Evolution and the Human Soul

[Mikecpking]

A soul survives death, go read your bible and put down the jewish encyclopedia - it'll do you good. If man's soul didn't survive death then there is no significance for salvation and judgment. If the soul is not an independent "substance" that survives death, then all the writers of the Bible had it wrong. Isaiah 14 --> men of egypt and babylon are within Sheol, conscious of themselves, those around, and those that enter. Rich man and lazarus --> both of whom were aware of their disposition in the after life - a rabbinical parable taught by jesus himself. The human soul not only persists death, it is conscious after death and is of an eternal nature (new jerusalem/gehenna being eternal destinations), with eternal simply meaning "without" end. Like I said, you know not the difference between immortality and eternality, I cannot expect any correct opinions and/or interpretations from you on this matter.

3 verses I posted clearlyt states the 'nephesh' dies at physical death. The Hebrews had no notion of a disembodied soul.

A soul does indeed go down to sheol (grave), but it is still locked into the body until it decomposes into dust.

Here is an interesting article on the word 'nephesh' which highlights what I have been stating:
"The ideas of the grave and of sheol cannot be separated. Every one who dies goes to sheol, just as he, if everything happens in the normal way, is put into the grave. When the earth swallowed up Dathan and Abiram with all that belonged to them, they went straight down into sheol (Num. 16:29ff.), and Jacob now speaks of going into the grave (Gen * 47:30), now of going into sheol (Gen. 37:35). The dead are at the same time in the grave and in sheol, not in two different places." (Pedersen, p. 461) However, it was noteably those who suffered a shameful death, the slain or the wicked enemies of the godly, that were referred to as actually dwelling in sheol. Thus, Pedersen was perhaps not completely accurate when he wrote that all who died went to sheol. "The wicked shall depart to sheol, all the nations that forget God." (Ps. 9:17; see also Ps. 55:15; Prov. 5:6, 7:27, 9:18) Wicked scoffers could even make a covenant with death and sheol. (see Is. 28:15,18) To die a natural death full of years had its honour and satisfaction. One was "gathered to his people" (Gen. 25:8, 35:29, 49:33; Jud. 2:10) or "sleeps with his fathers" (I Kings 2:10, 11:43) in the family grave. Even in death, the godly participate in the family line. Pedersen was correct in holding the opinion that the grave and sheol cannot be viewed as separate; however, it is important to note a difference between his two examples regarding Jacob. In Gen. 37:35 Jacob refuses comfort after being told Joseph his son was killed, but in Gen. 47:30 Jacob's house is in order and he is therefore now ready to die. The word sheol is used, appropriately, only in the first example.
OT Biblical scholars agree that the ancient Hebrews believed N could die. N was subject to death and therefore was a perishable existence. Ruah-breath left flesh, and N thereby ceased to exist since the vitality of N-blood was no longer sustained. There was no idea of an immaterial entity that left the body at death. It was ruah as breath viewed through the synthetic mind of the Hebrews which concretely, visably left. Human wind departed, not an invisible non-physical entity of more value than a body from which it travelled. Breath and flesh returned to their former conditions and the person took on a new existence, a new status, as one of the rephaim. Pedersen tried to re-define soul when he wrote, "When death occurs, then it is the soul that is deprived of life. Death cannot strike the body or any other part of the soul without striking the entirety of the soul...There can be no doubt that it is the soul which dies, and all theories attempting to deny this fact are false." (p. 179)
Samson pleaded, "Let me [N] die with the Philistines." (Jud. 16:30) Balaam said, "Let me [N] die the death of the righteous." (Num. 23:10) According to John Robinson, "There is no suggestion that...the soul (N) is immortal, while the flesh (basar) is mortal. The soul does not survive man--it simply goes out, draining away with the blood." (p. 14)
Murtonen in Living Soul stated, "N is able to die, but the result is not a dead N but the N of a dead." (p. 29) Murtonen noted that a dead N was a contradiction in terms, and asserted that the corpse must have had some form of life or action since N always denoted these properties. Certainly, once N was dead, 'it' ceased existing. Nonetheless, it must be remembered that this 'it' was not an entity removed from the person. It was a body part caught up in the earthly status of the person. With no blood-vitality, the person ceased to exist as N., "Apparently the dying was conceived as a more or less long process during which man was still called N on account of the 'life' or 'action' which took place in the corpse." (Murtonen, p. 29-30)

N = nephesh

From

http://www.drhoff.com/Writings/writings9.htm

 

[Mikecpking]

Despite the fact that every single time a resurrection takes place in the Bible this is exactly what happens, the soul returns to the body. Please stop bombarding me with this baseless theology

Please show me one scripture where the soul returns to the body?

