What is death? Is it the absence of life?

[jeremiah1five]

Who or what tempted them in the garden that is referred to as the serpent ?

That is a very good question.

1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. Gen. 3:1–7.

So lets try to answer it.

The serpent was a "beast of the field" which the LORD God had made. This indicates a creature part of animal kingdom and one which was named by Adam.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; Gen. 2:20.

This alone removes it from any reasonable consideration that it was an angel/cherub.

19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, Gen. 2:19.

This serpent was created "out of the ground" - another strike against this beast was an angel/cherub.

14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: Gen. 3:14.

A judgment was brought against this 'beast' lending credence to this beast from that moment forward was destined to "upon thy belly shalt thou go" implying a creature with its belly making direct contact with the ground. This serpent is also ordained to 'eat dust all the days of its life. Whatever its identity this serpent is ordained to "eat dust all the days of its life. Another strike against this serpent being an angel for angels are spirit-beings and they don't eat dust. This fits nicely to the idea this beast might be a snake or a dragon, and I say dragon for its use here in Isaiah:

20 The beast of the field shall honour me, The dragons and the owls: Isaiah 43:20.

Here the Hebrew word "dragon" is: תַּן

Transliteration: tan
Phonetic Pronunciation: tan
Root: from an unused root probably meaning to elongate

The word here is noun - masculine and it is defined as:
from an unused root probably meaning to elongate; a monster (as preternaturally formed), i.e. a sea-serpent (or other huge marine animal); also a jackal (or other hideous land animal.)
The word is found twice in the Old Testament KJV and in the other place it is translated as "whale."

This beast of the field cannot be an angel - fallen or otherwise. God judged it to travel on its belly and eat the dust of the ground. Now, I know Constantinian Gentile theology identifies this 'serpent' as a snake and that is possible. And the judgment of traveling on its belly and eating the dust of the ground would also imply this creature may have walked upright in its creation and had the power of speech but whatever this serpent is it was created "out of the ground" and is a creature part of the earthly created order of the animal kingdom. But it definitely is not an angel.

The word "serpent" is defined by Strong's as:

Hebrew Word: נָחָשׁ
Transliteration: nāḥāsh
Phonetic Pronunciation: naw-khawsh’

It is a noun masculine.

from [#5172] (nachash); a snake (from its hiss.)

It is found 31 times and is translated as "serpent."

Having debunked the serpent in the Garden was an angel, a spirit-being, I'd like to hear your understanding.

 

[jeremiah1five]

No, neither Michael, Gabriel, nor any other angel is greater than Satan. Satan was the wisest, most beautiful, most powerful of all of God's creations.

Why do you give such great glory to Satan? You say he was the "wisest, most beautiful, and most powerful" of all God's creation. I agree he was created beautiful but not the wisest. And he wasn't powerful. Any power God gives to an angel is based upon whatever command God gives his angels to perform a task. None of the angels were free to do as they please. Neither man nor angel have free will. Free will in man and angel is an illusion.

He was placed as a guardian in the Garden, where God placed Him. Yes, he is an outstretched angel that covers, but it does not say what. The only thing in the Garden that might possibly have needed covering was man. The throne of the Lord needs no angel to guard it. God sits on it, and He is mightier than anything else; there is none created or not created that is greater than He.

You are mistaken. The ministry of Lucifer was to guard the throne of God which was located in what today is Jerusalem the Mount of God. Jesus was crucified outside the city and why not. The Garden would have to be located near present day Jerusalem. Where the first and second sin was committed by Adam and the woman in Eden, the Garden of God it would be most appropriate that atonement for those sins be made near the Garden.
You are guessing when you say man needed a covering or to be guarded.
Here is the ministry of Lucifer:

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Ezekiel 28:14.

The throne of God was what is present day Jerusalem. Lucifer guarded the throne of God and was above it outstretched as the word "anointed" means. The stones of fire is the Presence of God. That Lucifer "guarded" the throne doesn't mean 'security' or that someone would steal it. He was more of an ornament, and he covered the throne that was on the Mount of God; and the Mount of God is as David once said, Jerusalem.

Man was sinless before he ate of the Fruit. Man, because he is fallen, has a perverted spirit, and an inborn desire for evil, thus we are drawn away by our own lusts. But Adam and Eve were not yet fallen. They did not yet have perverted spirits. They had alive, intact, Godly spirits up until they ate of the Fruit.

