If sin is not imputed without the law, how can some claim that babies and children die because Adam's sin is imputed to them?

[PaulThomson]

How does that work in comparison to the change happening in a twinkling of an eye? That would have to be a very long "eye twink".

And if Jesus' body is not being upheld by the power of God, then by what mechanism is His body gloriously immortal?

Jesus is immortal because He is ever-existing, without beginning or end. Created spirits are ever-existing, They all have a beginning, and they can all have an end. However, they can be sustained by God forever, if God wills. Genesis and Revelation indicate that the mechanism God chooses to use to sustain saints' physical health and life into the future is the tree of life. Restriction from the tree of life brings physical death, and access to the tree of life gives healing and endless life.

 

[Mem]

God an be made out to be a liar, if someone translates His words in such a way as to make Him seem a liar.

Do a word search on "surely" and you will find plenty of examples where the outcome is predicted and was not immediately effected but was gradually brought to pass. Some have Been taught the doctrine of original sin, and are needing to post hoc rationalise their belief in original sin. To do so, they enlist this verse, claiming it says death will immediately come to pass, and therefore the death referred to cannot be not physical death, so must be spiritual death, separation from God. They then apply this "separation from God kind of death" to all Adam's descendants, even in the womb, and so prove to their own satisfaction, but not to mine, that original sin is a real thing.

Here are some texts that use the structure "infinitive absolute verb form + imperfective verb form pair" that are describing a gradual outcome, not an immediate outcome.

Gen 28:22 And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me ( עַשֵּׂר אֲעַשְּׂרֶנּוּ , infinitive absolute + imperfective piel) unto thee.

Gen 32:12 And thou saidst, I will surely do ( הֵיטֵב אֵיטִיב , infinitive absolute + imperfective hiphil) thee good, and make thy seed as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.

Gen 50:24 And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die: and God will surely visit ( פָּקֹד יִפְקֹד , imperfective Qal + infinitive absolute.) you, and bring you out of this land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

There are many others. You can do the word search yourself, if you are interested in the truth.

The usual occurrence happened when I submitted my post #553 and wanted to edit or at least submit a follow-up post asking about the usage of the word "shall." And I saw this to relate somewhat so I took it for an added opportunity to bring it back up.

Recently having noted that its usage, when it is otherwise so seldomly used, strikes me as being somewhat, idk, pretentious? or is precocious the word I'm in want of? I don't want to go forward without a more solid and proper understanding of it.

It is my understanding that when this word is used, it is stylistically meant to be an amalgamation of words 'should' and 'will' and I shall continue to do so until I'm sufficiently corrected. And I do suppose that the most effective correction might be an argument that, since the word is used in reference to God and what He 'shall' do, my understanding of the word implies that God 'should' or 'shouldn't do anything at all. However, we 'should' expect God to do such things that effect His purposes. Shall we?