Similarly, Genesis 2:17 refers to spiritual death, although the human author did not recognise that either (probably), and historical critical scholars cannot recognise it. We know this from revelation contained later in the Bible, especially the NT. We can then look at 2:17 in a new light, and see its full import.
But to repeat: I absolutely agree that physical death was a consequence of the fall. But that punishment was imposed in 3:19, not 2:17. Nor am I denying that physical and spiritual death are closely interconnected: they are. Ultimately the physical realm will always be brought back into line with the spiritual reality. We die and are reborn to life spiritually, and then one day we will die and then be reborn physically. We reign in heavenly places presently in the spirit, and one day we will reign on earth in the body. When Jesus came to the Jews, he first wanted to deal with their spiritual problem of unbelief, before he was willing to deal with their physical problem of a restoration of the Davidic Kingdom. The physical is addressed on the basis of the spiritual. It is for this reason that by denying the reality of the spiritual, you actually render null and void all salvation, including the bodily resurrection of the dead.
It is the fact that we die spiritually to the law and our old way of life, that Paul is referring to in Romans 7. This spiritual dying to the old way of life precedes our physical dying to our old way of life, just as our spiritual resurrection to the new life in Christ precedes the physical resurrection.
By the way, it's interesting to see how selectively "literal" you guys are. In John 5:25 Jesus says that the hour is coming and is now here of the resurrection he is talking about. Again, this is unambiguous: he is saying that this resurrection was actually underway as he spoke. This is spiritual death and resurrection, not bodily death and resurrection. Read it carefully, folks - and maybe try and be a bit more literal.
Compare and contrast v. 25 with v. 28-29:
1. the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
Summary: the hour is already here, "the dead" will hear Jesus' voice and live, only those who hear will be resurrected. This is spiritual death and resurrection. This "hour" spans the last 2000 years since Christ first preached the gospel (which is, sorry guys, the same gospel that Paul later preached to the Gentiles).
2. for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.
Summary: the hour is not yet come, those "in their graves" will hear, everybody, both the good and the wicked, will be resurrected. This is physical death and resurrection. This "hour" will span the 1000 years from the first to the second resurrection of Rev. 20.
Man this is fun! You want more verses on spiritual death? OK, here's a few more (there are so many to choose from)!
Luke 9:60: But Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God."
Col. 2:13 (parallel to Eph. 2:1, remember the grammar lesson): And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses,
Jude 12: These are blemishes on your love-feasts, while they feast with you without fear, feeding themselves. They are waterless clouds carried along by the winds; autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, uprooted;
Why twice dead? Because they were dead, then alive, and now are dead again through apostasy (let's be rid of that once saved always saved nonsense).
As for the term "spiritual death", no it does not occur in scripture. Neither does "physical death", or "bodily death". Neither does "trinity", nor "hypostatic union", nor "premillennialism". Funny that, isn't it?
As for what is death, here's a suggestion. It's to be "cut off out of the land of the living". Now physically, the living are other living human beings. Spiritually, who is/are "the living"? Hint: who is called over and over again elohim chayyim, the "living God"?
A general historical summary of Biblical salvation to correct ultradispensational false doctrine:
1. The flesh came first, and fell
2. the spiritual came second, and redeemed
Proof: 1 Cor. 15:46-47: But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
3. this redemption was realized first in the heavenly, spiritual realm (Hebrews 9:24, the book of Ephesians)
4. this redemption will be completed in the earthly, natural realm (2nd coming)
The moral of the story: Deny the spiritual, and you are left with only the flesh and no salvation.
Finally, for a bit of fun, I think I'll alter a few scriptures myself concerning the perils of "literal" interpretation:
John 2:19-21:
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Then Bullinger and other wooden literalists said, "This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?" But he was speaking of the temple of his body.
John 6:51-52:
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." Then Bullinger and other wooden literalists disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
Does anyone see a pattern emerging?
And just for the record ... the Bible teaches, and historical Christian orthodoxy has always held from the earliest records on, that:
There is only one gospel.
There is only one church.
There is only one true Israel which consists of all those who are in Christ.
There is only one kingdom of God and of heaven.
Romans 2:26-29:
If therefore the uncircumcised man (i.e. a Gentile) keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? And will not he who is physically uncircumcised (i.e. a Gentile), if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
It is crystal clear if verses 28-29 are read in context that when he of those who are inwardly circumcised in verses 28-29, that this must include the inwardly circumcised Gentiles of verses 26-27. That is the very point!