There is only ONE God and Adam was created sinful. He was not sinless for sinlessness is the Nature of God and God gives His glory to NO ONE. If Adam was sinless then he also must need to possess ALL the Deific Attributes and Nature of God - like Christ - in order to stand before a holy God blameless. A sinless person does not sin. God is sinless. How long before God sin since you believe sin comes from sinlessness?

Adam and the woman were sinners which is why they sinned. There is no such thing as a "Fall" of man for Adam and the woman were sinful to begin with. Lying is a sin. And they both sinned when they added to God's Word in saying "neither shall ye touch it."

6 Add thou not unto his words,
Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Proverbs 30:6.

Sin comes from sinners just as wickedness comes from the wicked:

13 As saith the proverb of the ancients, Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked: 1 Sam. 24:13.

I notice you regurgitate a great deal of Constantinian Gentile theology. I used to believe all that crap until the Lord took me out of that false theology. Come out from among them and be ye separate, says the LORD.
You need to separate yourself. Seek the LORD while He may be found.

Jesus was tempted by Satan directly, not just from within Himself.

There is only ONE way to be tempted, not two ways. The Lord says temptation comes from within.

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James 1:14.

Jesus is a man. His temptation was from within, not without. If it was from Lucifer, then Scripture is broken, and He cannot be Savior because He was not tempted in all ways as us. Believe in the Scripture.

Do you mean the KJV? I find it tolerable, but I prefer the NASB or the ESV. When studying, I use all three, and sometimes refer to several others as well to compare them.

There is only ONE translation Authorized by God for the English-speaking people, and it is the KJV.
The NASB and the ESV are translations using corrupt Greek texts - thanks to Westcott and Hort.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Jesus was not tempted from within no made than the Father could be tempted from within. The Son is impeccable just like the Father. Fully God lacking nothing in His Divine nature means Impeccable.

I understand that but His Divine Nature was not being tempted but His humanity.
There is only ONE way to be tempted not two ways.

 

[civic]

I understand that but His Divine Nature was not being tempted but His humanity.
There is only ONE way to be tempted not two ways.

He is the Divine Son which is His Person not a human person as in the Nestorian heresy

 

[jeremiah1five]

He is the Divine Son which is His Person not a human person as in the Nestorian heresy

Jesus Christ is both human and divine. Two natures, one Person.

Before He is to begin His Ministry He needs to be tested. But see which nature is being tested. It's His human nature that is being tested. His divine nature is not being tested because as He said, "the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me" (Jn 14:30.) There was nothing in creation that would strike a chord in Him because He is God and God is not tempted with evil. But the human part of Him, even holy, still needs to go through testing. And the test was against His human nature.
Each temptation came from within and was directed at His human nature.
There are not two ways to be tempted, only one.

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Heb 4:14–15.

Are we tempted by Satan? When we undergo temptation is the cause of our temptation Satan?

 

[Complete]

Subject Heading:- What is Death?? Is it The Absence of life?

The reference to those who can kill the body but not the soul is to humans. We are not to fear humans (saved or damned), because while they can kill the body, but cannot kill the soul.​

But we are to fear (be wary of and respect, not be afraid of) Satan, for he can kill the soul in Hell for eternity.​

'And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul:
but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Gehenna - G1067).'
(Mat 10:28)

Hello @Doug Brents,

The Lord is referring in the verse above to the fires of end time judgement. The One Whom we are to fear, Who has the power to destroy the whole man (i.e the soul) and not just the body of man, is God Himself. For the spirit (or breath of life) goes back to God Who gave it (Eccl. 12:7), at the death of the body.

That is an interesting way of looking at it. But we are not just a "trichotomy". We have a heart, mind, soul, and strength (body)(Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27) as Jesus quotes from Deut 6:4. The human spirit is the limited extension of God's Spirit that makes man a "living being". It is our a component of our mind, our reason, our heart, our intellect. From as far back as the giving of the Law, God acknowledged that man still retains these components. When we are saved, our spirit is brought back into union with God (resurrected). Just as a tree branch that is cut off from a tree still retains the appearance of life for a short time even though it has been cut from the source of its life (the tree), so we too retain the appearance of life even though our spirit is dead (has been cut off from God, the life-giving source). But if that branch is grafted into another tree before the appearance of life leaves it, it can be "resurrected" and given new life in the new tree. That is the analogy God paints in Rom 11 where He talks about us being cut from a wild tree and grafted into the living root of Abraham.​

* With respect,this is human reasoning, and not the word of God.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Complete]

Who or what tempted them in the garden that is referred to as the serpent ?

