What Changed?

Legions of demons, unless you think after the resurrection and the four gospels ending. Satan and the demons were locked up, shows over no more demon possessions nothing to see anymore. They are not around today?

Thank you for sticking to the questions stated in the OP.
It is always a blessing to hear how others feel about their journey with Christ as their savior!

You aren't understanding what I said. You are taking the verse as an absolute statement-absolutely everyone who hasn't believed in Jesus is worthy of death. I don't, thinking it just wasn't worth noting an exception that wouldn't apply to anyone reading, and which would have cluttered and obscured the point - everyone old enough to have made a decision on almost anything at any level is worthy of death apart from believing in Jesus. Therefore the issue of belief in Jesus doesn't necessarily have to apply to the babies in the way you suggest.

And actually your follow up question brings up a good point. There are babies that come into this world saved. John the Baptist would be one example. Holy Spirit can only be placed into a clean vessel yet John was given Holy Spirit in the womb. Holy Spirit is eternal life and therefore salvation. And interestingly, John did recognized Jesus from the womb.

John the Baptist wasn't even a one-time special. I know personally of babies God has done this with, though it has to be done within a very few months of birth and by God's designation. I have even watched some of them grow and seen the fruit of this.

I understand. I do believe it's not absolute, simply true of most.

No, I don't think that. Demons are around, making up 1/3 of an innumerable number of fallen angels. All I'm saying or agreeing with is that most say they are being attacked by Satan rather than being possessed by a demon. I believe that UAPs and aliens are proof that demons are around.

Death is when something no longer can do what it is supposed to do when alive/live. It is not responsive to that which it used to be responsive. A person is dead to the world when they are asleep and no longer responsive to the world. A nerve is dead when it is no longer responsive to the needle inserted into the nerve. A body is dead when it no longer responds to external stimuli, A radio goes dead when it stops responding to the broadcasted radio waves. There is not necessarily separation between the dead thing and the external stimuli. The radio waves are touching the radio receiver, the needle is touching the nerve, the sleeping body is integrally connected to the world.

So, we could perhaps translate Gen 3:3-5 as, "... in the day you eat of it, to die you will die
(or, in the day you eat of it, to become unresponsive you will be becoming unresponsive.)

God did not actually separate from man when man sinned. God is not so fragile that He will become defiled through contact with sin and sinners. Jesus did not become unclean when He touched the unclean; but the unclean who experienced His touch became cleansed. What happened with man sinning was that man became less responsive to the physical creation and to God, and this degradation of responsiveness would lead to complete unresponsiveness toward the physical creation in physical death, and the complete unresponsiveness toward God of a completely calloused heart that denies the reality of God's spiritual realm.

But to describe this as separation, I think, is misleading, because even the unresponsive live and move and have their being in God, which does not sound like separation to me. Our sins separate us from God. They do not separate God from us. God is bigger than that. God is incorruptible no matter how much sin He is in contact with as the sustainer of the universe.

The unresponsiveness of "death" is sometimes a result of separation, but not necessarily so.

THis is an edited version of my previous post. The time expired and I could not complete the edits to that previous post.

Death is when something no longer can do what it is supposed to do when alive/live. It is not responsive to that which it used to be responsive. A person is dead to the world when they are asleep and no longer responsive to the world. A nerve is dead when it is no longer responsive to the needle inserted into the nerve. A body is dead when it no longer responds to external stimuli, A radio goes dead when it stops responding to the broadcasted radio waves. There is not necessarily separation between the dead thing and the external stimuli. The radio waves are touching the radio receiver, the needle is touching the nerve, the sleeping body is integrally connected to the world.

So, we could perhaps translate Gen 3:3-5 as, "... in the day you eat of it, to die you will die
(or, in the day you eat of it, to become unresponsive you will be becoming unresponsive.)

God did not actually separate from man when man sinned. God is not so fragile that He will become defiled through contact with sin and sinners. Jesus did not become unclean when He touched the unclean; but the unclean who experienced His touch became cleansed. What happened with man sinning was that man became less responsive to the physical creation and to God, and this degradation of responsiveness would lead to complete unresponsiveness toward the physical creation in physical death, and the complete unresponsiveness toward God of a completely calloused heart that denies the reality of God's spiritual realm.

But to describe this as separation, I think, is misleading, because even the unresponsive live and move and have their being in God, which does not sound like separation to me. Our sins separate us from God. Because of the guilt and shame and/or pride that results from our sin, we feel separated from God. but our sins do not separate God from us. God is bigger than that. God is incorruptible no matter how much sin He is in contact with as the sustainer of the universe.

