What Does 'Surely Die' Mean?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Exegesis

Member
Jun 22, 2025
417
92
28
62
Salt Lake
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
There was no natural cause of death for humans in the beginning....access to the tree of life was freely available

Wow, I thought I was done with you but I just can't let that whopper of a lie slide.

...he was not designed to die, even though he lived in mortal flesh...

You literally contradicted yourself.

...but it still required access to an external means to support that life, perpetually.

Wrong on so many levels. Where to begin?

Since @Aunty Jane is not going to listen to reason, I am posting this for those that are serious about these topics and already know how wrong she is. I am also posting for those that have searched for *real* answers and found none. I am not here to post the 'nursery rhyme' version of Genesis.

First of all, if anyone needs to continually eat from the Tree of Life to 'support life', that means that death is already a reality. If death was not in the Garden of Eden before the Fall, then there is no need to 'prevent death' by eating or by any other means.

Thus, what @Aunty Jane is teaching is that this verse is a lie:

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

She is teaching that Death already entered the world before the Fall. Moreover, Heaven will have Death in it too, which means that this verse is also a lie:

Isaiah 25:8 He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.

Where will the lies end @Aunty Jane ?

Imagine all of the Angels in Heaven having to line up every morning to eat their 'anti-death' potion. How absurd! All the Devil needs to do is chop the Tree of Life down and everyone dies. Pure insanity.

Oh, it gets worse. Adam and the Woman will now have to feed the Tree of Life to their babies to keep the babies from dying... even though Death was not in the world yet. Thus, the babies never age. How can they? They have anti-aging potions in their digestive system. Just lol at these teachings... fetuses that never grow into babies or adults.

The fact is that Adam and Ishshah never partook of the Tree of Life. If they had, they would have been clothed with a Body of Glory right then and there. The story would end. None of us would be here.

Both trees are a one shot deal.

But wait, there's more!

Adam and the Woman were supposedly going to procreate while eating from the Tree of Life! Is that how Heaven will be like? Without marriage even? And no male/female? Nope.

According to @Aunty Jane , sex and the Tree of Life go hand in hand. Outrageous.
 
Last edited:

Aunty Jane

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2021
8,936
5,047
113
Sydney
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
The narrative you have promoted has been debunked countless times on other forums. Christians would learn so much if they visited forums that allowed free thought/speech without all the constant censorship and thread deletions. Bible critics know where the problems are. Christians are never able to solve them without a ton of effort.
Debunked by whom?
True Christians have no problem defending the truth because the Bible speaks for itself….it really doesn’t need anyone to debunk anything unless they hold false beliefs to begin with…..
You folks put yourself in a tiny bubble and never go out to see how non-Christians despise your lies. The world is fed up. Get out of your Safe Space and deal with the reality of it.
What tiny bubble are you in?
Who cares what non-Christians think….who cares what the world thinks? My safe place is not penetrated by people like you who have such a whacked out story that it’s laughable, and bears no resemblance to anything the Bible says….and nothing that Jesus taught.
What you have presented so far would be debunked in nanoseconds by those that are not brainwashed by the false dogmas you adhere to. I am trying to help all of you folks survive the 'fiery darts'. I know how to defend the Word against their attacks. You folks here do not.
Again…debunked by whom….you? I think you have way to much confidence in your own fairy story, but you are welcome to it….

Jesus gives us an assurance that doesn’t include you…me….non-Christians, or the world…
”No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him……he went on to say: “This is why I have said to you, no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:44; 65)

Since no one can come to the son without his Fathers invitation….I will trust God rather than someone with a fairy tail that he is trying to force on others by insinuation….as if he cannot possibly be wrong and that God has sent him to rescue them from “the fiery darts”……who may I ask, is rescuing you?
 

Exegesis

Member
Jun 22, 2025
417
92
28
62
Salt Lake
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Let us review one of the biggest fallacies in the creation narrative taught by the Church and the folks on this forum.

According to most, if not everyone here, the world was filled with animals but yet somehow man was alone:

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Already we have a problem. If the man is surrounded by animals, then he is not alone. Moreover, God has no need to create any more animals to keep him company.