'And he laid hold on the dragon,
that old serpent,
which is the Devil, and Satan,
and bound him a thousand years,'
(Rev 20:2)

 

[Complete]

He and the rest of the angels that sinned are locked up awaiting judgment.​

Hello @jeremiah1five,

* We are not told that Satan was among those who sinned in Gen. 6, so he is not locked up along with those referred to in (2 Peter 2:4)

'For if God spared not the angels that sinned,
but cast them down to hell, (Tartaroo G5020)
and delivered them into chains of darkness,
to be reserved unto judgment;'
(2Pe 2:4)

The angels know better than to, 'speak evil of dignities' (Pet. 2:10-11), or to accuse them before the Lord. Even Michael, the Archangel, in (Jud 1:9) would not accuse Satan directly, but gave place to God, for Him to rebuke Satan.

'Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil
he disputed about the body of Moses,
durst not bring against him a railing accusation,
but said, The Lord rebuke thee.'
(Jud 1:9)

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Doug Brents]

Why do you give such great glory to Satan? You say he was the "wisest, most beautiful, and most powerful" of all God's creation. I agree he was created beautiful but not the wisest. And he wasn't powerful. Any power God gives to an angel is based upon whatever command God gives his angels to perform a task. None of the angels were free to do as they please. Neither man nor angel have free will. Free will in man and angel is an illusion.

So you are saying that God is evil. If Satan did not have free will, then God commanded him to be/do evil. So then, God is completely culpable for the evil done by Satan. Yet the Scriptures say that God cannot tempt anyone with evil.

You are mistaken. The ministry of Lucifer was to guard the throne of God which was located in what today is Jerusalem the Mount of God.

The land upon which modern day Jerusalem sits was not there at Creation. The Flood completely reshaped the Earth, splitting it from a single landmass into many, and eroding the surface down to the "great escarpment" and then reforming the eroded soil into almost a mile (in some places) of soil and stone on top of that line.

But be that as it may, Where do you find in Scripture that Lucifer/Satan's charge was to guard the Throne of God? As I have said, I see that he was a guardian cherub, but no reference to what it was he guarded. I assume that since he was in the Garden, his job was to guard the pinnacle of God's creation: mankind. But I could be wrong about that. He could have been there to guard the Garden itself. But God's throne is not in the Garden, and it never was. God's throne is in Heaven.

There is only ONE God and Adam was created sinful. He was not sinless for sinlessness is the Nature of God and God gives His glory to NO ONE. If Adam was sinless then he also must need to possess ALL the Deific Attributes and Nature of God - like Christ - in order to stand before a holy God blameless. A sinless person does not sin. God is sinless. How long before God sin since you believe sin comes from sinlessness?

No, it is not necessary that ALL of the attributes and nature of God be present if one of them is. The angels who still serve God, and did not fall with Satan, are still sinless, but they do not have all Glory, Power, Omnipotence, Eternal nature, etc. of God. He gave them one of His attributes. He gave man the attribute of sinlessness, the attribute of being a living soul, but He did not make man eternal, nor did He make man even as glorious as the Angels (much less Himself).

Adam and the woman were sinners which is why they sinned. There is no such thing as a "Fall" of man for Adam and the woman were sinful to begin with. Lying is a sin. And they both sinned when they added to God's Word in saying "neither shall ye touch it."

6 Add thou not unto his words,
Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Proverbs 30:6.

Sin comes from sinners just as wickedness comes from the wicked:

13 As saith the proverb of the ancients, Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked: 1 Sam. 24:13.

You are welcome to believe what you want, but even Satan proves your theory false: Satan was sinless until sin was found in him (Eze 28:15).

I notice you regurgitate a great deal of Constantinian Gentile theology. I used to believe all that crap until the Lord took me out of that false theology. Come out from among them and be ye separate, says the LORD.
You need to separate yourself. Seek the LORD while He may be found.

