How many people want to believe in God so they don't go to hell but can't

[aiki]

There is no scripture that supports the idea of an immortal soul. Rather, it is the 'soul' that dies at physical death:

Judges 16:30
Numbers 23:10

There is a resurrection on the last day and then judgement.

This is patently false.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Revelation 6:9-10 (NKJV)
9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held.
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If humans have no immortal soul that survives death, how do the souls of these Christian martyrs come to be in heaven crying out to God before the resurrection of the dead at Christ's return? [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Luke 20:37-38 (NKJV)
37 But even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised, when he called the Lord 'the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.'38 For He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him."[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]But Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob are all dead. THis means, either that God is not the God of these men [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif](which Scripture contradicts flatly) [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]who are dead, or that these men are in some sense still alive. But for these men to be alive without their physical bodies, which is what this passage plainly implies, they would have to have an immaterial nature that survives the death of their physical body (an immortal soul). [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 (NKJV)
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.
15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.
16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. [/FONT]

If there is no immortal soul that exists beyond the death of the physical body, how can the Lord bring with him those who sleep? He doesn't resurrect the dead until verse 16 but he is bringing people with him in verse 14. What's going on here? The obvious explanation is that Jesus is bringing the departed souls of the righteous dead with him to be reunited with their bodies in the resurrection. No other explanation makes sense.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]2 Corinthians 5:6-8 (NKJV)
6 So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord.
7 For we walk by faith, not by sight.
8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.[/FONT]

Paul is here clearly indicating that it is possible to be absent from one's physical body and still exist (in the presence of the Lord). But how could this be possible without an immaterial nature that survives physical death?

Selah.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If humans have no immortal soul that survives death, how do the souls of these Christian martyrs come to be in heaven crying out to God before the resurrection of the dead at Christ's return?[/FONT]

Here's the order of events:

Man dies (the first death).

His soul (spirit essense) returns to God. (Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. Eccl. 12:7)

He is resurrected body and soul, and judged.

Those not 'chosen' are destroyed in the lake of fire, body and soul, the second, and final, death.


The soul isn't 'immortal' just because it returns to God in heaven after the first death. It is just awaiting judgement.

 

[aiki]

Here's the order of events:

Man dies (the first death).

His soul (spirit essense) returns to God. (Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. Eccl. 12:7)

He is resurrected body and soul, and judged.

Those not 'chosen' are destroyed in the lake of fire, body and soul, the second, and final, death.


The soul isn't 'immortal' just because it returns to God in heaven after the first death. It is just awaiting judgement.

I understand what God's Word says about the order of events concerning one's soul after death. I don't agree at all, though, with your idea that God annihilates the wicked in hell. This doesn't agree with Scripture.

The second death is not annihilation. It is the torment of hell where one suffers the eternal loss of well-being. The human soul, therefore, is immortal.

Matthew 25:46 - "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."

Here are some excerpts from Ron Rhodes' book "Reasoning From the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses" that I think are pertinent to this matter:

"The punishment spoken of in Matthew 25:46 cannot be defined as a nonsuffering extinction of consciousness. Indeed, if actual suffering is lacking, then so is punishment. Let us be clear in this: punishment entails suffering. And suffering necessarily entails consciousness. Bible scholar John Gerstner comments, 'One can exist and not be punished; but no one can be punished and not exist. Annihilation means the obliteration of existence and anything that pertains to existence, such as punishment. Annihilation avoids punishment, rather than encountering it.' " (pg. 331)

"How do we know that the punishment in Matthew 25:46 does not entail an extinction of consciousness and annihilation? There are many evidences. For example, consider the fact that there are no degrees of annihilation. As Bible scholar Alan Gomes explains it, 'one is either annihilated or one is not. In contrast, the Scripture teaches that there will be degrees of punishment on the day of judgment (Matt. 10:15; 11:21-24; 16:27; Luke 12:47-48; John 15:22; Heb. 10:29; Rev. 20:11-15; 22:12, etc.)' The very fact that people will suffer degrees of punishment in hell shows that annihilation or the extinction of consciousness is not taught in Matthew 25:46 or anywhere else in Scripture. These are incompatible concepts." (pg. 332)

"Moreover, one cannot deny that for a person who is suffering excruciating pain, the extinction of his or her consciousness would actually be a blessing, not a punishment. As theologian William Shedd notes, 'The guilty and remorseful have, in all ages, deemed the extinction of consciousness after death to be a blessing; but the advocate of conditional immortality explains it to be a curse.' Any honest seeker after truth must admit that one cannot define eternal punishment as an extinction of consciousness.

Torment cannot, by definition, be anything but conscious torment. One cannot torment a tree, a rock, or a house. By its very nature, being tormented requires consciousness. Alan Gomes comments, 'A punishment that is not felt is not punishment..."

Note also in Matthew 25:46 that this punishment is said to be eternal. There is no way that annihiliationism or an extinction of consciousness can be forced into this passage. Indeed, the adjective "aionion" in this verse means "everlasting, without end." ...this same adjective is predicated of God (the "eternal" God) in Romans 16:26, 1 Timothy 1:7, Hebrews 9:14, 13:8, and Revelation 4:9. The punishment of the wicked is just as eternal as the forever existence of our eternal God. Moreover, as Professor Gomes notes,

"What is particularly determinative here is the fact that the
duration of punishment for the wicked forms a parallel with
the duration of life for the righteous: the adjective "aionios"
is used to describe both the length of punishment for the
wicked and the length of eternal life for the righteous. One
cannot limit the duration of punishment for the wicked with-
out at the same time limiting the duration of eternal life for
the redeemed. It would do violence to the parallel to give it
an unlimited signification in the case of eternal life, but a
limited one when applied to the punishment of the wicked."