So, what does God do to solve the problem of the man being alone while surrounded by animals? God creates animals of course:

Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

That makes zero sense, especially when animals were supposedly made *before* man in Genesis 1 according to the false dogma commonly taught.

It's time to stop with the denial and cognitive dissonance.
 

Exegesis

Member
Jun 22, 2025
417
92
28
62
Salt Lake
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Let us look at the topic of procreation, aging and immortality. None of these can exist at the same time:

1762528654181.png

Therefore, it is impossible for a being with eternal life to conceive and have children. In other words, the man and woman created in Genesis, before partaking of the Forbidden Fruit, were incapable of 'being fruitful' and 'multiplying' by normal reproductive means.

Even if they were to somehow conceive a child, said child would never age. It would stay a zygote forever.

Let us not forget that death is involved when a man plants his seed in a woman. Most of the seed dies, remember? How can there be death before the Fall?

None of you here have factual answers to these extremely important questions/issues. The non believers laugh in your face.
 

Exegesis

Member
Jun 22, 2025
417
92
28
62
Salt Lake
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
The Meaning of Life

What is the meaning of life? So many wonder. The answer is right there in Genesis:

Genesis 2:5 (New Living Translation) Neither wild plants nor grains were growing on the earth. For the LORD God had not yet sent rain to water the earth, and there were no people to cultivate the soil.

Man was created to 'cultivate the soil'. Interestingly, the word 'cultivate' also means 'to serve'.


We see it again here:

Genesis 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Were we created for the sole purpose of digging trenches and pulling weeds all day? That is the 'milk of the word' understanding that you were all told. The 'meat of the word' understanding is much more profound.

Here is what 'cultivating the ground' actually meant in Genesis 2:5:

Genesis 2:7 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.

Do you get it? It's all about helping God create and take care of LIFE, the Kingdom of God.

Here it is again:

Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

'Tilling the ground' originally meant to have the ability to create life from the dust of the ground as God did. That was our original purpose, i.e., meaning of life. It is a huge responsibility.

It is what we call Genetic Engineering, except it was to be a holy and sacred version of it, not the GMO abominations we have now.

Because the man and woman failed in their mission, they must now do things the hard way.
 

Jay Ross

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2011
9,363
3,484
113
QLD
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Let us review one of the biggest fallacies in the creation narrative taught by the Church and the folks on this forum.

According to most, if not everyone here, the world was filled with animals but yet somehow man was alone:

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Already we have a problem. If the man is surrounded by animals, then he is not alone. Moreover, God has no need to create any more animals to keep him company.

So, what does God do to solve the problem of the man being alone while surrounded by animals? God creates animals of course:

Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

That makes zero sense, especially when animals were supposedly made *before* man in Genesis 1 according to the false dogma commonly taught.

It's time to stop with the denial and cognitive dissonance.

I have a problem with how you are understanding Genesis 2:18-22.

This is how I would paraphrase these verses: -

Genesis 2:18-22: - 18 And the Lord God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him." 19 {Now} out of the fertile soil the Lord God {had} formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air and {He} brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there did not exist a helper comparable to him {among the created animals}.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.​

This paraphrase creates a very different picture to the paraphrase which the translators have created.

The Hebrew word found in verse 19 translated as "formed" is suggested to only be found twice in the OT and there is a subtle difference between these two occurrences which suggests that their meaning is very different.

1762551554485.png

which is why I have suggested that verse 19 should read as "{Now} out of the fertile soil the Lord God {had} formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air . . . ".

It is for this reason that I am suggesting that Exegesis' expressed understanding is not in keeping with God's word.
 

Exegesis

Member
Jun 22, 2025
417
92
28
62
Salt Lake
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
I have a problem with how you are understanding Genesis 2:18-22.

Thanks @Jay Ross . Indeed some translations add the word 'had' in front of the word 'formed'.

Genesis 2:19 (New International Version) Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

My question to you then would be how you handle the phrase 'will make' in the previous verse?

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

In other words, we have a man that is already pre-existing, then God says "I will make", as in a future point in time. Your translation is contradicting between 18 and 19.

Or are you arguing, as some do, in favor of the interpretation where God makes *additional* animals after man is created?
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,902
6,853
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
@Spiritual Israelite

Your foolishness is inexcusable!
1762609158095.gif

As if anything you say should be taken seriously? What is the name of your cult again?

