Are we born spiritually alive or dead?

[awestruckchild]

There's a big difference. Men and women have souls. Animals don't. Men's and women's souls will end up in the lake of fire if they aren't faithful to the Lord. Animals don't have that choice. They are born totally faithful, totally dependent on the Lord to provide their daily bread. Not so for mankind. Babies are born living in fear of the unknown, and need about God, and to be taught to be faithful to Him, unlike animals.

HiRayBOb,

I didn't mean there WAS no difference between us and animals. I was saying that the word soul in this particular place, just has a Hebrew definition of: A living creature, and that the words about breath are the same ones used as regards the creation of the animals.
This doesn't mean we won't possibly get to a different Hebrew word being used further along.

[divaD]

Hmmm...have you read my complete post yet? Because the definition in Hebrew for without form or formless, doesn't seem to indicate that.....hmmm.....I'll wait till you read the whole post.

Actually I have read your entire post. Nothing you have said is anything I've never heard before. But to be fair, I'll read it again, just in case you brought out something that I overlooked the first time around,

Something else to keep in mind, Scripture interprets Scripture, and context determines meaning of words and sentences.

[awestruckchild]

DivaD,
Maybe you would like to do the word by word in the concordance for that section? Please, please? Because I skipped that huge part to go on to Adam, but didn't really want to skip it.
The firmament, the sun and moon, all skipped!

[Strangelove]

I know that this is a very debateable topic, and let's keep this civil. But, what do y'all think?

I think we are born alive, and then die after God accounts/imputes sin unto us. I am throwing this in the ring, just to show what I believe. I am not baiting anyone, just want everyone's responses in a civil manner.

We are dead in our sins until we are raised in Christ, in the 'first ressurection'. We need Jesus to be made spiritually alive.

[awestruckchild]

Actually I have read your entire post. Nothing you have said is anything I've never heard before. But to be fair, I'll read it again, just in case you brought out something that I overlooked the first time around,

Something else to keep in mind, Scripture interprets Scripture, and context determines meaning of words and sentences.

Well, okay, never mind. It's cool!

[divaD]

Greetings divaD. I agree that physical death is in view. The Tree of Life granted Adam and Eve immortality, physically. On the day access to the Tree of Life was denied them, they became mortal. Thus on the day they sinned against God, their immortality came to an end, and it can truthfully said that they died in that day.

Jake

I totally agree. I will go one even further.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

If a thousand years could be as one day with the Lord, and the fact Adam fell short of living a thousand years, then it could be said he died in the very day he partook of the fruit since the passage states the following...But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Notice that it states...for in the day. 930 years would fall within this 1000 year day. I don't expect too many to agree with me, which is fine. But still, that's how I've reasoned it for years now.

[divaD]

DivaD,
Maybe you would like to do the word by word in the concordance for that section? Please, please? Because I skipped that huge part to go on to Adam, but didn't really want to skip it.
The firmament, the sun and moon, all skipped!

It sounds like a lot of work. I think I'll let you do it, then I'll tell you whether I agree or not.

[awestruckchild]

It sounds like a lot of work. I think I'll let you do it, then I'll tell you whether I agree or not.

Well, okay, but I don't understand, exactly.
I looked up all the Hebrew words, trying to keep everything cohesive. I rejected parts of definitions that did not cohese with the whole, and you seemed to think the word "formless" should maybe be considered in a way apart from the Hebrew definition......or something....so, it's cool to not want to look up any of the words and to just want to say whether you agree or not, but unless you find a different definition than I've found of the original Hebrew word for formless, I don't understand why you cautioned me that it has to be taken in context. I probably just didn't understand what you were trying to convey....
How would you know whether it is or isn't being somehow taken out of context if you don't look up the original Hebrew words?

[divaD]

Well, okay, but I don't understand, exactly.
I looked up all the Hebrew words, trying to keep everything cohesive. I rejected parts of definitions that did not cohese with the whole, and you seemed to think the word "formless" should maybe be considered in a way apart from the Hebrew definition......or something....so, it's cool to not want to look up any of the words and to just want to say whether you agree or not, but unless you find a different definition than I've found of the original Hebrew word for formless, I don't understand why you cautioned me that it has to be taken in context. I probably just didn't understand what you were trying to convey....
How would you know whether it is or isn't being somehow taken out of context if you don't look up the original Hebrew words?

With Genesis 1:2 in mind, and 'form' in that verse, here's what the word means according to Strongs.

tohuw
to'-hoo


from an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain:--confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.
http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednameb...EB84.htm#S8414

For example it can mean an empty place. So let's go with that first, then see if that agrees with any other Scriptures.

Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

tohuw is used in this verse for vain. But I wouldn't think tohuw would be understood in the same sense in this passage as it would in Genesis 1:2. I would think it means vanity. What this verse then shows that God had a purpose for creating the earth, and that He didn't create it in vain, as in no purpose in mind, but that He formed it to be inhabited, which then agrees with Gen 1:2, because it was empty at the time, until He began forming it to be inhabited.

In case you disagree that tohuw in Isaiah 45:18 means vanity, notice that same word is used in the very next verse.

Isaiah 45:19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

I would think vain there means vanity. It would seem unreasonable that in one verse the sense is one thing, and in the next verse the sense is something else, especially since this word wasn't used that many times in the OT. Maybe 20 times or so.

[awestruckchild]

Okay, but I'm not talking about the word used in Isaiah. I looked up the one used in Genesis and Jeremiah. Where you are talking about, it lists the definition of the original word to be: squeezed into shape. I'm confused. I always thought that the original Hebrew words in the two places were actually different words with different meanings, even though we translated them as the same word...if you just use the words we translated it into all the time, you fail to see that they WEREN'T the same word originally in Hebrew....

[divaD]

Okay, but I'm not talking about the word used in Isaiah. I looked up the one used in Genesis and Jeremiah. Where you are talking about, it lists the definition of the original word to be: squeezed into shape. I'm confused. I always thought that the original Hebrew words in the two places were actually different words with different meanings, even though we translated them as the same word...if you just use the words we translated it into all the time, you fail to see that they WEREN'T the same word originally in Hebrew....

It's probably my fault. I'm trying to do two things at once. I'm at home having personal conflicts with my wife, while trying to discuss Scriptures online at the same time. But I'll try to pay a little more attention to what you have written, tho it's kind of hard with these other things on my mind at the same time. But I have read what you written thusfar.

[awestruckchild]

It's probably my fault. I'm trying to do two things at once. I'm at home having personal conflicts with my wife, while trying to discuss Scriptures online at the same time. But I'll try to pay a little more attention to what you have written, tho it's kind of hard with these other things on my mind at the same time. But I have read what you written thusfar.

No problem brother, but please go see to you and your wife! We can hash this out and work it out together later - it is good that we are working out these things but you want to keep peace in your home! We'll be here when you get back!

[divaD]

No problem brother, but please go see to you and your wife! We can hash this out and work it out together later - it is good that we are working out these things but you want to keep peace in your home! We'll be here when you get back!

As far as with my wife, it's nothing that would get resolved any time soon. And as far as keeping peace in the home, I probably wouldn't even know what that is like, since my wife and I have never really gotten along nor ever had much in common since day 1. It's just that some days the conflicts are worse than other days.

[awestruckchild]

As far as with my wife, it's nothing that would get resolved any time soon. And as far as keeping peace in the home, I probably wouldn't even know what that is like, since my wife and I have never really gotten along nor ever had much in common since day 1. It's just that some days the conflicts are worse than other days.

Well that just doesn't sound good at all. I am sorry. I have been separated for nine months. I actually wish my husband would have fought with me or wanted to try to work things out or.... anything other than just closing himself off and refusing to try to work things out and having the attitude that it was impossible. He just sat at his computer and never wanted to do anything else. It was sad. Anyway, I'm sorry.

[John146]

Hah! Are you kidding? I only read your post like, five times, then looked the verses up, then read the post twice more!
I just have a phobia about getting into conversation with anyone in here until I am able to see if they will walk in love and are humble when someone deals harshly with them, and won't gnash at me with their teeth. It was a hard learned lesson!
It's the reason why I talk to who I talk to.

I'm sorry, but I truly have no idea what you're saying here. I was not being harsh or anything like that. I simply believe I had already answered your questions in my other post. I could have just repeated what I already said but I didn't think that was necessary.

I will tell you what I see though, if you want.
I do not think Paul was saying that until he heard the law, sin was not in him. I think he thought the sin was in him but he would not have KNOWN it was sin, except that the law told him it was. Otherwise, to my mind, we are saying that he was sinless until he heard the law, and then the law made him a sinner, which he seems to strongly want to convey is NOT the case when he says: well then, am I suggesting that the law of God is sinful? Of course not! In fact, it was the law that showed me my sin!
He is saying (to my understanding) that the law showed him what a sinner he was, not that the sins he committed were not sins before that.
I think a sinner is a sinner whether he knows he's a sinner or not.

I didn't mean to say that he had not sinned until he became aware of what sin was. No, not at all. I'm saying that he did not become dead in sins and responsible for his sins until then. What else did he mean when he said this:

Rom 7:9 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 8But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

When he says he died I take that to mean he became dead in his sins. In what other way did he die at that point except that he became dead in sins? How can someone be dead in sins without knowing what sin is? It seems to me that one becomes dead in sins as soon as they realize what sin is. How can one be responsible for sin without first knowing what sin is?