There is only ONE way to be tempted, not two ways. The Lord says temptation comes from within.

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James 1:14.

Jesus is a man. His temptation was from within, not without. If it was from Lucifer, then Scripture is broken, and He cannot be Savior because He was not tempted in all ways as us. Believe in the Scripture.

So you are saying that Scripture lies when it says that Satan tempted Jesus (Matt 4:1)? Just because Scripture says in James 1:14 that man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust, doesn't mean that is the only way for temptation to come upon a man. Jesus was not tempted by His own lust. He already had power over all that is; He made it all. Yet He did not yearn to be the greatest (as Satan does); He gave up His dominion and humbled Himself as a servant, even unto death. Yes, it was a temptation for Him to not have to go through the pain of being separated from the Father in order to receive the World back. But that was Satan's doing, not Jesus' own thought.

There is only ONE translation Authorized by God for the English-speaking people, and it is the KJV.
The NASB and the ESV are translations using corrupt Greek texts - thanks to Westcott and Hort.

Interesting. So because the Greek texts that were used to translate the NASB and the ESV are older than the ones used for the KJV, they are corrupt? I would think that the older they are, the closer they are to the original, they would be that much more reliable since they have, presumably, been copied fewer times and thus have less chance of copy errors. But then, that is just my human reasoning. For what reason do you say that the Greek texts they used were corrupt, and the ones used for the KJV were not corrupt?

 

[jeremiah1five]

Hello @jeremiah1five,

* We are not told that Satan was among those who sinned in Gen. 6, so he is not locked up along with those referred to in (2 Peter 2:4)

'For if God spared not the angels that sinned,
but cast them down to hell, (Tartaroo G5020)
and delivered them into chains of darkness,
to be reserved unto judgment;'
(2Pe 2:4)

The angels know better than to, 'speak evil of dignities' (Pet. 2:10-11), or to accuse them before the Lord. Even Michael, the Archangel, in (Jud 1:9) would not accuse Satan directly, but gave place to God, for Him to rebuke Satan.

'Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil
he disputed about the body of Moses,
durst not bring against him a railing accusation,
but said, The Lord rebuke thee.'
(Jud 1:9)

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

If you take Satan as Lucifer Scripture does record him sinning in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28.

And angels - ALL ANGELS - are STILL obedient to God. They don't have it in them to do anything else but obey God.

God is Sovereign, not angels. And the angels that sinned are locked up thereby demonstrating God's Sovereignty over His creation.

 

[Complete]

If you take Satan as Lucifer Scripture does record him sinning in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28.

And angels - ALL ANGELS - are STILL obedient to God. They don't have it in them to do anything else but obey God.

God is Sovereign, not angels. And the angels that sinned are locked up thereby demonstrating God's Sovereignty over His creation.

Hello @jeremiah1five,

Yes, but there is only one mention of Satan being imprisoned,

'And I saw an angel come down from heaven,
having the key of the bottomless pit
and a great chain in his hand.
And he laid hold on the dragon,
that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan,
and bound him a thousand years,
And cast him into the bottomless pit,
and shut him up, and set a seal upon him,
that he should deceive the nations no more,
till the thousand years should be fulfilled:
and after that he must be loosed a little season.'
(Rev 20:1-3)

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[jeremiah1five]

So you are saying that God is evil. If Satan did not have free will, then God commanded him to be/do evil. So then, God is completely culpable for the evil done by Satan. Yet the Scriptures say that God cannot tempt anyone with evil.

God didn't command him to do anything. He created sinful beings - man and angels - and left them to do what comes naturally to them and that is sin. That's what happened to the angels that sinned and that's what happened to man who was created sinful, "missing the mark" of the glory of God and fallen short of His standard of righteousness and holiness.

The land upon which modern day Jerusalem sits was not there at Creation. The Flood completely reshaped the Earth, splitting it from a single landmass into many, and eroding the surface down to the "great escarpment" and then reforming the eroded soil into almost a mile (in some places) of soil and stone on top of that line.

Land is land and everything took place at an area of real estate we call Israel.

But be that as it may, Where do you find in Scripture that Lucifer/Satan's charge was to guard the Throne of God? As I have said, I see that he was a guardian cherub, but no reference to what it was he guarded. I assume that since he was in the Garden, his job was to guard the pinnacle of God's creation: mankind. But I could be wrong about that. He could have been there to guard the Garden itself. But God's throne is not in the Garden, and it never was. God's throne is in Heaven.