You see, the story of Israel is as follows. Abraham had physical descendents via Isaac. However, according to the law, the only ones amongst those physical descendents who would not be cut off from Israel were those who kept the law perfectly and without flaw. None of the physical descendents of Abraham achieved this except Jesus. Hence, Israel=Jesus. But God made a way by which those who believed could be united with Jesus by faith. This made a way back into Israel for anyone who would believe.
So sorry, fellows, but according to the Word of God, I am a Jew. All those who believe are spiritually Jews. Ultimately, in the resurrection of the dead, what is presently a spiritual reality will become an earthly one, and "Israel" in the end analysis will consist of resurrected believers only. A person who is a Jew by physical birth, but who never believes, will be cut off from Israel and will become a Gentile in the resurrection of the dead. So all Israel, and only Israel, will be saved:
I tell you, many will come from east and west (i.e Gentiles) and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom (i.e. physical Jews) will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Bye, bye, Bullinger.
Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 8/17/2005 12:37:48 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/17/2005 4:25 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Albert: In this case the "human authorial intention" hermeneutic is even more unjustified than it usually is, because the statement in question is actually the direct speech of God, recorded by the author, but not necessarily understood by him.
Jeff: My approach to "authorial intention" is to take the WRITTEN text the way it seems it was intended. The written text, in Gen. was intended to RELAY what was said by God. That doesn't necessarily mean that we are to understand what God said. Peter said that the prophets didn't always know "who" or "what time" their own prophecies referred to. But they intended to communicate, by writing, WHAT they had received from God - not necessarily what it meant. So there is room in an "authorial intent" approach to allow for subsequent clarification by God.
Even the Midrash interpretations you spoke of do not contradict authorial intent or induction. Those interpretations result from a recognition of non-coincidental patterns in the text that can be deciphered. And insomuch as the text is inspired by a super-intelligence, there is nothing anti-inductive about such an approach. Humans encode messages within messages all the time. That is, if they're smart enough. And some are. And others, if smart enough, can decipher those same encoded messages.
And I have no problem, per se, with the idea of spiritual death. I just don't understand what you mean by it, exactly. In other words, is spiritual death the essential state of an unregenerated human in the sense that he/she can't fulfill God's law? If that's all you mean by it, then I certainly agree with it. But it is not clear, to me, that the Gen., Romans 7, Ephesians 2, and Colossians verses which speak of "dying" and "death" in sin(s) are saying that - although other passages clearly DO say that. These passages (except the Genesis one), rather, seem to be saying something more like, because of sin, the unregenerate are as good as dead insomuch as death is the wages of sin. But if those phrases are actually shorthand for the other notion, my theology remains unaffected, since I believe both notions, anyway.
One question, though. Could "In the day that ye eat" have been fulfilled physically by virtue of a "day" being longer than a solar day? I've heard of Jews who believe that is at least one aspect of the fulfillment.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/17/2005 5:01:04 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 8/17/2005 10:12 PM (GMT -6) | | This is really my final installment and I won't be able to address any counter-arguments to what I've posted now for a while. In any case, I think Biblical investigation will bear me out.
jefscott said...
In other words, is spiritual death the essential state of an unregenerated human in the sense that he/she can't fulfill God's law? If that's all you mean by it, then I certainly agree with it. But it is not clear, to me, that the Gen., Romans 7, Ephesians 2, and Colossians verses which speak of "dying" and "death" in sin(s) are saying that - although other passages clearly DO say that. These passages (except the Genesis one), rather, seem to be saying something more like, because of sin, the unregenerate are as good as dead insomuch as death is the wages of sin. But if those phrases are actually shorthand for the other notion, my theology remains unaffected, since I believe both notions, anyway.
You're now interpreting "dead" metaphorically in Ephesians and Colossians (the Romans example, in my opinion, is something quite different, but equally non-metaphorical). That might be somewhat plausible in and of itself, but in the wider context of NT teaching I don't think it is sustainable. You haven't dealt with John 5:25, or Matthew 8:22 & Luke 9:60, both of which are crucially important, because it is Jesus' teaching on spiritual death that provides the background to Paul's teaching. The interpretation of John 5:25 I gave is extremely solid, and would be found in virtually every commentary on John (apart from those written by Bullinger, perhaps), and I think the vast majority of commentators would agree with it. Not only is it the only internally consistent interpretation, it fits with the broader theology of John, with its emphasis on the spiritual over the physical, and the Johannine concept of "the hour" (e.g. see John 4:23, where the same phrase "the hour is coming, and is now here", occurs). I would like to see you provide a plausible alternative interpretation of John 5:25. If you have one, post it, and I'll check after I'm back from holidays. This verse alone establishes spiritual death.
The doctrine of spiritual death is based on several factors:
(a) Direct scriptural teaching (examples above and a few elsewhere).
