Theistic Evolution - When did soul and spirit come in?

[Job 33:6]

We have come a long way in the last 2,000 years. If you do not want to trust science that is up to you. Are you ready to give up your car, phone, air conditioner and all the other things we get from science? All the things we have discovered in the last 2,000 years.

I use Science to better understand our Bible. I see no conflict or contradictions at all.

We are talking about the Bible, not science. All things we have discovered in the last 2,000 years were unknown to the Biblical authors. Hence why the Bible does not mention them. I'm not denying science, I'm simply informing you that the Bible doesn't describe science as you know it today.

The Bible cannot mean what it never meant to the original authors.

 

[Diamond72]

Bible doesn't describe science

You got it backward. I said science is a method we can use to better understand our Bible. Of course, the Bible does help science. Esp in the area of archeology.

The scientific method is a systematic approach used in scientific inquiry to acquire knowledge, explore phenomena, and test hypotheses. It involves a set of steps that guide the process of scientific investigation.

The scientific method is iterative and self-correcting, with new evidence and insights leading to modifications and refinements of hypotheses or theories. It provides a systematic and objective framework for scientific investigations, promoting the accumulation of knowledge and the advancement of scientific understanding.

 

[Job 33:6]

You got it backward. I said science is a method we can use to better understand our Bible. Of course, the Bible does help science. Esp in the area of archeology.

The scientific method is a systematic approach used in scientific inquiry to acquire knowledge, explore phenomena, and test hypotheses. It involves a set of steps that guide the process of scientific investigation.

The scientific method is iterative and self-correcting, with new evidence and insights leading to modifications and refinements of hypotheses or theories. It provides a systematic and objective framework for scientific investigations, promoting the accumulation of knowledge and the advancement of scientific understanding.

There's nothing backwards with what I'm describing. You can't read futuristic 21st century science backwards into the Bible. For example:
And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
Genesis 1:14 NRSV

You cannot read the above passage and say "well we know that the sky is outer space, therefore the dome must be talking about space.

This would be commiting a hermeneutical error known as scientific concordism. Because the Biblical authors never thought of space the way we do. They didn't know that stars were billions of light years away, and so to suggest that this is what scripture means, is an error.

Genesis 7:11 and Genesis 8:2 describes floodgates in the raqia opening and closing to release the waters above. There are not scientifically real windows in a dome in the sky.

Another example:
It grew as high as the host of heaven. It threw down to the earth some of the host and some of the stars, and trampled on them.
Daniel 8:10 NRSV

The Bible here is not saying that a ram knocked down asteroids to earth. It literally means stars fell down onto the ground. As if they are not giant balls of fire many times bigger than earth. Just as it says. Stars in conjunction with the heavenly host.

You cannot remove the text from its original intended meaning. Else you will end up confused about what it says

 

[Aussie Pete]

Psalms are songs. Do you learn science from songs?

The psalms are God's word. God's word is truth. Truth can be in written, spoken or even song form. If science agrees with God's word, there is no controversy. If science explains things that God's word ingores (e.g. why the sky is blue), fine. It's where science disagrees with God's word that there is a problem. God's word is truth. That's the final authority.

Many of the early and most influential scientists were Bible believing Christians. Science and Christianity need not clash. That there is a clash is due to mankind's spiritual blindness, not because of God's word.

 

[trophy33]

The psalms are God's word. God's word is truth. Truth can be in written, spoken or even song form.

But not literal truth. Poetical truth.

Also, I am afraid that people who say "this is God's word" in this technical way like you do, have frequently squeezed out the human author from the text. Like if the Bible was simply dictated by God and not from the hearts of human authors.

But no established church I know of accepts the dictation theory of inspiration. Only isolated individuals or small local communities. And it leads them to various extreme views like Flath Earth, KJVO and similar. Why should you stop in anti-evolutionism and not go all the way to Flat Earth, thinking in kidneys, literal Leviathan in the sea etc?

 

[Andrewn]

One of the best books on the "whole man" (actually 3 in 1 book(s)) is "The Spiritual Man" by Watchman Nee.

I read this book long ago and appreciate its definition of the human spirit. The problem is that he accepts Plato's definition of the soul being composed of emotions, will, and intellect.