What does Genesis 4:10 teach?

How utterly senseless it is to imagine that anything can be hidden from Yahweh. That is exactly what the verse is teaching, Spiritual discernment! How vain and empty are the lies we use to conceal our sins, for truly, “all things are naked and exposed to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:13).

Even those times when you try in vain to misrepresent a verse and think you can uphold your error with it.

I'm glad to be placed on ignore and to remain there thanks
I don't ignore anyone. I refute their false teaching just like I'm doing in your case. You have no scripture to refute my arguments. Emotional rants are all you have to offer. Your belief in the false doctrine of soul sleep causes you to misinterpret a great deal of scripture. You need to repent of believing in that false doctrine.

By the way, I hadn't even posted in this thread, so it looks like you have made a fool of yourself yet again by referring to me when you meant to refer to someone else.
 

Exegesis

Member
Jun 22, 2025
417
92
28
62
Salt Lake
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Now is a good time to mention that the original couple God created (before dying after eating the Forbidden Fruit) did not have any reproductive organs. That is why they did not have any 'shame':

Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

I would also like to point out that the verse does not say 'Adam and Eve'. Again, the 'man and his wife' were not the Adam and Eve we all know and love. It's those little details that often get ignored.

So, why were they not ashamed? Because they had no private parts to be ashamed of. There was no shame or 'uncomeliness' to see:

Revelation 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

Before the Fall, the man and his wife were angelic beings, and angelic beings do not have reproductive organs. This should be common sense.

Reference:
1762612715290.png

1 Corinthians 12:23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

1762612146689.png
Thus, the 'male and female' in Genesis 1:27 and 1:28 are *after* the Fall:

Genesis 1:27-28 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

They are Adam and Eve who *were* created with reproductive organs. Obviously, they have the ability to 'be fruitful and multiply'.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Spiritual Israelite

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,902
6,853
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Now is a good time to mention that the original couple God created (before dying after eating the Forbidden Fruit) did not have any reproductive organs. That is why they did not have any 'shame':



I would also like to point out that the verse does not say 'Adam and Eve'. Again, the 'man and his wife' were not the Adam and Eve we all know and love. It's those little details that often get ignored.

So, why were they not ashamed? Because they had no private parts to be ashamed of. There was no shame or 'uncomeliness' to see:



Before the Fall, the man and his wife were angelic beings, and angelic beings do not have reproductive organs. This should be common sense.

Reference:
View attachment 73344



View attachment 73343
Thus, the 'male and female' in Genesis 1:27 and 1:28 are *after* the Fall:



They are Adam and Eve who *were* created with reproductive organs. Obviously, they have the ability to 'be fruitful and multiply'.
What a bunch of nonsense. You really need to change your username because it does not reflect your approach to scripture. Change it to Eisegesis or something. The reason that Adam and Eve, the first humans (not angels - LOL!) were not ashamed of their bodies is because they had not yet sinned. They became ashamed after they sinned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cassandra

Exegesis

Member
Jun 22, 2025
417
92
28
62
Salt Lake
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
What a bunch of nonsense. You really need to change your username because it does not reflect your approach to scripture. Change it to Eisegesis or something.

So, we meet again @Spiritual Israelite . You are another one I took off ignore to give another chance. I noticed many of you here can't help but to throw in some insult with every post.

Anyhow, let's see what you got...

The reason that Adam and Eve, the first humans (not angels - LOL!) were not ashamed of their bodies is because they had not yet sinned. They became ashamed after they sinned.

So what changed? What did the Forbidden Fruit do to them?
 

Nancy

Encounter Team - Eagle
Staff member
Encounter Team
Apr 30, 2018
17,784
27,214
113
Greensboro NC
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Coming to this just now so, I haven't read all 5 pages. Sorry if this was already been said but, maybe God intended for us to live forever by eating of the Tree of Life (Jesus)...?
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,902
6,853
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
So, we meet again @Spiritual Israelite . You are another one I took off ignore to give another chance. I noticed many of you here can't help but to throw in some insult with every post.
Deal with it. Your interpretations are so ridiculous that it makes it impossible to not make light of your username. To deny that Genesis 2:25 is referring to Adam and Eve shows an incredible lack of discernment on your part. You can't even understand elementary things. It's sad.