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

The soul is essentially the life bound up in the biody and remains a soul in the grave after death until it decomposes into dust

Wrought with error.

A soul does not remain in the grave in an unconscious state, this is the physical body. And the "life bound up in the body" is the spirit, not soul. This much is crystal clear from ecclesiastes 12. You know not the difference between soul and spirit, in the same manner as you know not the difference between eternality and immortality. The spirit of all men and beasts return to God at death. The souls of all man do not all return to God at death, it is something completely different. Study harder

 

[Mikecpking]

Wrought with error.

A soul does not remain in the grave in an unconscious state, this is the physical body. And the "life bound up in the body" is the spirit, not soul. This much is crystal clear from ecclesiastes 12. You know not the difference between soul and spirit, in the same manner as you know not the difference between eternality and immortality. The spirit of all men and beasts return to God at death. The souls of all man do not all return to God at death, it is something completely different. Study harder

OK, lets look at this scripture

DT 12:23

For the life (soul = nephesh) is the blood

I think God is literally stating the blood is the soul here, don't you?

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Please show me one scripture where the soul returns to the body?

Do you even believe a soul exists? You must then not even know what resurrection is to begin with clearly.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

3 verses I posted clearlyt states the 'nephesh' dies at physical death. The Hebrews had no notion of a disembodied soul.

A soul does indeed go down to sheol (grave), but it is still locked into the body until it decomposes into dust.

Wow, what a load of incomprehensible nonsense...
Sheol is not the grave by the way, you are completely misinformed on practically every element on the topic. The soul of man departs at death, it doesn't remain "locked", and the "spririt" (nephesh) returns to God. Hebrews had no notions of disembodied souls despite the fact that disembodied souls are spoken of and referred to in the OT, particularly Isaiah 14. Yea, you are not well informed

 

[Mikecpking]

Do you even believe a soul exists? You must then not even know what resurrection is to begin with clearly.

Of course, but the soul does exist in physical form.

Genesis 2:7 (King James Version)


7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

This word in red is the Hebrew word nephesh) so literally saying breath of life (nesemah) = moulded dust = living soul. Adam did not get a soul, he became one!

That should be the foundations of our belief system and not what Plato says.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

OK, lets look at this scripture

DT 12:23

For the life (soul = nephesh) is the blood

I think God is literally stating the blood is the soul here, don't you?

You are massively confused, "soul" does not belong where you try to fit it in here whatsoever. Blood is not "soul". Blood is physical, soul is spiritual.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Of course, but the soul does exist in physical form.

Genesis 2:7 (King James Version)


7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

This word in red is the Hebrew word nephesh) so literally saying breath of life (nesemah) = moulded dust = living soul. Adam did not get a soul, he became one!

That should be the foundations of our belief system and not what Plato says.

Becoming a living soul does not imply a physical element, souls are not physical in any form, the body is the sole physical element of the human. For something to be physical it must be tangible and exist in the natural realm, souls do not, our bodies do. You aren't using proper exegesis.

 

[Mikecpking]

Wow, what a load of incomprehensible nonsense...

What is nonsense about the bible?

Genesis 3:19 (King James Version)


19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 (King James Version)


7Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.




Daniel 12:2 (King James Version)


2And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

John 5:28 (King James Version)


28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

Sheol, is the grave. The Hebrews had no idea about |Dualism.

Did you bother to read the article?