According to the Outline of Biblical Usage, which is based on the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, in addition to the frequent use of "nefesh" H5315 to mean the whole person or being, "nefesh" may refer to the following cognitive processes:

1. seat of the appetites
2. seat of emotions and passions
3. activity of mind
   1. dubious
4. activity of the will
   1. dubious
5. activity of the character
   1. dubious

So the "soul" doesn't really include the mind, will, and character. Contrary to Watchman Nee, these are functions of the spirit.

 

[Aussie Pete]

But not literal truth. Poetical truth.

Also, I am afraid that people who say "this is God's word" in this technical way like you do, have frequently squeezed out the human author from the text. Like if the Bible was simply dictated by God and not from the hearts of human authors.

But no established church I know of accepts the dictation theory of inspiration. Only isolated individuals or small local communities. And it leads them to various extreme views like Flath Earth, KJVO and similar. Why should you stop in anti-evolutionism and not go all the way to Flat Earth, thinking in kidneys, literal Leviathan in the sea etc?

Why do you make such an absurd assumption? I don't believe flat earth, KJVO (I never read the KJV) or UFO's. I do believe that God says what he means and means what He says. Why not literal leviathan? Ostriches are real enough. Both are stated in Job. Does God lie about one and not the other? Behemoth is an accurate description of a dinosaur. New sea creatures are still being discovered. Maybe Leviathan was real but has died out. Even dragons are a possiblity. Many cultures refer to dragons, as far apart as China and England. I don't know that the Chinese came to England and spread the dragon myth. I find it more likely that dragons were real.

Do you not imagine that God could ensure that His words were accurately recorded? Sure, the structure of prose varies according to the writer. Paul and Peter have much different styles. The content is what matters, not the delivery.

 

[Terri Dactyl]

Just a question. You do not have to answer... I am just making a point.
In these verses, who or what "brought forth" the plants and the animals?

Genesis 1:11-12 KJV
11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the
fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and
the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:24 KJV
24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle,
and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

God spoke words into the earth. His word does not return to Him void. His Word has the power. The earth obeyed His command and, over time, brought forth according to the Word He spoke into it. I am reminded of Jesus speaking to the fig tree. The fig tree did not dry up instantly. It was the next day. The tree "dried up from the roots." Things were happening in the tree immediately, but the full effect was not visible until a period of time. So there is precedence for the creative World of God to manifest over time.

I see it as a life factory. If I owned a gizmo factory and you asked me what I did for a living, I could say "I manufacture gismos." But the full truth is I tell my workers to "bring forth gizmos." They run the machines and mold the material into the end product.

It says that the plants, etc will come from the earth. Doesn't mean we have to wait around for them. They don't come from the air.
The same book that says Creation was 6 days is the same book that say Jesus is Savior. If you discard part of it, how do you know the rest is true? Jesus referenced Noah, and so did Paul--is the Flood fake too?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

It says that the plants, etc will come from the earth. Doesn't mean we have to wait around for them. They don't come from the air.
The same book that says Creation was 6 days is the same book that say Jesus is Savior. If you discard part of it, how do you know the rest is true? Jesus referenced Noah, and so did Paul--is the Flood fake too?

I would reply, but since I said none of this, there is nothing to reply too.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

In the beginning there was nothing.
Then it exploded.

I saw a news report that they have found a distant galaxy which they believe is closer to the site of the big bang. I wonder that if the speed of sound is slower than that of light, when they get closer to the site, their instruments might record a voice saying: "Let there be light!"?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thread title should be self explanatory. What was the first creature(s) to have a soul and to have a spirit? Were soul and spirit imbued at the same time or different times? When and where did each take place? What evidence leads you to your answer? Interested in hearing what people think about this. I'm sure this isn't an exhaustive list, but here's a few maybe starting points off the top of my head.
1) The first living thing
2) Complex lifeforms with brains and such
3) Do dogs go to heaven? (e.g. sometime in the evolution of mammals)
4) Primates
5) Early humans (Homo erectus or thereabouts)
6) The first evidence of religion associated behaviors in humans (burying the dead, etc.)
7) Some other time?

Notice: This posting originally only asked about the soul, and was modified to include spirit when it was explained to me that they are not the same thing.

Some are of the opinion that soul and spirit aren't the same thing. A view known as Trichotism, that human beings are composed of three components: body, soul, and spirit. This view is fairly recent in the history of Christianity. Generally, the majority of Christians have held to some form of dichotomism, human beings are both material and immaterial; the material being the body, and the immaterial being the soul or spirit. There are other views besides either of these, but dichotomism is by far the most common.

With that out of the way. The question needs to go back further to "what is a soul?"

Traditionally Christianity tends to embrace the idea that "soul" refers to the animating princeiple of something. And so Christian philosophers have often borrowed from Greek philosophy to varying degrees, so for example making distinction between a vegetative soul, an animal soul, and a rational soul. A vegetative soul is the kind of life which plants have, animals have another kind of life. The term "rational soul" refers to that sort of life which is considered rather unique to human beings. Human beings uniquely possess sapience, the rational and reasoning faculties which raise us above other animals. Both men and dogs have animal life, but only humans have rational life--only human beings are rational in our ability to think about our place in the universe, to wonder about moral concerns, and the like. And in a specifically Christian context, that means only human beings are morally responsible. Only human beings can sin. And only human beings can bear the kind of unique relationship with God that requires a moral, rational sort of life. Of all earth's creatures, only human beings pray, for example.

So the question being asked first requires answering "what is a soul?", or "what is meant by 'soul'?"

I would answer something like this: As far as the "first rational soul", well whenever someone first understood that they were a someone and were able to wonder about their place in the universe--that's a rational soul. Once there was a someone, we are talking about a rational soul.

When that happened in the history of biological evolution is almost certainly an impossible question to answer. And how that relates to Adam and Eve becomes an even more complicated question rife with theological and philosophical speculation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Andrewn]

The term "rational soul" refers to that sort of life which is considered rather unique to human beings. Human beings uniquely possess sapience, the rational and reasoning faculties which raise us above other animals. Both men and dogs have animal life, but only humans have rational life--only human beings are rational in our ability to think about our place in the universe, to wonder about moral concerns, and the like. And in a specifically Christian context, that means only human beings are morally responsible. Only human beings can sin. And only human beings can bear the kind of unique relationship with God that requires a moral, rational sort of life. Of all earth's creatures, only human beings pray, for example.

I don't have a problem w/ including the human spirit (rational soul) as a part of the human soul.

But I think it is easier and more consistent w/ the Bible, both OT and NT, to think of them as separate (and connected) parts. This is especially the case since the biblical concept of "flesh" includes the lower soul, which is being contrasted in the Bible with the spirit.

Tripartite (theology) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't have a problem w/ including the human spirit (rational soul) as a part of the human soul.

But I think it is easier and more consistent w/ the Bible, both OT and NT, to think of them as separate (and connected) parts. This is especially the case since the biblical concept of "flesh" includes the lower soul, which is being contrasted in the Bible with the spirit.

Tripartite (theology) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Biblically, I think it's difficult to come up with a complete schematic of the human person. Scripture uses a lot of different terms to describe aspects of what being human is. For example when Scripture speaks of the heart, we know that's not literally speaking about the blood-pumping organ in our chest, but is speaking to that part of us that feels, something core within us. The is the heart part of the soul, the spirit, or something different? What is the mind?

Scripture describes us as comprised of many things.

I tend to reject trichotomism because I believe it insists on a hard dichotomizing of soul and spirit, something that I simply don't think Scripture supports. I think biblical language is actually both a lot more fluid than that, as well as more amiguous.

I think the safest position is a dichotomism that recognizes that the human creature is an amalgam of material and immaterial; that we are fully material creatures but that there is an immaterial dimension to our existence. That is to say, we aren't just bodies. Terms like "soul" and "spirit" address, in different ways, aspects of that trans-material reality of being human.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Andrewn]

Biblically, I think it's difficult to come up with a complete schematic of the human person. Scripture uses a lot of different terms to describe aspects of what being human is.

Yes, the Bible was written over a long period and by many authors who used the same terms in different ways. The consistency issue is further complicated by Church Fathers who were unfamiliar with Biblical Hebrew and affected by Plato's views. But the Wikipedia article I referenced has a long list of patristic writers who believed in Trichotomy. And the Apostle Paul believed that the soul and the spirit were separate (and connected) parts:

1Th 5:23 Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Paul's trichotomy was based on the Shema's 3 elements of man:

Deu 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the Lord is one. 5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

לב / Kardia (heart). נפׁש (nefesh) / Psyche (soul). מְאֹד / Ischys (strength)

For example when Scripture speaks of the heart, we know that's not literally speaking about the blood-pumping organ in our chest, but is speaking to that part of us that feels, something core within us. The is the heart part of the soul, the spirit, or something different?

The glossary of the Philokalia defines the heart as "the spiritual center of man's being." It also acknowledges that that is not the only definition used in the Bible.