The unresponsiveness of "death" is sometimes a result of separation, but not necessarily so.

If this is true, then how can a sinner be saved - since the spirit must be poured out to save him/her?

Really?

Isa 48:8
8 You have neither heard nor understood;
from of old your ear has not been open.
Well do I know how treacherous you are;
you were called a rebel from birth .
NIV

Moreover, rhetorical questions demand a "yes" or "no" answer -- not sometimes. Leopards don't change their spots nor does a black man become a white man.

Also, if either could that would violate the First Law of Logic: the Law of Identity. A is A; A cannot become B. Imagine how utterly chaotic this world would become if one morning we all woke up being something entirely different from what we were.

Yes, God did actually separate himself from man in two ways after Adam fell. Adam died on the day he disobeyed because the Spirit of Life that was breathed into him on the day of his creation was taken from him. Adam lost his spiritual lifeline. Secondly, God unceremoniously DROVE Adam out of the Garden, as he was no longer fit to dwell in God's temple on earth (which the Garden was).

Then you're contradicting yourself because the same God who rescued the helpless, enslaved Israelites in Egypt is the same God who rescues his helpless elect (Rom 5:6) from the kingdom of darkness (Col 1:13) in this New Covenant dispensation.

And by the way, Mr. PT...This merciful God who went into Egypt rescued only his chosen, covenant people. No one else! Ditto for the God of the NC -- he rescues his chosen covenant people who he predestined for life in eternity. Unmistakably clear parallels.

You're mixing "partly dead" with "dead". A person is either dead or he isn't.
You seem to get that idea from your miss-rendering of the conversation between Eve & the serpent:
Eve doesn't mention "day" at all, but the serpent does.

But in God's actual statement (2:17), He says they'll (completely) die in that (very) day:
... for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Gen 2:17 (KJV)
There's nothing there about "becoming gradually" dead.

Ahh...the deniers of Original Sin and its effects conveniently twist v.17 around to say, "for in the day that thou eatest, dying thou shalt die" -- the idea being that the process of physically dying would begin on that day. This is how they try to get around spiritual death and then spin the myth that everyone comes into the world spiritually "neutral" -- which in itself is fatal fabrication of truth since Adam certainly did not come into this world spiritually neutral. He came into it spiritually alive, having the Holy Spirit within him. He came into this world as a "very good" being. But somehow, all his progeny's spiritual status has been mysteriously downgraded to "neutral" -- without any scriptural support for such foolishness.

I have more than 20 translations on my computer and only two paraphrases render the "die" part quite loosely. The NLT renders the phrase, "...you will surely die". And the TLB renders it "...you will be doomed to die." All the other translations are far more rigid, along the lines of how the KJV renders it.

Let's try to be even-handed here. This same structure (Qal infinitive absolute + Qal imperfective/uncompleted) is used in Exodus 18:18

Ex. 18:17 And Moses' father-in-law said to him, "The thing that you are doing is not good.

18. You will surely wear away, i.e. to wear away (Qal infinitive absolute) you will be wearing away (Qal imperfective/uncompleted); both you, and this people that is with you: for this thing is too heavy for you; you are not able to perform it yourself alone.

Is this predicting an instantaneous complete collapse for Moses and the people, if Moses continues on his present course in the next five minutes? Or is it predicting a gradual movement towards wearing out, over months or years, until Moses eventually becomes completely worn out and ineffectual? Personally, I think the latter.

So, in the case of Gen 2:17, "... for in the day that you eat it to die you shall be dying," is also a prediction of a gradual movement towards physical death, which will one day result in complete physical death.

What do you call it when someone is dying?
Are they dead? Partly dead? or perfectly alive?

I refer you to my post #215.

No. I'm contradicting YOU. It's the same God doing both. But the God you are describing is either not that same God, or you have some very perverse misunderstandings about what that God is like, and how that God behaves.

All the while someone is dying, they're 100% alive.
God didn't say, "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely be dying"; He said, "thou shalt surely die".

not a far fetched assumption on a christian chat
psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.
ephesians 2:1-3 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.
romans 6:20 When you were slaves to sin you were free in regard to righteousness

these are stated in the bible, and notice in ephesians 2:1-3 not only were we by nature children of wrath just as the others. but also notice in the beginning it says "and you HE made alive, who were dead". so its God who makes us alive. the dead dont raise themselves.

So when someone is almost dead, they are still 100% alive. You are redefining the English language according to what is needed for Total Depravity an/or original sin to survive on life support.