Sheol is not the grave by the way, you are completely misinformed on practically every element on the topic. The soul of man departs at death, it doesn't remain "locked", and the "spririt" (nephesh) returns to God. Hebrews had no notions of disembodied souls despite the fact that disembodied souls are spoken of and referred to in the OT, particularly Isaiah 14. Yea, you are not well informed

Sheol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mikecpking]

You are massively confused, "soul" does not belong where you try to fit it in here whatsoever. Blood is not "soul". Blood is physical, soul is spiritual.

But the bible states the blood is the soul

Look it up! The bible was not written in English!!

The word is 'nephesh' and in the OT, whereever you see the word 'soul' is translated from that Hebrew word.

 

[Mikecpking]

Wow, what a load of incomprehensible nonsense...
Sheol is not the grave by the way, you are completely misinformed on practically every element on the topic. The soul of man departs at death, it doesn't remain "locked", and the "spririt" (nephesh) returns to God. Hebrews had no notions of disembodied souls despite the fact that disembodied souls are spoken of and referred to in the OT, particularly Isaiah 14. Yea, you are not well informed

Actually, the word is 'ruach' not Nephesh in Ecclesiates 12:7.

Ruach (breath, spirit) is not the same as 'nephesh (life).

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

What is nonsense about the bible?

The physical body returns to the earth (dust) --> the soul does not remain "locked" in the body until then. You are not pushing the Bible, you are pushing falsehoods and are telling me my objections are against the Bible, which they are clearly not --> they are against these falsehoods.


Wikipedia? You're kidding right? The grave is simply the physical "container" which holds the deceased physical body, Sheol does not exist in the physical domain and is the "container" for the souls of men who await judgment, this is a Biblical certainty.

The Hebrew transliteration for grave --> "kever", never equated with Sheol in any context ever, they are separate and distinct. The Greek word "Hades" is found in the Septuagint 71 times, and is the equivalent for Sheol 64 of those times. The Greek transliteration of grave --> "mneema" never equates Hades in any context whatsoever.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

But the bible states the blood is the soul

Look it up! The bible was not written in English!!

The word is 'nephesh' and in the OT, whereever you see the word 'soul' is translated from that Hebrew word.

Nephesh does not mean soul, the life is in the blood = correct translation. This is the physical life, soul is not physical in any way or form. You really cannot see how it is incorrect to try and materialize something that is in no way or form material.

Also, physical life is something common to all life, which is why animals as well are included in the context of nephesh.

 

[Mikecpking]

What is nonsense about the bible?

The physical body returns to the earth (dust) --> the soul does not remain "locked" in the body until then. You are not pushing the Bible, you are pushing falsehoods and are telling me my objections are against the Bible, which they are clearly not --> they are against these falsehoods.


Wikipedia? You're kidding right? The grave is simply the physical "container" which holds the deceased physical body, Sheol does not exist in the physical domain and is the "container" for the souls of men who await judgment, this is a Biblical certainty.

The Hebrew transliteration for grave --> "kever", never equated with Sheol in any context ever, they are separate and distinct. The Greek word "Hades" is found in the Septuagint 71 times, and is the equivalent for Sheol 64 of those times. The Greek transliteration of grave --> "mneema" never equates Hades in any context whatsoever.

Sorry, but the bible never talks about the 'soul' or 'nephesh' being apart from the body.

Here is the definition of Sheol from the Jewish encyclopedia

JewishEncyclopedia.com - SHEOL

It is th e place of the dead, and in many bible translations is rendered 'grave'.

You could try googling "immortal soul nephesh" and you will be surprised what you will find.

 

[Mikecpking]

Nephesh does not mean soul, the life is in the blood = correct translation.

Now ou have it! The biblical soul simply means 'life' in this context and I have already posted this twice in this thread.

This is the physical life, soul is not physical in any way or form.

Gen 2:7 disagrees with you

You really cannot see how it is incorrect to try and materialize something that is in no way or form material.

Also, physical life is something common to all life, which is why animals as well are included in the context of nephesh.

As the word 'nephesh' is used in all these cases including the word 'soul' where do you draw the line?

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Now ou have it! The biblical soul simply means 'life' in this context and I have already posted this twice in this thread.