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
Ezekiel 28:14.

The stones of fire is the Presence of God. And the stones of fire is on the Mount of God. The Mount in the OT is Jerusalem. David mentions this a couple of times. The city "set on a hill" is Jerusalem.

No, it is not necessary that ALL of the attributes and nature of God be present if one of them is.

There is only ONE God, not two. Make a comparison between Adam and the last Adam. Adam sinned because he was a sinner. Christ did not sin at any time. God is the standard upon which everything is judged against. Thus, Jesus could stand before a Holy God blameless. Adam could not. Learn something about Theology Proper. Also study the Doctrine of Man. Then study Pneumatology. It will take some time, but the truth should come to you if you're not holding to Constantinian Gentile teaching which is pretty much Gentiles trying to learn about Hebrew life and history and culture without a Hebrew to help them.

If God is the standard by which everyone and everything is judged against, such as the Law given to Israel which declares the standard of God and what is expected of man, an expectation which man cannot attain, then the Law shows man he is a sinner. When God says to do something (don't eat the fruit) then it should be obeyed exactly as commanded. But sinful man failed because where there is a "Thou shalt not" the standard is evident as to what God commands - don't eat from the tree, which was the command.

The bottom line is God cannot reduplicate Himself in creation. He cannot copy or give or share His Nature and Deific Attributes to anyone. That's what makes God, God. So, if there is only ONE God, and Adam was sinless, then what about the other standards of God such as His omnipotence, or His Holiness? Was Adam created omnipotent? No, he wasn't. So, Adam was lacking in omnipotence. But here's Jesus. Was He omnipotent? Yes, He was. All creation is held together in His Word. Was Adam sinless? Yes, he was. Was Christ sinless? Yes, He was. God's perfect standard is contained in the Law. The Law was made for a sinful man, not a holy man.

The angels who still serve God, and did not fall with Satan, are still sinless, but they do not have all Glory, Power, Omnipotence, Eternal nature, etc. of God. He gave them one of His attributes. He gave man the attribute of sinlessness, the attribute of being a living soul, but He did not make man eternal, nor did He make man even as glorious as the Angels (much less Himself).

Don't you understand there is ONLY ONE God. There is NONE like Him and He gives His glory to NO ONE. So, when you study man these three things should guide you in your conclusions. God doesn't give His glory to anyone. Sinlessness is a glory of God and He doesn't give this sinlessness to anyone in His creation. The reason is because He can't. It is His Nature. Thus, man was created without sinlessness which is why he sinned. But Jesus is God and sinlessness is His nature. He cannot sin and He didn't sin. Why? Because He is God. Sin comes from asinner. Sin does not come from that which is sinless.

You are welcome to believe what you want, but even Satan proves your theory false: Satan was sinless until sin was found in him (Eze 28:15).

So, sin comes from sinlessness? That's a statement from someone who doesn't understand the things of God. If Satan was sinless, was he also omnipresent and everywhere like God is? No, he is not. The conclusion is Satan falls short of that glory of God. Was Satan holy? No, he was not because God's nature is holiness, and God cannot reduplicate or copy any aspect of His Nature to angel or man. This means angel and man fall short of God's glory of holiness. Was Satan all-knowing or all-wise like God to know everything that can be known whether it is in existence in creation or not. No, Satan is none of those things nor is man. Then the only conclusion is that angel and man fall short of God's glory.

So you are saying that Scripture lies when it says that Satan tempted Jesus (Matt 4:1)?

Does it REALLY say Satan?
I think you need learn some things about grammar. In the gospel the word "devil" (who supposedly tempted Him) is an adjective. It is not a noun or personal pronoun. Do you understand these things?
When Peter tried to prevent Jesus from going to Jerusalem where He's be killed Jesus called him Satan. He didn't say, "Satan! Why are you trying to trip up Peter?" No, He called Peter Satan! Was Peter REALLY Satan? How do we interpret this? Was Jesus lying? What's going on here?