(b) Biblical anthropology and its relation to death. That is, that humans consist of spirit, soul and body, and that physical death involves separation of the spirit from the body. The doctrine of the intermediate state and continued conscious existence while the body is dead is important here, of which there are quite a few scriptures to directly support it - more than is commonly supposed. However, I can't do a scriptural defence of that now, but maybe when I get back. An example text that applies this anthropology to the issue of death is in James 2:26 when it states that "the body without the spirit is dead". But all of this depends on showing that the spirit is a real, actual component of the human distinct from the body, and that the spiritual realm is a real realm distinct from the physical. This belief is unpopular today amongst many evangelicals, a point I'll make some comments on in a moment.
(c) General principles established from scripture. That is, there is a spiritual realm and there is a physical realm, and the physical is patterned on the spiritual. This view underlies fairly obviously the book of Hebrews and permeates the Pauline epistles - again to a far greater extent than most evangelicals realize (although non-evangelical commentators are often very aware of it). It also undergirds the gospel of John, and is even found in the synoptics if you look carefully. In short, the NT is fundamentally dualistic, although that is considered a big no-no to say amongst evangelicals (as I say, non-evangelical scholars regard this as obvious). More on this in a moment.
(d) A word about the "soul". The soul is the component of humans that links the spirit and the body. It "spans the gap" between the two. In this regard, it plays a role analogous to the Word of God. The Word of God, both the incarnate Word in the person of Jesus, and the Word of God in scripture, serves to bridge the gap between the heavenly and the earthly. It is because of the Word that the spiritual and physical realms are brought into union, and it is because of the Word that the physical can be redeemed.
As for what is death, death is separation. It is to be cut off from the living. Spiritual death is to be separated and cut off from God in the spiritual realm, just as physical death involves being separated and cut off from the living in the physical realm.
jefscott said...
One question, though. Could "In the day that ye eat" have been fulfilled physically by virtue of a "day" being longer than a solar day? I've heard of Jews who believe that is at least one aspect of the fulfillment.
Some Christians also have believed that. The most popular theory (and one found in the epistle of Barnabas, although not in relation to Genesis 2:17) is that one day = 1000 years. Since Adam died before 1000 years, the argument is that he died within a day. There is, in my opinion, in general some truth in that as a midrashic interpretation. But the problem is that this is contrary to the uniform literal meaning of beyom. So I am happy to accept this as an additional, midrashic meaning, but I'm not prepared to accept it as the exclusive meaning.
OK, now to some final words before I go away. Firstly, on the issue of the spiritual realm. Let me start by recounting something that happened to me in a theology class. Earlier in a lecture, the lecturer had been telling us about the Jehovah's Witness' approach to the Holy Spirit as merely the living, animated expression of God. Then later in the lecture we happened to get onto the human spirit. At which point he began to say, in line with much modern evangelical thought, that the human spirit was merely a way of talking about the living, animated expression of humans. At which point I asked a question. I said, "aren't you just doing to the human spirit, exactly what the Jehovah's Witnesses do the Holy Spirit?". At which point there was a stunned silence.
In this regard, the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians are much more logically consistent than modern evangelicals. If the word "spirit" is just a way of referring to the animated expression of a living being, then consistency requires that we apply that to the Holy Spirit as well. In fact, some (not all) ultradispensationalists do deny the personality and independent hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, and in so doing they are just being consistent with their basic principles. Consider, for instance, the following scripture:
1 Cor. 2:11: For what human being knows what is truly human except the human spirit that is within? So also no one comprehends what is truly God's except the Spirit of God.
Now this verse draws a precise parallel between the Holy Spirit and the human spirit. They are analagous, according to this verse, in important respects. That doesn't mean that the human spirit is an additional "person" within us. It does mean, however, that the human spirit must be a real, distinct ontological component of our being.
We live in a culture which is materialistic and which scoffs at concepts such as that of a spirit world and the continued existence of human spirits after death. Is it any surprise that we have produced a form of Christianity, modern evangelicalism, that scoffs at the idea of a spiritual world and realm? Modern evangelicals often criticize theologians from other times and other places for being culturally bound. To which an appropriate reply might be, "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye".