Selah.
​

 

[Mikecpking]

This is patently false.

Thank you for being so friendly!

Why don't you look into these verses I mentioned and look at the Hebrew word 'Nephesh' and see what it really means?

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Revelation 6:9-10 (NKJV) [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"[/FONT]

What do you think the biblical 'soul' is?

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If humans have no immortal soul that survives death, how do the souls of these Christian martyrs come to be in heaven crying out to God before the resurrection of the dead at Christ's return? [/FONT]

Have a look at Genesis 4:10 with Abel's blood crying from the ground? You can compare this directly with Rev 6:9

If these 'souls' were disembodied, how will they wear the white gowns?

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Luke 20:37-38 (NKJV) [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]37 But even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised, when he called the Lord 'the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.'38 For He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him."[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]But Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob are all dead. THis means, either that God is not the God of these men [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif](which Scripture contradicts flatly) [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]who are dead, or that these men are in some sense still alive. But for these men to be alive without their physical bodies, which is what this passage plainly implies, they would have to have an immaterial nature that survives the death of their physical body (an immortal soul). [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 (NKJV) [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. [/FONT]

If there is no immortal soul that exists beyond the death of the physical body, how can the Lord bring with him those who sleep? He doesn't resurrect the dead until verse 16 but he is bringing people with him in verse 14. What's going on here? The obvious explanation is that Jesus is bringing the departed souls of the righteous dead with him to be reunited with their bodies in the resurrection. No other explanation makes sense.

You have to look at what Jesus said in John 5:28 and 29 and also John 6:

39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

Jesus get the dead from the graves.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]2 Corinthians 5:6-8 (NKJV) [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]6 So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]7 For we walk by faith, not by sight. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.[/FONT]

Paul is here clearly indicating that it is possible to be absent from one's physical body and still exist (in the presence of the Lord). But how could this be possible without an immaterial nature that survives physical death?

Selah.

You miss the bit here which you quoted from Thessalonioans that Paul would be asleep in the grave in between dying and being raised to life. He would not be aware of the passage of time.

Do you believe in the resurrection on the last day?

 

[aiki]

This is patently false. Thank you for being so friendly!

Why don't you look into these verses I mentioned and look at the Hebrew word 'Nephesh' and see what it really means?

I didn't intend to be unfriendly, only matter-of-fact.

I have looked into the meaning of "nephesh" in Scripture quite a bit. Your ideas and those offered in the video you linked to are not new to me. Until relatively recently it was only the Jehovah's Witness cult that was espousing your ideas about the soul.

What do you think the biblical 'soul' is?

I think I've made that clear in my last few posts...

Have a look at Genesis 4:10 with Abel's blood crying from the ground? You can compare this directly with Rev 6:9

If these 'souls' were disembodied, how will they wear the white gowns?

This response attempts to evade my question.

You have to look at what Jesus said in John 5:28 and 29 and also John 6:

39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

Jesus get the dead from the graves.

No, this explanation just doesn't wash. In the passage that I cited from 1 Thessalonians 4 the bodies of the dead are still in their graves when Jesus returns with those who were "asleep in him." (verse 14) THe apostle John is speaking of the raising of the bodies of the dead from their graves while Paul clarifies that the souls of the dead which are already with Jesus in heaven are reunited with their physical bodies at the resurrection. This is in clear accord with Jesus' parable about Lazarus and the Rich Man:

Luke 16:22-23
22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried.
23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]2 Corinthians 5:6-8 (NKJV) [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]6 So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]7 For we walk by faith, not by sight. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.[/FONT]

Paul is here clearly indicating that it is possible to be absent from one's physical body and still exist (in the presence of the Lord). But how could this be possible without an immaterial nature that survives physical death?

You miss the bit here which you quoted from Thessalonioans that Paul would be asleep in the grave in between dying and being raised to life. He would not be aware of the passage of time.

Paul's physical body is "asleep" in the grave but Paul's soul will return with Jesus at the Last Day and be reunited in the resurrection with his physical body, which is what the passage in 1 Thessalonians clearly indicates. This is also plainly implied when Paul writes about being "absent from the body and to be present with the Lord." How can one be absent from one's body and yet present with the Lord if the soul does not survive the death of the body?

Selah.

 

[Mikecpking]

I didn't intend to be unfriendly, only matter-of-fact.

I have looked into the meaning of "nephesh" in Scripture quite a bit. Your ideas and those offered in the video you linked to are not new to me. Until relatively recently it was only the Jehovah's Witness cult that was espousing your ideas about the soul.



I think I've made that clear in my last few posts...



This response attempts to evade my question.