So what changed? What did the Forbidden Fruit do to them?
Eating of it made them aware of good and evil and made it so that they would "surely die".

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

Exegesis

Member
Jun 22, 2025
417
92
28
62
Salt Lake
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Coming to this just now so, I haven't read all 5 pages. Sorry if this was already been said but, maybe God intended for us to live forever by eating of the Tree of Life (Jesus)...?

Hi @Nancy . Why do you believe that Jesus is the Tree of Life?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy

Nancy

Encounter Team - Eagle
Staff member
Encounter Team
Apr 30, 2018
17,784
27,214
113
Greensboro NC
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Hi @Nancy . Why do you believe that Jesus is the Tree of Life?
Hi Exegesis,
The only way to eternal life is through The Son, and He IS the way the truth and the LIFE. I believe that if A&E ate from the tree of life, they would have lived forever, same with Jesus.
Thank you for the reply!
 
  • Love
Reactions: Exegesis

bdavidc

Well-Known Member
Mar 31, 2025
1,133
1,105
113
67
Charlestown, IN
know-the-bible.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
So how do we know which is the correct interpretation?
Your post is not biblical for two reasons. First, its conclusion is built by forcing one Hebrew idiom to take a meaning that the rest of Scripture never gives it. The phrase “moth tamuth” only intensifies the certainty of God’s warning, and the Bible itself tells us what death entered through Adam’s sin. Scripture says sin brought spiritual death and physical death into the world ~Ephesians 2:1; ~Romans 5:12. Adam was immediately separated from God when he ran from His presence ~Genesis 3: 8, and God told him that his body would return to dust ~Genesis 3:19. The post claims that the common understanding fails because it does not line up with other judgment passages, but those verses only speak of physical execution, they do not describe the reality of Adam’s fall.

The post is an SDA style interpretation. The Ministry Magazine article he is quoting is a Seventh Day Adventist publication. Their doctrinal position attempts to make Genesis 2:17 mean something that fits annihilationism and denies ongoing spiritual death. That is why the article attacks the plain reading of Scripture. But Scripture already interprets the deaths that came through Adam, and they are not limited to physical execution.

The Bible interprets Genesis 2:17 through its own testimony. It is clear that spiritual separation from God was immediate, that physical mortality entered, and that loss of fellowship with God was part of sin’s penalty. Nothing in Scripture supports the conclusions in this post.
 

bdavidc

Well-Known Member
Mar 31, 2025
1,133
1,105
113
67
Charlestown, IN
know-the-bible.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
The Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) teaching looks biblical on the outside, but their doctrine at its heart is contrary to the Word of God. Scripture tells us salvation is completed in Christ ~John 19: 30, but the SDA teaching of an Investigative Judgment says Christ is still investigating believers to determine their fate. The Bible says judgment for the believer is not for condemnation ~Romans 8:1 and takes place at His appearing ~2 Timothy 4:1, not in a heavenly courtroom.

Scripture says the dead are either with the Lord or in torment ~Philippians 1: 23, ~Luke 16:22 through 23, but the SDA teaching of soul sleep is contrary to the Bible, which never teaches this doctrine.

Scripture says the Spirit is received by faith at the moment of belief ~Galatians 3: 2, ~Ephesians 1:13, but the SDA doctrine of law keeping and Sabbath observance as a basis for salvation is contrary to the Bible which calls these a shadow of things to come fulfilled in Christ ~Colossians 2:16 through 17.

Scripture says Christ's sacrifice was once for all and fully complete ~Hebrews 10:10 through 14. The SDA doctrine of the atonement teaches that atonement was not complete at the cross.

The SDA message adds to the gospel. The Bible says, "If anyone brings a different gospel let him be accursed ~Galatians 1:8. Only the Word defines truth and anything that is contrary to the Word must be rejected.
 

Exegesis

Member
Jun 22, 2025
417
92
28
62
Salt Lake
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Hello @bdavidc . Let's see what you got...

Your post is not biblical for two reasons.