Now to the term, "dualism". It is an enormous source of puzzlement to many, especially those who have any kind of philosophical training, to discover that most evangelical scholars, although they believe that people continue to be conscious after they die before the resurrection, nonetheless vehemently deny that they are dualists. There is an excellent paper on this subject by Jeffrey H. Boyd called "Unconscious Hermeneutics" (I don't think this Boyd is related to Greg Boyd of present discussion board fame, but I wouldn't know). They use all sorts of other terms, like "conditional monism" and so forth, to describe their position. The reason why is that, amongst modern evangelical Biblical scholars, to be a "dualist" is a very bad thing. Boyd writes that the term "dualism" has become a "swear word", "used to denounce politically incorrect ideas that were alleged to be unbiblical". If you read the arguments presented against dualism, you will find that they have not understood the term. They argue for holism, and think that they have thereby established monism. The two aren't the same thing. Biblical anthropology is "holistic dualism", it is not monism. This view has also been called "interactive dualism" and "minimal dualism". But it is dualism. Most evangelical scholars are in the sorry state of being dualists who can't admit to it. I have read a great deal on the subject, and I have never seen any good Biblical argument whatsoever for monism. Rather, I have seen a lot of arguments presented for holism, which were then assumed to have proved monism. While monism entails holism, the converse is not true.
Another accusation, which klock raised against me, is that dualism is "Platonic". But this fails to recognize the huge differences between Platonic dualism and Biblical dualism. Biblical dualism is holistic, but Platonic dualism is not. In Plato, the "spiritual" realm is static, unchanging and completely distinct from the physical. In Biblical dualism, the spiritual realm is temporal, dynamic and constantly bound to and interacting with the physical. These are not the same thing at all. "Platonism" has been used as a bogeyman to frighten people to an opposite, and just as unbiblical extreme, monism. As Boyd states, "to reject Plato is not to prove monism". That's the P-word. I'll comment on the G-word in a moment. Let me quote Boyd at some length, because this is a classic:
Jeffrey Boyd said...
Some in the audience may want to say that they are not dualists although they believe that the Bible indicates that we come apart at death. The problem is, if "dualism" has meaning as a word, then the two halves of that sentence contradict one another. If we come apart at death then there are two parts, one of which disintegrates, and that is dualism. But when someone says "I reject dualism", probably what they mean is that they don't want to be laughed at, mocked, and denied tenure, because the word "dualism" has simply become an obscenity in the theological vocabulary.
Let me tell you, I've been to theological college, and I can tell you that if you start to talk as though the spiritual realm was real - such as saying, as Ephesians plainly states, that we are presently seated in the heavenly places - then the response you will get is just mockery and laughter (this has happened to me personally). There will be no rational response. I have searched for a rational response and it isn't there. Modern evangelicals have almost completely capitulated to modernist Western ideas about human nature (as in so many other ways), and they regard any talk about the spiritual realm as naive and superstitious. This is despite the fact that practically every culture on earth that has ever existed, except for modernist Western culture, has acknowledged the reality of the spiritual realm. And that postmodern Western culture, and the New Age movement, is rapidly opening up again to the spiritual. Unfortunately, most evangelicals are hopelessly ill-equipped to deal with New Agers, because they bring with them modernist scepticism about the spiritual. So their approach to a New Ager will be "sorry, but what you just described can't happen", rather than "what you just described can happen, but it's origin is in the spiritual powers of darkness, who are real, personal and active".
Now for the G-word. A common accusation against anyone such as myself who emphasizes the reality of the spiritual, will be the dreaded "Gnosticism" or "Gnostic tendencies", whatever they are. I find this somewhat ironic, and wear it as a badge of honour, because every single "heretical" group that tried to return to the Bible in the face of the Roman Catholic Church, including the Lollards, Waldensians, Anabaptists, and even the Reformers themselves, were accused by the Catholic Church of "Manichaeism", that is, Gnosticism (the Manichees were a Gnostic sect). Whenever anyone tries to refocus the eyes of a church which has become materialistic and corrupt and earthly back onto the spiritual realm, they will always be accused of "Gnosticism". The Gnostics had beliefs that are completely unlike my beliefs or those of any orthodox Christian. To accuse us of "Gnosticism" is just bearing false testimony. It would be just as legitimate to accuse modern evangelicals of "atheism" because their anthropology bears some resemblences to that of atheists. There are Gnostics today, but they know who they are.
A word concerning the OT. The NT is so obviously dualistic that it hardly bears defending. But some have argued that the OT anthropology is monistic. Again, to "prove" this, they provide evidence that only supports holism, not monism. But that the OT writers were well aware that humans were not monistic in nature, is proven by the account of Saul's visit to the witch at Endor, in which it is stated that Samuel came up to appear to him. The writer shows no particular surprise at this. What has happened, again, is that modern Western commentators have read their own biases into the text.
Anyway, that's my pre-holiday rant. I'll see you all when I get back. Here's a good piece of gospel dualism to finish on:
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 8/17/2005 10:37:48 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 124 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:32 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|