No, this explanation just doesn't wash. In the passage that I cited from 1 Thessalonians 4 the bodies of the dead are still in their graves when Jesus returns with those who were "asleep in him." (verse 14) THe apostle John is speaking of the raising of the bodies of the dead from their graves while Paul clarifies that the souls of the dead which are already with Jesus in heaven are reunited with their physical bodies at the resurrection. This is in clear accord with Jesus' parable about Lazarus and the Rich Man:

Luke 16:22-23
22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried.
23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.



Paul's physical body is "asleep" in the grave but Paul's soul will return with Jesus at the Last Day and be reunited in the resurrection with his physical body, which is what the passage in 1 Thessalonians clearly indicates. This is also plainly implied when Paul writes about being "absent from the body and to be present with the Lord." How can one be absent from one's body and yet present with the Lord if the soul does not survive the death of the body?

Selah.

Before I go on, what do you think a soul is?

 

[aiki]

What does the Bible teach about the human soul?

1. It is distinct from the physical body, yet intimately connected to it and dwelling within the body. (Ps. 31:9; 131:2; Isa. 10:18; 26;9; Matt. 10:28)
2. It experiences and expresses sorrow, bitterness, joy, love, anguish, vexation, discouragement, etc. (Gen. 34:3; 42:21; Nu. 21:4; Deut. 6:4, 5; Ju. 16:16; Job 3:20; Ps. 35:9)
3. It is capable of choosing and remembering. (Job. 7:15; La. 3:20)
4. It may, as a unique, personal entity depart, and return to, the physical body that housed it. (Gen. 35:18; 1Ki. 17:21, 22)
5. As a term, used interchangeably in Scripture with the term "spirit." (Isa. 26:9)


Selah.

 

[RisingSpirit]

How many people want to believe in God so they don't go to hell but can't

ZERO

 

[Mikecpking]

Selah.

Hi,
While 'spirit' and 'soul' are used interchangeably, they are NOT the same.

Here are some standard definitions of the biblical soul:
THE PICTURE - WINDOWS Nephesh - Psyche - Soul
The important passage in Genesis 2:7 sets the scene for this 'window - word' into the nature of personhood. An individual becomes a 'nephesh' from the infusion of divine breath into moulded dust. In physical terms 'nephesh' means, 'neck', 'throat', 'gullet' and came to mean 'life', that 'vital motion' which distinguishes a living being from a corpse.