I'm listening.

First, its conclusion is built by forcing one Hebrew idiom to take a meaning that the rest of Scripture never gives it.

Actually, the conclusion is consistent with all other uses of the phrase 'surely die'. Using the word 'idiom' is going to lose you a bit of credibility.

The phrase “moth tamuth” only intensifies the certainty of God’s warning,

So, what you are saying is that the phrase 'surely die' is not only literal, but really REALLY literal.

...and the Bible itself tells us what death entered through Adam’s sin.

There were two deaths that happened as a result of Adam's sin:
  1. 1st Death: The grave
  2. 2nd Death: The Lake of Fire
Both happened on that very day.

Note that there is no 'Third Death' taught anywhere in Scripture.

Scripture says sin brought spiritual death and physical death into the world ~Ephesians 2:1; ~Romans 5:12.

So according to your interpretation, 'spiritual death' is the Second Death. Thus, according to what you just wrote, both physical death and the Second Death happened to Adam. You just contradicted yourself. :p

Death is death. There is no such thing as a 'magickal mystery unicorn fantasy death' in which nothing happens physically to a person.

Adam was immediately separated from God when he ran from His presence ~Genesis 3: 8

Yes, that is a picture of the Lake of Fire. A common interpretation is 'separation from God' which is what you are describing:

1762712812857.png

...and God told him that his body would return to dust ~Genesis 3:19.

God told that to the Second Adam that was created on the Sixth Day. So yes, that particular Adam lived for many years in the physical body that he chose and with the parents that he chose.

Did you even bother looking at the next verse?

Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

A new being was just created and had to be named. Do you not understand that the previous woman had a different name? You better go back and read Genesis 1 to 3 again. Eve is nowhere to be found before the Fall.

You need to reconcile why there were two different women with two different names. Until you do that, you are always going to teach falsely like everyone else.

The post claims that the common understanding fails because it does not line up with other judgment passages, but those verses only speak of physical execution, they do not describe the reality of Adam’s fall.

You are busted. You can't have it both ways. The meaning of 'surely die' does not change from one verse to the next because it does not line up with your false narrative and false understanding.

The reality of Adam's Fall was way more profound than you currently can grasp. It's up to you to do your homework, come up to speed, and correct yourself as I had to do. God got me for believing the lies you and others here promote. It was not fun to be chastised.

The post is an SDA style interpretation.

So we are arguing 'style' now?

The Ministry Magazine article he is quoting is a Seventh Day Adventist publication.

I couldn't care less where Truth comes from. If it's Truth, it's Truth even if it comes from Satan himself.

Prove the article wrong and then maybe you have something instead of ad-hominem.

Their doctrinal position attempts to make Genesis 2:17 mean something that fits annihilationism

The Bible does not teach 'annihilationism', nor does it teach 'infinite torments'. So far, no one here has the cognitive capacity to comprehend what I have been posting. Automatically, that makes everyone here unqualified to respond since they don't even know what they are responding to or even arguing about in the first place. It's all been knee-jerk reactions to new information. It's sad to watch, yet very predictable.

...and denies ongoing spiritual death.

Which you already defined as the Second Death. You are contradicting yourself again.

There is no 'Third Death' in the Bible.

That is why the article attacks the plain reading of Scripture.

Except it doesn't.

*You* are the one attacking the plain reading. Cognitive dissonance strikes again.

But Scripture already interprets the deaths that came through Adam, and they are not limited to physical execution.

The Bible interprets Genesis 2:17 through its own testimony. It is clear that spiritual separation from God was immediate, that physical mortality entered, and that loss of fellowship with God was part of sin’s penalty. Nothing in Scripture supports the conclusions in this post.

Again, you are contradicting yourself. The Lake of Fire is separation from God. There is no mystical 'Third Death'.

You claim that 'mortality entered' without explaining exactly how that change occurred. Since you don't know, you have no authority to claim I am wrong.

I will give you a hint:

Mortality cannot 'enter' someone unless they were recreated with an entirely new body that had corruption already built into it.

And until you and everyone here understands the sentence I just wrote, there is no reason to debate further. Be courteous and take the time to understand my position as I have with you folks.
 
Last edited: