Problems with the evolutionary debate.

random_guy · #31 9th June 2006, 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by bullietdodger

On the contrary I believe that science eventually will comfirm what the scriptures say.

You may believe that, but currently as is, the literal interpretation of the Bible contradicts nearly every discipline in science in some way. Of course, you're welcome to continue hoping that someday science may validate your interpretation, but remember once something is falsified in science, it's very unlikely ever be considered correct. It's no better than believing in Flat Earthism and hoping that someday science will come around and say, "Hey we were wrong about the Earth being round, it's really flat!"

jereth · #32 9th June 2006, 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by bullietdodger

I have been researching the topic, but if you are unwilling to point me to passages which convince you of your theology, then our discussion is a waste of time.

That's fine.

Assyrian · #33 9th June 2006, 05:01 AM

Originally Posted by bullietdodger

How's that for fun. Now either contribute to the discussion or stop posting. You are wasting reading room for those who want to seriously discuss.

I think the wasted pixels began in the OP when you claimed "Problem one with the evolutionary debate is it is focused on biology."

and went on to tell a funny elephant story.

But never mind, as long as you acknowledge it was a bit silly, that's fine.

And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens."
(Genesis 1:20 ESV)

In Genesis 1:20 the word for creature is sherets. You are correct with nephesh being the word for living. In Genesis 1:24 is when chay is used for living and nephesh is used for creature. So you are correct with the words used here. You are correct in Genesis 2:7 with words chay nephesh being used.

I suspect your Strongs linked AV text has got snarled up in the cumbersome AV translation of this verse. If we look at the more literal ESV it translates the two Hebrew words sharats 8317 and sherets 8318, as 'swarm with swarms' and chay nephesh is 'living creatures'.

Have you heard of the term semantic range? Sematic range is the range of words that can be used to describe a translated word. This means that the translators have to pick the best English word to fit the context of the passage, in this case, as you know, the original language is Hebrew. You can get a good idea for this by looking at different translations. Speaking of which. Having looked at the ESV, CEV, KJN, NIV, NET versions we see that all use living creatures (or a variation eg, life=living) for Genesis 1:20 and 24. In Genesis 2:7 we see that the KJV and NIV differ from the above mentioned. The KJV uses 'living soul' while NIV uses 'living being.' So I would disagree that each passage is saying that animals have a soul.

Your problem is that nephesh and ruach have wide semantic ranges and that they are both applied to animals and humans.

Which leaves you without any scriptural basis for the claim "that humans have souls, animals do not." We have shown you the problem with you claim, now you have to back your claim up, or withdraw it.

jereth · #34 9th June 2006, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by bullietdodger

Have you heard of the term semantic range? Sematic range is the range of words that can be used to describe a translated word. This means that the translators have to pick the best English word to fit the context of the passage, in this case, as you know, the original language is Hebrew.

You're just undermining your own argument. If nephesh and ruach are broad terms with a range of meaning, then that pretty much destroys the idea of a distinct theological category of "immortal, immaterial soul". Which verse of Scripture irrefutably says that man has a "soul" that is immortal, immaterial and distinct from the animals?

I'm willing to bet that every occurence of the word nepesh could be better translated "being", "self" etc.