'Nephesh' has such a variety of senses that we must make a careful definition in each particular case. Meanings overlap and are used side by side. It is easy to end up with contradictory statements about 'nephesh'. Here are some of the central statements about 'nephesh':-
• it is that vital life which is shared by both humans and animals [Gen 2:19].
• it is life that is bound up with the body, blood is the vehicle of nephesh [Dt 12:23], at death it dies [Nu 23:10] draining away with the blood, with resuscitation it 'returns'; not that it has gone anywhere.
• it can denote 'the living individual themselves' [Gen 14:21], and can replace the personal pronoun to create special emphasis [Ps 42:6], God uses it of himself [Am 6:8].
• it is strongly instinctive [animal] activity; desire, vital urge, feeling, emotion, mood [Dt 14:26].
• it is feelings and emotions of a spiritual kind; grief, pain, joy, peace, love [Ezk 27:31]; its highest expression is longing for God [Ps 25:1].
The New Testament uses the Greek 'psyche' with the sense of the Hebrew 'nephesh'. Paul's writings are significant for how rarely he uses it. The Synoptics are interesting in that one third of their usage refers to life beyond death [Mt 10:28,39; 16:25-26; Mk 8:35-37; Lk 9:24; 21:19], due to the overlap of present and future in the Kingdom of God; revolutionary in terms of its Hebrew roots.
This 'nephesh' is primarily the life of the whole person in terms of strongly instinctive [animal] activity. It reflects the glory and richness of God's gift of life to him though susceptible to death. It is not an independent substance which, as many have argued, survives death. It is, as we shall see a highly complex image very easy to misinterpret.
Ruah - Pneuma - Spirit
This 'picture - window' into personhood highlights our unique relationship with God.'Ruah' has its roots in the 'wind' which emphasises both its powerful and yet subtle nature. 'Ruah' is used in a number of different contexts:-
• for the wind in nature.
• for the nature of God's being ['Spirit of God', 'Holy Spirit']; dynamic, overwhelming, at times completely dominating [Jg 6:34], the root of prophesying [ISam 10:5-6] and abnormal strength [Jg 14:6].
• for demonic activity [ISam 16:14].
• for the 'principle of life' [akin to 'nephesh' often used interchangeably]. It is the life force present everywhere; independent, universal, it does not die.
*for the vital energy dwelling within each individual, that force which affects temperament.
Human 'ruah' is more than just the natural breath we breathe [which is 'nesama']. There is a vital energy within each person which is the result of the special 'in-breathing' of God; the centre of thoughts, decisions, moods, and is the dimension of personhood most directly open [FONT='Arial','sans-serif']to the influence of God. 'Ruah' particularly stresses:
the direction of the will, it is the energy behind willing and acting, that which urges good and evil [Isa 29:24; Ps 51:12].
• the deep emotions; passion [Jg 8:3], grief [Gen 26:35] zeal [Hag 1:14], often seen in the panting of excitement or distress which is different from normal breathing.
• the seat of individual moral qualities and attitudes [Ecc 7:8; Isa 57:15; Num 14:24]. Ezekiel sees the Messianic age as a period when individuals will be permeated by Yahweh's 'ruah' which in turn will renew their own [11; 19; 18:31; 36:26; 39:29]. This is one of the most important words in Paul's vocabulary with his emphasis on regeneration, sanctification, fellowship with God [Gal. 5:22-23 etc].
• the experience of being in touch with God and under God's influence. The human 'ruah' searches out God's ways [Ps 77:7; Isa 26;9], it can be stirred or hardened by God [Jer 51; 11; Dt 2:30
'Ruah' presents us with human nature's in interplay with the nature of God. It is stressing a person open to and transmitting the life of God [Rm 8:16; ICor 2:10-11]. It has no physical 'animal' character, [never associated with blood], transcending mere desire or feeling.
Leb - Kardia - Heart
'Leb' is a 'window - word' that looks in at personhood in terms of deepest emotions and from the perspective of intellect and will. 'Leb', in some ways, draws together every spiritual process. It is'conscious spiritual activity'.It was early recognised that emotions and intense feelings produce physical effects in the heart [slow, quick, intermittent pulse rates, sometimes strong pain]. So it has come to picture the epicentre of the human person as an emotional being. Other bodily organs have been drawn alongside to add other facets to this idea:-
• Kidneys: the unfathomable depths of an individual, centre of emotions that only God can search out and test [Jer 11:20; 12:2; Isa 29:13].
Bowels: emotions that can be deeply agitated; seething fermenting, troubling Job 30:27; Lam 1:20].
Inwards-Belly: emphasising the unique character of human spiritual nature in contrast to the external world [Phil 3:19; Jn 7:38]
• Bones: the basic structural element in man; spiritually and emotionally as well as physically [Ps 35:10; Pr 3:8], they suffer seismic shock in emotional distress [Jer 23:9].The other very important emphasis of 'leb' is personhood in terms of their inner direction; the deliberate conscious activity of the will and the responsibility it brings. What comes from an individuals heart is 'the distinct property of the whole person' making them responsible for it. The 'responsible will' is central to the biblical concept of the 'heart'. Making God's will our own requires a new heart [Ezk 36:26].]
Paul in his writings uses 'kardia' with all the senses of the Hebrew 'leb', but enlarges it by the introduction of two other words that emphasis 'will' and ' responsibilities':-
• Mind [nous]: human intellectual capacity [Phil 4:7] which may be good or bad. It may be immoral, vain, corrupt defiled [Rm 1:28; Eph 4:17]. It contains God's law [Rm 7:23] and in a Christian is renewed transforming life [Rm 12:2], imparting the mind of Christ [ICor 2:16]
• Conscience [suneidessis]: human faculty for moral judgment. It can be defiled [ICor 8:7] or pure [ITim 3:9]. It is that consciousness of 'being right within one's heart' [Rm2:15].So 'leb' is conscious spiritual activity, stressing the sense of responsibility.
Contrast : Nephesh, Ruah, Leb
It will be quite clear that 'nephesh', 'ruah', and 'leb' overlap one another at significant points.The distinctions between 'nephesh' and 'leb' at the higher level of understanding is very difficult. They are often used interchangeably [cf Ex 6:9 with Jg 16:16; Ecc 7:8 with Job 6:11], and yet they are not the same. The distinction is found back at their roots.The overlap between all three is to be expected when we remember each is considering the whole man from a slightly different angle. Their contrasting stresses may be seen as:-
• Nephesh : instinctive 'animal' activity.
• Leb : conscious spiritual activity.
• Ruah : personhood open to the influence of the nature of God.'Nephesh' and 'leb' stand in contrast with 'ruah' between them. 'Nephesh' and 'ruah' stress the 'lower' and 'higher' levels of consciousness.
Basar - Sarx - Flesh
'Basar' is the 'window - word' that looks at 'the whole life substance of personhood organised in visible form'. It is common to both human and beast. As we have seen we do not have a body, we are a body. 'Basar' is 'nephesh' in its outward form, the same reality is involved, a person as a living being. It is the whole tangible form of a person controlled by the 'nephesh', [there are different Hebrew words for simply the muscular parts of the body and for a lifeless corpse]. The Hebrew scriptures do not have a word for 'the body' in the way we would understand that term [the whole]. 'Basar' is 'flesh', though [as we shall see] the New Testament term 'body' is rooted back into it.The Bible places high value on a person's physical aspect, 'basar' affirms our physical existence. It destroys the Greek idea, that has so often polluted Christian thinking, that 'the flesh' is a prison cell, the enemy of the spirit, which incarcerates the 'real self in matter.

 

[Mikecpking]

So in a nutshell, the Hebrews never believed like Plato did as a person comprising of 'parts', rather as 'aspects'. 'Nephesh' is not the person's essence, rather it is the 'life' or the whole person itself!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ooops.

 

[Mikecpking]

Eternal life, or immortality, isn't granted until the judgement. At the first death one's spirit/soul, is in the keeping of God, but is not yet immortal. That should settle the argument.

Correct, but I would not call it a 'soul' due to the confusion of meanings as posed by Plato which has influenced the church for centuries and we live eternity after the judgement in a new resurrection body, not a disembodied existence.