The life (nephesh = physical life) is in the blood, it has nothing to do with soul. You misread

Gen 2:7 disagrees with you

Gen 2:7 Does NOT SAY a living soul is PHYSICAL.

As the word 'nephesh' is used in all these cases including the word 'soul' where do you draw the line?

Nephesh is a word that delineates the physical life of all flesh, can you not understand this? After man dies, there is no more "nephesh", but the soul still persists. The soul is NOT PHYSICAL, and is not tied to nephesh.

The opinion of a prominent Bible scholar--> Dr. Joel M. Hoffman notes that the word refers to the "tangible aspects of life."

It is clear nephesh refers to tangible aspects of life, that is physical.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Sorry, but the bible never talks about the 'soul' or 'nephesh' being apart from the body.

Here is the definition of Sheol from the Jewish encyclopedia

JewishEncyclopedia.com - SHEOL

It is th e place of the dead, and in many bible translations is rendered 'grave'.

You could try googling "immortal soul nephesh" and you will be surprised what you will find.

Sheol is not grave, english translations that equate the two are in error. I gave you the full Biblical evidence to this fact in regards to the original greek/hebrew transliterations.

 

[Assyrian]

Then you clearly do not know what "resurrection" signifies. Resurrection is simply a reunion between "body" and "soul". The reason for resurrection is so that the souls of men who lost their physical body will regain them once again. There is absolutely no correlation in what you argue. Identity is not lost at death, nor do souls pass out of non-existence but go down to Sheol (believer's go to be with Christ ->> phillippians).

Not just a 'reunion', a transformation. But you haven't mentioned why we need transformed bodies if the soul encompasses our identity. Anyway, where does Paul say in Philippians that it is the believer's soul that goes to be with Christ?

What makes you think this identity survives death because it a 'soul', rather than being the work of God who is alone immortal? Even if the human soul is intrinsically eternal (contradicting 1Tim 6:16),

Being "immortal" is NOT the same as being "eternal", understand this. There is no contradiction, it is simply a misunderstanding on your part. Humans are eternal beings, open your eyes and understand this simple, obvious truth. Never does a human soul pass into non-existence, and "eternity" follows the great white throne judgment, eternity being something that every human is a part of, Sweet Lord.

Sorry you haven't answered my question.

why is this not simply a quality God has given the human soul and not animals? Remember Solomon though it was possible for animals to have a spirit that dies with the body while the human spirit could return to God. Eccles 3:21

Spirit =/= Soul

Human: (Body(Soul(Spirit)Soul)Body)
Beast: (Body(Spirit)Body)

I'm not saying spirit=soul. I am asking why souls have to be intrinsically eternal, when spirits don't. Why there can't be an animals soul that returns to the dust like its spirit does.

So I will ask again, where does the bible say we are eternal beings because we have souls?

Wrong causality, we have souls and are thus eternal beings. Humans do not pass into non-existence at death. Identity is retained at death, clearly scriptural. The soul of man is what persists, and it will persist eternally --> read Isaiah 14 (the men of Sheol not only realize who they are and those around them, but they know who enter). The Great White Throne Judgment is further evidence to the persistence of man's identity after death.

You are still not answering the question, though you managed to repeat what I said when you corrected me. Where does the bible say it is our souls that mean we are eternal beings?

The reason why salvation exists is -because- men are eternal. Salvation does not exist for the animal kingdom because they do not have an eternal disposition, mankind does.

Some scriptural basis would be nice.

The whole reason why we ae capable of all this is due to the soul that is inescapably set with an eternal disposition

Again, please back this claim up with scripture.

Absolutely not. The extent of animal "spirituality" is limited to ecclesiastes (the "spirit" of beasts) and the term -"living" beings- from genesis. Anytime you actually read the term "soul" it is consistently and exclusively in relation to a human, never a beast. The Bible speaks nothing of animal souls, simply because there is no such thing.

How can you say that when Genesis uses exactly the same term describing Adam being a living soul nephesh chai as it uses for animals? Here is an intersting verse where translators tie themselves up in knot to avoid saying animals have souls
Lev 17:11 AV For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
The only problem is 'life' and 'soul' are the same word. here is how Darby translates it
Lev 17:11 Darby for the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul.

Of course you touch on the real problem with the word soul, that it may simply mean we have the breath of life, that we are alive and breathing. This come out more clearly in some modern translations
Lev 17:11 NIV For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.
Lev 17:11 NLT for the life of the body is in its blood. I have given you the blood on the altar to purify you, making you right with the LORD. It is the blood, given in exchange for a life, that makes purification possible.
Lev 17:11 NRSV For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the blood that makes atonement.

But if you want to be consistent, either animals have souls or soul simply means 'life'.

Instead you claim salvation would be extended to animals if they had souls, which (a) the bible does not say

Whether you want to accept it or not, salvation is not extended to animals because they have no eternal disposition as humans do, and the eternal disposition of humankind is accomplished due to the existence of his soul.

And yet you give no scriptural basis for this.

So will the trees, grasshoppers, boulders, rocks, pebbles,...etc. Rocks will not be redeemed nor resurrected. You are erroneously applying the verse here

You don't actually know the nature of the new creation to make such a claim, though I doubt the new earth will cater for an animist view of rocks, you still have animals sharing in the new creation.

It is not meant to say we are alike animals in any literal form, but in a theological sense. Again, wrongfully applied

Show me where I am wrong then. From the text preferably.

"For man goes to his eternal home while mourners go about in the street. Remember Him before the silver cord is broken and the golden bowl is crushed, the pitcher by the well is shattered and the wheel at the cistern is crushed; then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.” (Ecc.12)

Pay close attention. The spirit returns to God. Do the souls of all men go to God? No (i.e. Rev 20:15).

Rev 20:15 does not mention souls, though it does follow the judgement before the great white throne, where they certainly were before God. It is fascinating though that you seem to be proposing people's souls and spirits whizzing off in different directions after death.

Does the spirit of all men return to God? Yes. However, this happens only at death. The “spirit” is essenatilly the “breath” of God, which is the life of all living beings.

Oddly enough, that is the meaning of nephesh too.

Regardless if it is of a righteous man, wicked man, or beast of the earth, at death this life “returns” to God. The soul of man is something different, unique, and as I have been saying, eternal. The Bible speaks more than enough on the state of man’s soul after death (i.e. Sheol/Gehenna).

When Jesus spoke of Gehenna it was the body being thrown into Gehenna or the body and soul being destroyed there. Not the soul going there on its own.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Not just a 'reunion', a transformation. But you haven't mentioned why we need transformed bodies if the soul encompasses our identity.

Past resurrections did not include a transformation, that is not a required component of "resurrection" but is rather a unique element that will be necessitated only at the coming of Christ. The resurrection is only for those who are dead in Christ, those who are alive get caught up and transformed, not resurrected.

The soul is the seat of our identity, the glorified bodies are simply the shells we will obtain that will allow us a physical existence in the New Jerusalem, as mortal bodies cannot be in the presence of a holy God. You do not understand the necessity nor the significance of the glorified body, it is not negated by the soul of man. It is for the believer to be conformed to the likeness of Christ so as to allow our existence in the very presence of God.

20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.

Anyway, where does Paul say in Philippians that it is the believer's soul that goes to be with Christ?

Absent from the body --> present with the Lord. (2 Cor.5:6-8)

23 For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. (Philippians 1:23)

Paul understand his departure from his physical body equated with him going to be with Christ.

I'm not saying spirit=soul. I am asking why souls have to be intrinsically eternal, when spirits don't. Why there can't be an animals soul that returns to the dust like its spirit does.

You do not understand the difference between the two, that is the cause for your confusion. It is not "spirits" (plural) but rather "spirit" (singular), it is simply the borrowed breath of God that gives life to all living beings.

Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth?

The spirit (singular) of men (plural)
-A single, common substance.

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls;

Your (men = plural) souls (plural).
-Individual, unique possessions

That is precisely what the scriptures reveal, "spirit" is intrinsic in its nature of simply being the breath of life (no eternal component whatsoever, it is absolutely exclusive to physical existence) whereas souls are intrinsic in their eternal nature, as they are in need of redemption in order to reverse the eternal disposition from Gehenna to the presence of a Holy God.

