The Immortality of the Soul in the Bible

[basics]

sumskilz,

No matter how deep you go into what is written there are those that still will never accept the true meaning and why is also there in what is written.

[Cyclops]

Cyclops,

No I do not speak unScripturaly because the spirit of the serpent and the spirit of Satan are one and the same thing and shown to be by what transpired in the garden. If the serpent was not that way why did it persuade Eve that God didn't mean what He said regarding the fruit of that particular tree? Indeed, if the serpent was not acting as Satan would why did God put a particular curse on it? My answer is incoherent to you because you being of your father, Satan, you don't want to hear the truth about your position before God.

Old chap you're calling me the son of Satan? I'm sad your argument has devolved to name calling. My father was actually a man known for his honesty and integrity, indeed Her Majesty declared him a most trusty servant. Its clear to me you know as little of him as you seem to know of scripture.

Your post hasn't managed to resolve the question of how the serpent of the garden is both Satan and Satan's son. You're talking about Satan and Satan's son, and somehow both share the "Spirit of Satan", you seem to be straying blasphemously close to some sort of cruel mockery of the Trinity? I have never heard of any Christian daring to utter such a thing.

What is typically translated as “in the day” in this context means “from the day” or “from when”. In this particular case, it isn’t even about a period of time. Although, the main translation issue isn’t so much about the abstract usage of yōwm, but rather that Biblical Hebrew has no word for “mortal” and no future tense. Plus, prepositions never translate well.

Biblical Hebrew tenses relate to whether an action is complete or incomplete (not past, present, or future). Therefore, there is no way to determine future tense except from context. Translators typically try to strike a balance between representing each word accurately and representing the meaning accurately, but taking each to the extreme here would be informative, I think.

The closest possible word for word translation would be “…in day eating from, dying you will die”.

Whereas the meaning without any concern for representing each individual word would be “...for when you eat from it, you will become mortal”.

Since a mortal is someone who “surely will die”.

Yes its an interesting point for an interesting debate, although less relevant for those who adhere to the view the Authorised Edition is the inerrant word of God. That's the text under discussion here.

I do agree many passages in the KJV are far from perfect translations.

[conon394]

You're talking about Satan and Satan's son, and somehow both share the "Spirit of Satan", you seem to be straying blasphemously close to some sort of cruel mockery of the Trinity?

Makes sense for the kind of dualism he ascribes to

[basics]

Cyclops,

My Father is God and your father is Satan is what the Bible teaches of our differences. Why that is, is because all creation was put under the curse of sin at the fall of Adam and Eve. That you don't believe nor accept that is because of your position before God, not because basics made it up nor enjoys telling you. If you can read anywhere that Jesus Christ did not die on a cross for the sins of all them that He died for then that is not a Bible and so cannot be the inerrant word of God.

[Cyclops]

Cyclops,

My Father is God and your father is Satan is what the Bible teaches of our differences. Why that is, is because all creation was put under the curse of sin at the fall of Adam and Eve. That you don't believe nor accept that is because of your position before God, not because basics made it up nor enjoys telling you. If you can read anywhere that Jesus Christ did not die on a cross for the sins of all them that He died for then that is not a Bible and so cannot be the inerrant word of God.

Your dad is bigger than my dad? That's a childish schoolyard comeback, please lift the tone.

You've stated the serpent of Eden is Satan but also the son of Satan. Which is it? I've asked but I have not received an answer. Its important not to misrepresent scripture.

As for liars being the sons of Satan, Matthew 12:34 has Jesus calling the Pharisees "O generation of vipers", no mention of Satan once again, not even the same word as the one used for the serpent in Eden. This is plainly nothing to do with Satan.

As for your curse, I'll remind you again, the word "sin" does not appear in the Eden narrative.

I don't take offence at the silly jibes about my father being Satan, its not as though they are serious statements from an authoritative source.

[conon394]

My Father is God and your father is Satan is what the Bible teaches of our differences. Why that is, is because all creation was put under the curse of sin at the fall of Adam and Eve.

And that bothers you not at all to type the illogical nature of it?

[basics]

Cyclops,

Yes, God the Father is bigger than anyone or anything.