 

[aiki]

Hi,
While 'spirit' and 'soul' are used interchangeably, they are NOT the same.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

THE PICTURE - WINDOWS Nephesh - Psyche - Soul
The important passage in Genesis 2:7 sets the scene for this 'window - word' into the nature of personhood. An individual becomes a 'nephesh' from the infusion of divine breath into moulded dust. In physical terms 'nephesh' means, 'neck', 'throat', 'gullet' and came to mean 'life', that 'vital motion' which distinguishes a living being from a corpse.

Genesis 2:7 (NKJV)
7 And 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 being.

Ron Rhodes observes,

"It is true that in the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for soul (nephesh) can be used in reference to a living being. Genesis 2:7 is clearly an example of this. But because the word can be used in this sense does not mean that it is limited to this sense, or that man does not have an immaterial nature...Indeed, Genesis 2:7 is telling us what man is (a living being), not what he is not. In other words, while Genesis 2:7 affirms that man is a living being, it does not deny in any way that man has an immaterial nature." ("Reasoning from the Scriptures" by Ron Rhodes. pg. 308)

This 'nephesh' is primarily the life of the whole person in terms of strongly instinctive [animal] activity. It reflects the glory and richness of God's gift of life to him though susceptible to death. It is not an independent substance which, as many have argued, survives death. It is, as we shall see a highly complex image very easy to misinterpret.

I'm afraid that this conclusion is not borne out by what preceded it. All that was established before this conclusion was offered is that the term "nephesh" is a term used to refer to a wide array of things. In fact, this is what you state about the term:

"'Nephesh' has such a variety of senses that we must make a careful definition in each particular case. Meanings overlap and are used side by side. It is easy to end up with contradictory statements about 'nephesh'."

You then proceed to offer examples of the variety of ways in which the term "nephesh" is used. But this doesn't by any means permit you to conclude that the OT doesn't use the term ever to refer to man's immaterial nature. You haven't yet offered anything close to a reason to think this. In fact, your "important passage" (Genesis 2:7) fails to clarify anything other than that man is a living being. As Ron Rhodes points out, Genesis 2:7 says nothing at all about whether or not a man has an immaterial nature.

Consider these two passages:

Genesis 35:18 (NKJV)
18 And so it was, as her (Rachel's) soul was departing (for she died), that she called his name Ben-Oni; but his father called him Benjamin.

1 Kings 17:21-22 (NKJV)
21 And he stretched himself out on the child three times, and cried out to the Lord and said, "O Lord my God, I pray, let this child's soul come back to him."
22 Then the Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came back to him, and he revived.

In both these passages the soul is not identified as merely an animating energy that came from God and is returned to Him. When Rachel dies in childbirth it is her soul that departs her body, not God's life-force. When Elijah calls upon God to revive the dead boy he asks, not for God to give the boy some of His divine life-energy, but specifically for the boy's soul to be returned to his body. It is "the soul of the child" that comes back to the child's dead body and causes its revival, not merely the animating breath of God.

Both passages also clearly differentiate between the soul and the body. In both passages the soul continues to exist beyond the decease of the body.

*for the vital energy dwelling within each individual, that force which affects temperament.
Human 'ruah' is more than just the natural breath we breathe [which is 'nesama']. There is a vital energy within each person which is the result of the special 'in-breathing' of God; the centre of thoughts, decisions, moods, and is the dimension of personhood most directly open [FONT='Arial','sans-serif']to the influence of God.

You haven't shown that this is the case, I'm afraid. As I pointed out, you can't use Genesis 2:7 as the foundation for how you interpret all other references to "nephesh" or "ruach." Genesis 2:7 does not speak for or against the existence of man's immaterial nature, so it cannot be used to restrict the fundamental meaning of "soul" or "spirit" only to "life-force."

Contrast : Nephesh, Ruah, Leb
It will be quite clear that 'nephesh', 'ruah', and 'leb' overlap one another at significant points.The distinctions between 'nephesh' and 'leb' at the higher level of understanding is very difficult. They are often used interchangeably [cf Ex 6:9 with Jg 16:16; Ecc 7:8 with Job 6:11], and yet they are not the same. The distinction is found back at their roots.

The terms "dead," "deceased," and "expired" all have different roots but they all may refer equally well to one who is no longer living. The differences in their roots have little if any bearing on how they may be appropriately used or understood. Context is what predominantly determines meaning, both with these words and ones like "nephesh" or "ruach" that we encounter in the Bible.

I do agree that "heart" does not equate fully to "soul" or "spirit." I don't think the Bible leads us to think that it does.

The overlap between "ruach" and "nephesh," however, is significant and expected when one recognizes that, like "dead" and "deceased," they refer often to essentially the same thing: the immaterial nature of a human being.

The overlap between all three is to be expected when we remember each is considering the whole man from a slightly different angle. Their contrasting stresses may be seen as:-
• Nephesh : instinctive 'animal' activity.
• Leb : conscious spiritual activity.
• Ruah : personhood open to the influence of the nature of God.'Nephesh' and 'leb' stand in contrast with 'ruah' between them. 'Nephesh' and 'ruah' stress the 'lower' and 'higher' levels of consciousness.

I don't think the "stresses" you outline here accurately characterize general, fundamental meaning of either "nephesh" or "ruach." You have offered a lot of information in your last post about these terms (and others), but without presenting an argument that justifies your conclusion that the Bible does not teach that people have an immaterial nature that is distinct from, and survives, the death of the body. A tidal wave of facts does not constitute a valid argument or rationale for your conclusions.

