lets look at Websters:
From Dr Hoff
Nephesh and the Fulfillment It Receives as Psuche
This study investigates the relation between the Old Testament (OT) Hebrew word
nephesh, the New Testament (NT) word
psuche, and soul, the English word often used to translate
nephesh and
psuche.
Webster's
Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary defines soul as the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actual cause of an individual life. Other definitions are 1) the spiritual principle embodied in human beings 2) a person's total self 3) an active or essential part 4) mans moral and emotional nature or the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment. It adds, "both soul and spirit refer to an immaterial entity distinguishable from the body but the word soul is preferred when the emphasis is on the entity having functions, responsibilities, aspects, or a destiny, or when its connection with the body is in view."</SPAN>
The understanding of soul pervasive in contemporary Western culture and here defined in Webster's is similar to the Platonic view of soul prominent in ancient Greek culture. The basic framework for each definition is the same: immaterial entity in contrast to physical body. The growing emphasis from 20th Century scholarship argues against this body/soul dualism that has dominated the history of Western thought. (see van Peursen,
Body,
Soul,
Spirit Intellectuals have argued for the unity of man as opposed to a Platonic or Cartesian dualism. Man is then viewed as essentially one whole organism and not as two substantial entities.
This trend in affirming the 'wholeness' of man has had its influence upon Christian philosophy and Biblical studies. An increasing number of Christians point to differences between Hebrew views and those of the Greco-Roman world. The tendency is to emphasize that the ancient Hebrews did not approach man dualistically as have the Greeks nor, by implication, the general public of contemporary Western society. Claude Tresmontant in
A Study of Hebrew Thought is representative of this development.
Once again we must be careful to avoid interpreting the Hebrew notion of soul in terms of Platonic dualism. Because they recognized no body-soul dichotomy, the Hebrews did not consider the soul the discarnate thing that we imagine it to be. And it is just because we oppose it to 'body' that we think of it in this way. In Hebrew the soul is the man. Indeed we should not say that man has a soul, but that he is a soul; nor consequently that he has a body, but that he is a body. (p. 94)
H.W. Robinson wrote a now famous phrase in
Hebrew Psychology. "The Hebrew idea of personality is an animated body, and not an incarnated soul." (p. 362) (For a detailed examination of the distinction between Greek and Hebrew thought and the influence of Greek thought on the history ofWestern thought, see also Lev Shestov's Athens
and Jerusalem, D.R.G. Owen's
Body and Soul, and 0. Cullman's "Immortality of-the Soul or-Resurrection of the Dead".)
The investigation of the Hebrew view of man has focused on certain anthropological terms. Central to the discussion regarding soul is the Hebrew word
nephesh (hereafter referred to as 'N'). Biblical scholars are becoming aware that they face the problem of using the contemporary view of soul to interpret N. Taking today's understanding of soul into a study of N can only distort the meaning of N in a way that is foreign to the actual Hebrew tradition. As Tresmontant put it, "By applying to the Hebrew N the characteristics of the Platonic
psuche.... we let the real meaning of N escape us and furthermore, we are left with innumerable pseudo-problems." (p. 94)
"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)
#
I did a simple google search. Please do your own reserch without bias.
Google
And why are you so emphatic that they are unaware of why or how they are in a state of damnation, yet they are aware in other ways?