Just because Scripture says in James 1:14 that man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust, doesn't mean that is the only way for temptation to come upon a man. Jesus was not tempted by His own lust. He already had power over all that is; He made it all. Yet He did not yearn to be the greatest (as Satan does); He gave up His dominion and humbled Himself as a servant, even unto death. Yes, it was a temptation for Him to not have to go through the pain of being separated from the Father in order to receive the World back. But that was Satan's doing, not Jesus' own thought.

Jesus is both fully God and fully man. Two natures - human and divine - and yet He is One Person. Take a closer look at the nature of Jesus' temptation. Hunger, pride, lust (for power), these are things that we as men deal with. The human "side" of Jesus was being tempted. And James says temptation comes from within. The human of Jesus was hungry after 40 days of fasting. Hunger is particular to the flesh, not the Divine. And the word "lust" means "longing" and there's nothing sinful in that word. I long to be with Jesus. Am I therefore sinning in my desire for Jesus? Jesus was hungered. His flesh was longing to eat and all He had to do is turn stones into bread. Does He listen to His human side or His Divine side?

Interesting. So because the Greek texts that were used to translate the NASB and the ESV are older than the ones used for the KJV, they are corrupt? I would think that the older they are, the closer they are to the original, they would be that much more reliable since they have, presumably, been copied fewer times and thus have less chance of copy errors. But then, that is just my human reasoning. For what reason do you say that the Greek texts they used were corrupt, and the ones used for the KJV were not corrupt?

The reason why they were copied "fewer times" according to scholars and history is because they were not being used which if they were being used would in time fall apart so new copies needed to be made, and when those were used then more copies were made to replace the worn-out ones. That's why there are over 5,000 recovered manuscripts and copies of Scripture - even fragments - available to us. These texts were being used in the Church while others were not, which is why there are fewer copies of them. Older does not mean better nor does it mean 'closer' to the original texts. It will take some time but begin your search about Westcott & Hort. Also study John William Burgon who challenged them and their work. Look for a book titled "Which Bible" by Otis Fuller. But I think if you are honest with Scripture and want to know how we got these modern-day translations since 1881 maybe you'll understand. It's a big subject and it is historical, and you won't "get it" if you dabble or skim through the subject. It needs committed study which may take some time. Actually, IT WILL take some time.

 

[David Koberstein]

I'll wait to see what others say before chiming in

Great topic !

Death is the separation of the inner man from the outer man.

 

[Complete]

Subject Heading:- What is death? Is it the absence of life?

Today at 1:58 AM - #113
David Koberstein said:-

Death is the separation of the inner man from the outer man.

'And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living soul.'
(Gen 2:7)

'Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was:
and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.'
(Ecc 12:7)

Hello @David Koberstein,

I would be interested to know what scriptures you have to support this?

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Keiw1]

Hello there,

What is death? Is it the absence of life?

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Yes it is, Jesus likened it to being asleep. All thought stops on the day of ones death.

 

[David Koberstein]

It is a separation of the inner man from the outer man.
Shalom

 

[Keiw1]

It is a separation of the inner man from the outer man.
Shalom

There is no inner man. The breath of life made man a living soul, not was given a soul. (The soul goes to Sheol=the grave. Psalms 89:48)
The reference to souls under the alter in heaven in Revelation is symbolic for--in Gods remembrance.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Hello there,

What is death? Is it the absence of life?

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

There are TWO deaths:

"Spiritual death" which is the absence of Spiritual life. It's the death that Adam, Eve, and the rest of us suffer when we SIN for the first time, and which "Spiritual life" is restored when we are "Born Again".

And then there's the less important "Physical death", which is only the absence of PHYSICAL LIFE

 

[David Koberstein]

There is no inner man. The breath of life made man a living soul, not was given a soul. (The soul goes to Sheol=the grave. Psalms 89:48)
The reference to souls under the alter in heaven in Revelation is symbolic for--in Gods remembrance.

You are mistaken. There is an inner man. It's called a soul. It was breathed into him at creation. The outer man will decay and return to dust heb(adama) after the separation from the inner man.
Shalom

 

[Keiw1]

You are mistaken. There is an inner man. It's called a soul. It was breathed into him at creation. The outer man will decay and return to dust heb(adama) after the separation from the inner man.
Shalom

I just showed you in Psalms the soul goes to Sheol=the grave. Its not a ghost like spirit being. Its the breath of life. Even fish are called souls. Soul= a breathing being.