Selah.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Correct, but I would not call it a 'soul' due to the confusion of meanings as posed by Plato which has influenced the church for centuries and we live eternity after the judgement in a new resurrection body, not a disembodied existence.

Once again I defer to the words of Jesus;

Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Soul is the term used in the Greek. That Jesus makes the distinction between body and soul should make it clear. That immortality or final death isn't pronounced until the judgement should explain why some 'souls' seem to be conscious after physical death. Man's spirit/soul is in the keeping of God until the judgement.

Plato may have been overthinking the issue.

 

[RisingSpirit]

...
THE PICTURE - WINDOWS Nephesh - Psyche - Soul
...

So, Nephesh is what keeps all things living or alive including plants and all living things?

 

[Mikecpking]

So, Nephesh is what keeps all things living or alive including plants and all living things?

Because 'nepshesh' is associated with blood and all breathing creatures, this would not include plants (gen 1:26, 2:7, 2:19

 

[Mikecpking]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Genesis 2:7 (NKJV)
7 And 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 being.

Ron Rhodes observes,

"It is true that in the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for soul (nephesh) can be used in reference to a living being. Genesis 2:7 is clearly an example of this. But because the word can be used in this sense does not mean that it is limited to this sense, or that man does not have an immaterial nature...Indeed, Genesis 2:7 is telling us what man is (a living being), not what he is not. In other words, while Genesis 2:7 affirms that man is a living being, it does not deny in any way that man has an immaterial nature." ("Reasoning from the Scriptures" by Ron Rhodes. pg. 308)

I'm afraid that this conclusion is not borne out by what preceded it. All that was established before this conclusion was offered is that the term "nephesh" is a term used to refer to a wide array of things. In fact, this is what you state about the term:

"'Nephesh' has such a variety of senses that we must make a careful definition in each particular case. Meanings overlap and are used side by side. It is easy to end up with contradictory statements about 'nephesh'."

You then proceed to offer examples of the variety of ways in which the term "nephesh" is used. But this doesn't by any means permit you to conclude that the OT doesn't use the term ever to refer to man's immaterial nature. You haven't yet offered anything close to a reason to think this. In fact, your "important passage" (Genesis 2:7) fails to clarify anything other than that man is a living being. As Ron Rhodes points out, Genesis 2:7 says nothing at all about whether or not a man has an immaterial nature.

Consider these two passages:

Genesis 35:18 (NKJV)
18 And so it was, as her (Rachel's) soul was departing (for she died), that she called his name Ben-Oni; but his father called him Benjamin.

1 Kings 17:21-22 (NKJV)
21 And he stretched himself out on the child three times, and cried out to the Lord and said, "O Lord my God, I pray, let this child's soul come back to him."
22 Then the Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came back to him, and he revived.

You really have to take out the Greek idea of soul into your understanding of the Hebrew scriptures who had no notion of an immaterial essnce called a soul. Lets look at the verse from the NIV as the KJV and NKJV are not known for their accuracy.

Genesis 35:18

New International Version (NIV)

18 As she breathed her last—for she was dying—she named her son Ben-Oni.[a] But his father named him Benjamin.[b]



No mention of soul, 'Nephesh' in this verse is to debote 'life'.

Same again:

1 Kings 17:21-22

New International Version (NIV)

21 Then he stretched himself out on the boy three times and cried out to the Lord, “Lord my God, let this boy’s life return to him!”
22 The Lord heard Elijah’s cry, and the boy’s life returned to him, and he lived.

Here, depending on your bias for translations, nephesh is correctly translated as 'life'.

In both these passages the soul is not identified as merely an animating energy that came from God and is returned to Him. When Rachel dies in childbirth it is her soul that departs her body, not God's life-force. When Elijah calls upon God to revive the dead boy he asks, not for God to give the boy some of His divine life-energy, but specifically for the boy's soul to be returned to his body. It is "the soul of the child" that comes back to the child's dead body and causes its revival, not merely the animating breath of God.

Both passages also clearly differentiate between the soul and the body. In both passages the soul continues to exist beyond the decease of the body.

Now you can see that it is not true if you look at the idea that nephesh = life.

Judges 16:30 Let my nephesh die with the Philistines
Judges 16:30 Lexicon
Numbers 23:10 ..let my nephesh die the death of the righteous
Numbers 23:10 Lexicon

Clearly, the 'nephesh' dies at physical death, you cannot use the word 'soul' with its Platonic meaning, going some place else. It dies.

You haven't shown that this is the case, I'm afraid. As I pointed out, you can't use Genesis 2:7 as the foundation for how you interpret all other references to "nephesh" or "ruach." Genesis 2:7 does not speak for or against the existence of man's immaterial nature, so it cannot be used to restrict the fundamental meaning of "soul" or "spirit" only to "life-force."

On the contrary, it does. Those notes were part of a foundational course as a part of a theology degree. You can see that if the word 'nephesh' was to be translated as soul everywhere that word appears, then you end up with many pseudo-problems. In the case of Gen 2:7, a nephesh means a living, breathing person.