Whether the serpent was just a serpent yet acting for Satan or was actually Satan himself is immaterial because both have the same objectives from what we read. Scripture is therefore not being misrepresented at all.

As for Jesus' remarks to some Jews try John 8:44.

Sin is an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
"a sin in the eyes of God" What Adam and Eve did was a sin and that sin was passed on to all creation. Sin doesn't appear in the narrative but disobedience and disbelief do and since they were what led them to be cast out of the garden the word easily applies.

The Authoritive source is the Gospel of Jesus Christ our Creator and God.

[conon394]

Jesus Christ our Creator and God

Kinda missed him in the OT last I read it. It almost like you are following a faith made up by Paul and Augustine.

[Cyclops]

...
Whether the serpent was just a serpent yet acting for Satan or was actually Satan himself is immaterial because both have the same objectives from what we read. Scripture is therefore not being misrepresented at all....

You have now given three versions of the Serpent: 1. Serpent is Satan 2. Serpent is Satan's Son 3. "Its Immaterial". You really don't seem to be able to keep your story straight. If its immaterial if the serpent is Satan doesn't that have implications for your statement that its a prediction about Jesus crushing Satan? It really seems as though your ideas about God don't match scripture at all.

[basics]

Cyclops,

Oh I personally believe that the serpent is Satan and what God said about the " seed " and Satan to be correct just as I believe the garden was a figure of heaven. Why it is immaterial is because we know that Satan was in heaven before the garden scene became factual and that he tried and failed to replace God. Therefore it follows that the creation was going to be attacked which happened through the serpent being Satan, or acting for Satan to bring about the fall of man. Now all the arguments in the world cannot change what is written as taking place, why? Because God intended it to be just so as it is an integral part of why we were created in the first place.

[conon394]

what God said about the " seed " and Satan to be correct

Well of course you believe a poor translation and understanding of the text. But as a follower of Augustine whose views on orginal sin are based a defective translation of Paul (and a selective interpretation in other cases) that kinda makes sense.

Why it is immaterial is because we know that Satan was in heaven before the garden scene became factual and that he tried and failed to replace God

Only via a the vaguely canonical book of the NT certainly not organic to the OT.

Therefore it follows that the creation was going to be attacked which happened through the serpent being Satan, or acting for Satan to bring about the fall of man. Now all the arguments in the world cannot change what is written as taking place, why? Because God intended it to be just so as it is an integral part of why we were created in the first place.

Which basically implies god is cruel.

[basics]

conon394,

God is Sovereign and has well warned us what to expect if we disobey Him so how is that cruel?

[conon394]

Because you keep dancing aside the issue. If things happen as god intended than the 3 had no free will there for it is cruel to punish them. He is playing with toys. If they had free will than find but it also makes god a lair since his punishment is not what he said.

[basics]

conon394,

Well the last news I heard was that people are dying everyday across this planet so how was His punishment a lie?

[conon394]

conon394,

Well the last news I heard was that people are dying everyday across this planet so how was His punishment a lie?

Not clear to me that being saved stopped dying so hard to say also not clear that Adam was ever immortal. SO more or less all I se is a text problem in the OT.

[basics]

conon394,

Being saved doesn't stop dying in this body yet guarantees a new one fit for the place a born again believer is going. There's no problem in the Old Testament for as we can read that those who were accounted righteous before God their accounts for their sin was cleared by the blood of Christ at the cross which brought in the New Testament.

[conon394]

There's no problem in the Old Testament for as we can read that those who were accounted righteous before God their accounts for their sin was cleared by the blood of Christ at the cross which brought in the New Testament.

That is only your implied assumption via the NT and the version you hold to . Not at all clear from the OT at all.

[basics]

conon394,

Well, since the New Testament reveals what the Old Testament holds dimly one has to appreciate that the Two go together like your best Sunday suit.

[conon394]

conon394,

Well, since the New Testament reveals what the Old Testament holds dimly one has to appreciate that the Two go together like your best Sunday suit.

There seem to be a lot of Sunday suits out there and a couple other days as well, yours is a minority.

[basics]

conon394,

Of course we are a minority for did Jesus not say that the path to heaven is so narrow that few get in?