No Spiritual Death

[Ray the atheist]

Preamble

I’ve been studying the Adam and Eve story for a few months. I'm an agnostic atheist and I don't believe in the supernatural and therefore, cannot use theological interpretations.

My understanding of the text is not beholding to any theological position.

I’ve noticed a recurring pattern in apologetics. When the Genesis text doesn’t explicitly say something, later theology is sometimes used to supply the missing meaning.

A good example is the claim that the “death” God warned Adam and Eve about in Genesis 2:17 was actually “spiritual death.”
But where does Genesis say that?

A very popular apologetic that I get on reddit appeals to later biblical passages:

1. “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.” Romans 5:12

2. “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1 Corinthians 15:22

3. “Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.” Ezekiel 18:4

4. “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins.” Ephesians 2:1

But none of these passages actually says “The death in Genesis 2:17 was spiritual death.”

So the question is whether the text implies a theological interpretation, or whether the interpretation is being imported into Genesis from later theology.

Definitions

1. Death: Permanent cessation of an organism’s biological functions.
2. Spiritual: Relating to supernatural, religious, or non-material existence.
3. Theological interpretation: Understanding a text through theological concepts or doctrines.
4. Interpretation: Determining or explaining a text’s meaning.
5. Eisegesis: Reading an external idea into a text.
6. Exegesis: Deriving meaning from a text through analysis.

Argument

P1: Paul and Ezekiel never explicitly identify Genesis 2:17’s death as spiritual death.

P2: Later theological writings cannot establish Genesis’s original meaning without textual evidence from Genesis itself.

C: Genesis 2:17 does not establish “spiritual death” as its meaning.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #1]

While I don't think your conclusion follows from the premises as stated, I do agree with the premises separately. But I also think Genesis 2:17 is very clearly not talking about an immediate death or even just physical death. This comes from the context of the author(s) of Genesis and the larger piece of writing this was a part of.

First, I think it's highly unlikely that the author(s) would present God as speaking to an immediate physical death in Genesis 2:17 and then immediately show that to be a lie.

Second, from 3:22 we see that living forever is tied to eating the tree of life, not tied to refraining from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Narratively, these humans could already die if they didn't eat from the tree of life.

Third, we have the broader context of the other writings around Genesis that would have been connected. In these life and death are often framed as relational terms rather than just biological ones (such as in Deuteronomy 30).

[Mr E]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #1]

So the question is whether the text implies a theological interpretation, or whether the interpretation is being imported into Genesis from later theology.

I'll suggest a third alternative. The text is an always has been "spiritual" in nature and the understanding of it has been lost and clouded by bad theology. In fact, if you ignore or try to diminish the spiritual nature that scripture is really about, you've lost the whole point of it-- because the "good news" centers on the promise of life after this life ends, and the foundational element is that spiritual realm and supernatural dimension. The reason you don't understand is because you reject the very element that is the key to understanding and the reason you reject it is because you don't understand it. Deep and true.

Not to fault you-- you've probably never had it presented to you in a way that can make sense.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to Mr E in post #3]

I'll suggest a third alternative. The text is an always has been "spiritual" in nature and the understanding of it has been lost and clouded by bad theology.

The text itself doesn't support your hypothesis.
We could just as easily suggest that the authors were writing myths for some reason.

We know that many cultures have myths.
We don't have to speculate about that.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to Mr E in post #3]

In fact, if you ignore or try to diminish the spiritual nature that scripture is really about, you've lost the whole point of it-- because the "good news" centers on the promise of life after this life ends, and the foundational element is that spiritual realm and supernatural dimension. The reason you don't understand is because you reject the very element that is the key to understanding and the reason you reject it is because you don't understand it. Deep and true.

Circular reasoning

You claim I don’t understand because I reject the supernatural, then claim rejecting the supernatural proves I don’t understand.
That merely assumes your conclusion.

Begging the question

You simply assert that Scripture’s “spiritual realm” is real, then treat that assumption as the explanation for why I supposedly fail to understand Scripture. You have to demonstrate that the text is meant the way that you understand it, and not just assert it. Saying something doesn't make it so.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #2]

While I don't think your conclusion follows from the premises as stated

If my conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, my argument is logically invalid and I would have to re-think the whole structure, which would be a disaster.

Please elaborate on how my conclusion doesn't follow from my premises.

I'm curious.
Thanks

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to Mr E in post #3]

Not to fault you-- you've probably never had it presented to you in a way that can make sense.

In thirty years of debunking apologetic arguments, none of it makes any sense.
I'm trying to make sense of your arguments.

So far, they have all suffered from logical fallacies.
When I spot a fallacy, I make a point of letting the person know.

I give reasons why I rejected your arguments so far.
I still have not had it presented to me in a way that can make sense.

[Mr E]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #5]

Circular reasoning

You claim I don’t understand because I reject the supernatural, then claim rejecting the supernatural proves I don’t understand.
That merely assumes your conclusion.

Begging the question

You simply assert that Scripture’s “spiritual realm” is real, then treat that assumption as the explanation for why I supposedly fail to understand Scripture. You have to demonstrate that the text is meant the way that you understand it, and not just assert it. Saying something doesn't make it so.

You have it exactly right. You just don't accept or recognize that I've just described what you are doing. You don't understand and you then reject the scripture because you first reject the supernatural, spiritual, or divine dimension. That too is circular reasoning. You demand proof of the thing you won't accept as true, without realizing you are the proof you are looking for. You have the breath of life in you. Seek within.

[Mr E]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #4]

The text itself doesn't support your hypothesis.
We could just as easily suggest that the authors were writing myths for some reason.

We know that many cultures have myths.
We don't have to speculate about that.

What I'm suggesting is that the story itself is a kind of parable with dual meanings, and more than that-- the essential part that must be understood is the spiritual meaning, not the mundane physical reflection which is a poor quality image of the greater "super" natural. That folks try to take a spiritual meaning and reduce it to literal, physical, natural understanding is an error common to all parables.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to Mr E in post #8]

You have it exactly right. You just don't accept or recognize that I've just described what you are doing. You don't understand and you then reject the scripture because you first reject the supernatural, spiritual, or divine dimension. That too is circular reasoning. You demand proof of the thing you won't accept as true, without realizing you are the proof you are looking for. You have the breath of life in you. Seek within.

Begging the question

You’re still assuming the supernatural is true, then treating my refusal to accept that assumption as evidence that your assumption is correct.