The terms "dead," "deceased," and "expired" all have different roots but they all may refer equally well to one who is no longer living. The differences in their roots have little if any bearing on how they may be appropriately used or understood. Context is what predominantly determines meaning, both with these words and ones like "nephesh" or "ruach" that we encounter in the Bible.

I do agree that "heart" does not equate fully to "soul" or "spirit." I don't think the Bible leads us to think that it does.

The overlap between "ruach" and "nephesh," however, is significant and expected when one recognizes that, like "dead" and "deceased," they refer often to essentially the same thing: the immaterial nature of a human being.

I don't think the "stresses" you outline here accurately characterize general, fundamental meaning of either "nephesh" or "ruach." You have offered a lot of information in your last post about these terms (and others), but without presenting an argument that justifies your conclusion that the Bible does not teach that people have an immaterial nature that is distinct from, and survives, the death of the body. A tidal wave of facts does not constitute a valid argument or rationale for your conclusions.

Selah.

As I can see you are one who likes to study, here is an excellent essay on 'nephesh' and 'psuche' in the OT and NT, well worth reading the 18 pages on it!

Dr. Tory Hoff

Have a nice weekend.

 

[Mikecpking]

Once again I defer to the words of Jesus;

Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Soul is the term used in the Greek. That Jesus makes the distinction between body and soul should make it clear. That immortality or final death isn't pronounced until the judgement should explain why some 'souls' seem to be conscious after physical death. Man's spirit/soul is in the keeping of God until the judgement.

Plato may have been overthinking the issue.

Hi,
keeping inline witht he various meanings of 'psuche and 'nephesh', here was a comment about verses like these from my course notes:

'The New Testament uses the Greek 'psyche' with the sense of the Hebrew 'nephesh'. Paul's writings are significant for how rarely he uses it. The Synoptics are interesting in that one third of their usage refers to life beyond death [Mt 10:28,39; 16:25-26; Mk 8:35-37; Lk 9:24; 21:19], due to the overlap of present and future in the Kingdom of God; revolutionary in terms of its Hebrew roots.'


And from Dr Tory Hoff;

Christ added a sense of resurrection to the Hebred view of N. Throughout OT times people were afraid of those that sought N in order to destroy. Christ, however, taught: "... do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill P; rather fear him who can destroy both P and body in gehenna." (Mat. 10:28) The Hebrews believed man could kill N; but Christ instead taught that man could not kill P. Even though the Jews might try to tamper with P, ultimately they could not. When teaching his disciples to expect persecution, Christ said, "You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and kinsmen and friends, and some of you they will put to death; you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But not a hair of your head will perish. By your endurance you will gain your P." (Lk. 21:19) The Jews were challenged to see that P could be saved if P would be sacrificed. Christ's disciples learned that God still would keep P safe despite even death. "But we are not of those who shrink and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their P." (Heb. 10:39) The P that was sacrificed would receive a full existence and not the sha­dowy existence of the rephaim.

P and N = 'psuche' and 'nephesh'.

 

[aiki]

You really have to take out the Greek idea of soul into your understanding of the Hebrew scriptures who had no notion of an immaterial essnce called a soul. Lets look at the verse from the NIV as the KJV and NKJV are not known for their accuracy.

I don't have a Greek idea of soul, I have a biblical one. And as I look at the OT I see that the Hebrews did recognize that man had an immaterial nature. In any event, your response above ignores completely Ron Rhodes' observation about Genesis 2:7. Why is that?

I don't think the KJV and NKJV are inaccurate, nor do I regard the NIV as a translation superior to either of them. The KJV is archaic and imprecise at times but not, I think, inaccurate. The NASB, the YLT, the RSV, the NLV, the WYC, the ESV - all of these Bible versions use the term "soul" in Genesis 35:18 just as the KJV and the NKJV do. I don't, then, feel the least bit uncomfortable with how I am reading this verse. I will say this, though: the NIV is a very convenient version for you to have chosen to work from in this instance. Very convenient.

Now you can see that it is not true if you look at the idea that nephesh = life.

This is the problem with how you're approaching the verses using the term nephesh: you assume before you read the verses that they must have a particular reading and then impose that meaning upon the verses. This is what you did with Genesis 2:7 and with Genesis 35:18. Eisegesis is not a good approach to biblical hermeneutics.

Judges 16:30 Let my nephesh die with the Philistines
Judges 16:30 Lexicon

The Orthodox Jewish Bible renders this verse as follows:

Shofetim 16:30Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)

30 And Shimshon said, Let me die with the Pelishtim. And he pushed himself with all his ko’ach; and the bais fell upon the rulers, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slaughtered at his death were more than they which he slaughtered in his life.


I think it is perfectly appropriate to read the above verse as the Jews do; a reading which, it seems to me, does not help your case any. The Orthodox Jewish Bible renders the verse in a way that does not emphasize that it is Samson's soul that is dying. And many other Bible versions render the verse exactly as the Jewish version above does. The sense of the verse is merely that Samson intends to die. What part of him is actually dying is not pertinent to the story or even to the proper sense of the verse. It seems to me, then, that you're having to stretch this verse to make it serve as support for your view.

