Re: [asa] AIG's weakly message

From: Merv <>
Date: Tue Feb 13 2007 - 09:25:30 EST

I know that the physical or scientific aspects of this question are
probably beyond our analysis, but my curiosity is more of a theological
nature -- what are the possible Biblically grounded answers to this
question? Because it seems to me that the answer to the "transformed
body" question would come close to the answer to what kinds of death are
referred to in the Bible. With familiar physical death aside, how many
other kinds of death can there be?

Paul speaks of death as being the last enemy that *will* be abolished (I
Cor. 15) Other places he speaks of dying in the present tense (to our
flesh, for example) Jesus himself in John 11:25, 26 speaks of two
different kinds of death in virtually the same thought. "...He who
believes in me, though he die, yet will he live." Which is immediately
followed with "Whoever lives and believes in me will never die." The
latter obviously cannot be referring to physical death lest he
contradict his previous statement. So beyond physical death, it seems
to me there must be at least two other kinds of death (horrific and
final second death of the soul at the judgment) as well as the more
benign and necessary death we are called to experience now. Which kind
is Genesis referring to? I was just trying to approach this question
from the different angle of asking what a transformed body is like in
that it is now beyond death.

Not all passages refer to this as only a future event (Col. 3:1 has it
in present perfect tense -NASB) But since I am willingly being the
foolish subject of Paul's criticism in I Cor. 15:35, I nevertheless
persist in asking how you apply his next verse: "That which you sow
does not come to life unless it dies; and that which you sow, you do not
sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, ..."
SO -- if we don't take the curse of death from Gen 3 to be physical
death -- surely it isn't then the necessary and 'good' death Paul spoke
of above. Our critics jeer us for a plethora of ambiguity on such
things. I'm just trying to work out the theological basis of an answer
to that.


D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:
> I can only note the Pauline language. Our current body is /psychikos/,
> translated "natural," with the root meaning "breath," whence soul. I
> assume that Adam's body was also "natural." We shall have a
> /pneumatikos/ body, with the root meaning "wind," then "breath," which
> is applied to spirit. Assuming that our Lord received a spiritual body
> when he was resurrected, it is something that can be felt, that can
> eat, but is somehow less restricted by matter, though it can
> manipulate it, apparently normally (the Lord prepared breakfast).
> However, I have no idea what the experience of such a body would
> entail, and I'm not sure how to test anyone's guess as to what it
> would be like. The only information we have are the unscientific
> observations recorded by the apostles. So I suspect the kind of answer
> you want is unavailable.
> Dave
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:57:01 -0600 Merv <
> <>> writes:
> Thanks for this corrective, but question of tradition aside, I'm
> curious if and how this would have been an issue for various
> church leaders in history. You say most rejected it, and you
> mentioned a couple. So who were the few (pre-YEC) leaders who
> embraced 'no death before the fall' views? Did they catch flack
> for it from everybody else? Or is it fair to say that, beyond
> theological curiosity, it just wasn't an important issue until
> science came into its own?
> Also I still hope for insights on what a 'transformed' body is and
> has been taken to mean.
> --merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 13 09:20:33 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 13 2007 - 09:20:33 EST