How can you say that when Genesis uses exactly the same term describing Adam being a living soul nephesh chai as it uses for animals? Here is an intersting verse where translators tie themselves up in knot to avoid saying animals have souls
Lev 17:11 AV For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
The only problem is 'life' and 'soul' are the same word. here is how Darby translates it
Lev 17:11 Darby for the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul.

Of course you touch on the real problem with the word soul, that it may simply mean we have the breath of life, that we are alive and breathing. This come out more clearly in some modern translations
Lev 17:11 NIV For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.
Lev 17:11 NLT for the life of the body is in its blood. I have given you the blood on the altar to purify you, making you right with the LORD. It is the blood, given in exchange for a life, that makes purification possible.
Lev 17:11 NRSV For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the blood that makes atonement.

But if you want to be consistent, either animals have souls or soul simply means 'life'.

It is not a question of what you deem to be consistent. The life of flesh is in the blood --> pertains to physical life, blood is physical. Nephesh is a word referencing the tangible (PHYSICAL) aspects of life COMMON TO ALL LIVING BEINGS. This makes atonement for the soul --> soul is not physical, it is a spiritual component. Darby translates it wrongfully, and note that the souls belong to man --> "your" souls, like I said you cannot seem to understand "souls" are always used consistently in the context of belonging to men and never animals. Atonement is not needed for animals because animals do not have souls that require atonement in the first place.

And yet you give no scriptural basis for this.

Mankind inescapably are set with an eternal disposition, and are thus beings of an eternal nature.


"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

"The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever...And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire."

"Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. Then I, John,[a] saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God."

Mankind possess souls-->the element of human existence requiring atonement, atonement being needed for the capacity to sin.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’" (Lev.17:11)

The identity of man does not/cannot pass into non-existence at death.
-Isaiah 14/Revelations 20:11

The eternal disposition of man and his soul are inextricably linked in scripture. This is an obvious and clear Biblical principle you do not seem to understand.

You don't actually know the nature of the new creation to make such a claim, though I doubt the new earth will cater for an animist view of rocks, you still have animals sharing in the new creation.

And this bears absolutely no significance to the argument at hand, as it does not show any evidence for/against the animal soul. They will simply be present, evidently.

Show me where I am wrong then. From the text preferably.

I said in my heart, “Concerning the condition of the sons of men, God tests them, that they may see that they themselves are like animals.”

The text is clear, it is not meant to connect men with beasts in any literal form whatsoever, it is simply a theological simile.

Rev 20:15 does not mention souls, though it does follow the judgement before the great white throne, where they certainly were before God. It is fascinating though that you seem to be proposing people's souls and spirits whizzing off in different directions after death.

Does not mention souls? The dead are being judged, and in what form do you think they are? It is the souls of all the dead, and they are being judged --> can you not understand this is only accomplished due to their identities being in tact and in existence. Does not Christ tell us both body and soul get thrown into gehenna? A body is given only prior to the individual being tossed into Gehenna. You do not seem to want to make the connections.

Proposing? If you do not want to trust scripture, that is your issue. Are you not able to follow simple, scriptural truths? Ecclesiastes 12 makes it clear the "breath" that God gives all living flesh returns to Him at death. Do the souls of all men go to God at death? If you have read the Bible enough you will know the answer, it is not what I am proposing, it is what scripture is saying. Spirit is simply the breath of life.

Oddly enough, that is the meaning of nephesh too.

"nephesh" delineates the tangible aspects of all living flesh, this much is clear, as it is a reference to the physical life --> blood. Soul is not physical nor tangible.

When Jesus spoke of Gehenna it was the body being thrown into Gehenna or the body and soul being destroyed there. Not the soul going there on its own.

He confirmed both body and soul, He speaks about the very thing I am trying to make clear to you --> the eternal disposition of the soul in Gehenna. You are missing the point completely here, it is perfectly evident nonetheless.