Also, why, when the term nephesh appears in this verse, is it to be understood as meaning "soul"? As you have noted, "nephesh" has a widely varying meaning. So, why, in this instance, can we not think that "nephesh" is simply a self-referencing term (ie "me, my, myself") as it is in a number of other instances in Scripture? What in this verse mandates that "nephesh" be rendered as "soul"? Nothing, that I can see. And in light of how many versions translate "nephesh" as the pronoun "me" in this verse, I think it is appropriate to understand "nephesh" in this instance to have merely a self-referencing meaning.

Numbers 23:10 ..let my nephesh die the death of the righteous
Numbers 23:10 Lexicon

The exact same thing that is true of the verse from Judges concerning Samson holds true for this verse as well. "Nephesh" is rendered by most versions, not as "soul," but as a self-referencing pronoun, which is one of the many meanings it has in other places in Scripture. It seems to me, then, that neither of the above verses help to make the case you're trying to put forward.

Clearly, the 'nephesh' dies at physical death, you cannot use the word 'soul' with its Platonic meaning, going some place else. It dies.

I'm afraid these verses don't show that. See above.

You haven't shown that this is the case, I'm afraid. As I pointed out, you can't use Genesis 2:7 as the foundation for how you interpret all other references to "nephesh" or "ruach." Genesis 2:7 does not speak for or against the existence of man's immaterial nature, so it cannot be used to restrict the fundamental meaning of "soul" or "spirit" only to "life-force."
On the contrary, it does. Those notes were part of a foundational course as a part of a theology degree. You can see that if the word 'nephesh' was to be translated as soul everywhere that word appears, then you end up with many pseudo-problems. In the case of Gen 2:7, a nephesh means a living, breathing person.

I don't know what bearing the fact that your notes are part of course in theology have on whether or not they draw correct conclusions...I have encountered course notes that were in error before.

I'm not suggesting that every time "nephesh" is used it ought to be understood to mean "immaterial nature." As I have already noted, "nephesh" has many meanings. There are, though, times in Scripture when immaterial nature is what is meant by "nephesh."

Yes, Genesis 2:7 uses "nephesh" to refer to a living being, but it doesn't make any comment at all about whether or not man has an immaterial nature.

Selah.

 

[Mikecpking]

I don't have a Greek idea of soul, I have a biblical one. And as I look at the OT I see that the Hebrews did recognize that man had an immaterial nature. In any event, your response above ignores completely Ron Rhodes' observation about Genesis 2:7. Why is that?

I don't think the KJV and NKJV are inaccurate, nor do I regard the NIV as a translation superior to either of them. The KJV is archaic and imprecise at times but not, I think, inaccurate. The NASB, the YLT, the RSV, the NLV, the WYC, the ESV - all of these Bible versions use the term "soul" in Genesis 35:18 just as the KJV and the NKJV do. I don't, then, feel the least bit uncomfortable with how I am reading this verse. I will say this, though: the NIV is a very convenient version for you to have chosen to work from in this instance. Very convenient.

This is the problem with how you're approaching the verses using the term nephesh: you assume before you read the verses that they must have a particular reading and then impose that meaning upon the verses. This is what you did with Genesis 2:7 and with Genesis 35:18. Eisegesis is not a good approach to biblical hermeneutics.

The Orthodox Jewish Bible renders this verse as follows:

Shofetim 16:30Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)

30 And Shimshon said, Let me die with the Pelishtim. And he pushed himself with all his ko’ach; and the bais fell upon the rulers, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slaughtered at his death were more than they which he slaughtered in his life.


I think it is perfectly appropriate to read the above verse as the Jews do; a reading which, it seems to me, does not help your case any. The Orthodox Jewish Bible renders the verse in a way that does not emphasize that it is Samson's soul that is dying. And many other Bible versions render the verse exactly as the Jewish version above does. The sense of the verse is merely that Samson intends to die. What part of him is actually dying is not pertinent to the story or even to the proper sense of the verse. It seems to me, then, that you're having to stretch this verse to make it serve as support for your view.

Also, why, when the term nephesh appears in this verse, is it to be understood as meaning "soul"? As you have noted, "nephesh" has a widely varying meaning. So, why, in this instance, can we not think that "nephesh" is simply a self-referencing term (ie "me, my, myself") as it is in a number of other instances in Scripture? What in this verse mandates that "nephesh" be rendered as "soul"? Nothing, that I can see. And in light of how many versions translate "nephesh" as the pronoun "me" in this verse, I think it is appropriate to understand "nephesh" in this instance to have merely a self-referencing meaning.

The exact same thing that is true of the verse from Judges concerning Samson holds true for this verse as well. "Nephesh" is rendered by most versions, not as "soul," but as a self-referencing pronoun, which is one of the many meanings it has in other places in Scripture. It seems to me, then, that neither of the above verses help to make the case you're trying to put forward.

I'm afraid these verses don't show that. See above.

I don't know what bearing the fact that your notes are part of course in theology have on whether or not they draw correct conclusions...I have encountered course notes that were in error before.

I'm not suggesting that every time "nephesh" is used it ought to be understood to mean "immaterial nature." As I have already noted, "nephesh" has many meanings. There are, though, times in Scripture when immaterial nature is what is meant by "nephesh."

Yes, Genesis 2:7 uses "nephesh" to refer to a living being, but it doesn't make any comment at all about whether or not man has an immaterial nature.

Selah.

Since the only word 'soul' is translated from is 'nephesh', you can see the problem. There is no such thing as an immaterial essence called a soul.

Did you read the link?