What is the mind? Scripture describes us as comprised of many things.

Modern people tend to talk about the body, mind, and consciousness. In the NT, there are 2 words commonly translated as mind: nous (consciousness) and dianoia (understanding).

I tend to reject trichotomism because I believe it insists on a hard dichotomizing of soul and spirit, something that I simply don't think Scripture supports.

I agree that a hard dichotomizing of soul and spirit is not called for. As human beings, our 3 parts are interconnected.

I think biblical language is actually both a lot more fluid than that, as well as more amiguous. I think the safest position is a dichotomism that recognizes that the human creature is an amalgam of material and immaterial; that we are fully material creatures but that there is an immaterial dimension to our existence. That is to say, we aren't just bodies. Terms like "soul" and "spirit" address, in different ways, aspects of that trans-material reality of being human.

Perhaps the difference between your view (that the soul and the spirit are a single unit) and my view (that they are two connected parts) is after physical death.

In your view, the soul/spirit survives death.

According to my view, the soul and spirit are separated at death. I think this is consistent with Paul's teaching:

1Co 15:44 It is sown a soulish body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a soulish body, there is also a spiritual body.

This view supports both soul sleep (like Luther's) and the conscious life of the human spirit (rational soul).

 

[stevevw]

Thread title should be self explanatory. What was the first creature(s) to have a soul and to have a spirit? Were soul and spirit imbued at the same time or different times? When and where did each take place? What evidence leads you to your answer? Interested in hearing what people think about this. I'm sure this isn't an exhaustive list, but here's a few maybe starting points off the top of my head.
1) The first living thing
2) Complex lifeforms with brains and such
3) Do dogs go to heaven? (e.g. sometime in the evolution of mammals)
4) Primates
5) Early humans (Homo erectus or thereabouts)
6) The first evidence of religion associated behaviors in humans (burying the dead, etc.)
7) Some other time?

Notice: This posting originally only asked about the soul, and was modified to include spirit when it was explained to me that they are not the same thing.

This is an interesting topic and one I often wonder about. I think our soul is the life force we all have of senses, reason, morality, awareness of our surroundings and our place in the greater scheme of things. Without this we would be just lumps of flesh reacting to chemical signals.

I think because of our makeup where we can have a soul this allows us to also open the door so to speak into the spiritual realm and have relationship with God through Christ. It is interesting that Christ became flesh with bodily senses so that we could know Gods spirit. Or how there is the fruits of the spirit as opposed to the sins of the flesh.

It seems there is a division between flesh and soul and soul and spirit. All creatures have instincts and can live by instincts and senses being animalistic. But it seems for humans we can cross a line where living by the flesh (living by just physical senses and drives) is not enough. There is a higher level of existence beyond our flesh.

So maybe either humans have evolved a higher intelligence and awareness that crosses some threshold into the spiritual where there is another dimension to our existence which is transcendent of the physical aspect of life. Perhaps it took millions of years of evolution for humans to reach this point where we could interact on the spiritual level to connect with God.

heres a couple of verses which talk about the body, soul and spirit.

Hebrews 4:12,
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Its like Gods word is something that has force in this world and yet not be anything that occupies space and time. Gods word shows us the point at which our flesh steps from the animal to Godlike. Just as we have evolved to be more than animals.

Matthew 10:28: "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

It seems our soul is something that can exist without our bodies at least our flesh bodies. I think this is that life force, our consciousness that can go beyond our bodies. Maybe like a radio signal that can send and recieve waves. But whatever it is it seems it can be destroyed where once the body dies the soul dies with it and back into the ground from which it came.

 

[FireDragon76]

Some are of the opinion that soul and spirit aren't the same thing. A view known as Trichotism, that human beings are composed of three components: body, soul, and spirit. This view is fairly recent in the history of Christianity. Generally, the majority of Christians have held to some form of dichotomism, human beings are both material and immaterial; the material being the body, and the immaterial being the soul or spirit. There are other views besides either of these, but dichotomism is by far the most common.

With that out of the way. The question needs to go back further to "what is a soul?"

Traditionally Christianity tends to embrace the idea that "soul" refers to the animating princeiple of something. And so Christian philosophers have often borrowed from Greek philosophy to varying degrees, so for example making distinction between a vegetative soul, an animal soul, and a rational soul. A vegetative soul is the kind of life which plants have, animals have another kind of life. The term "rational soul" refers to that sort of life which is considered rather unique to human beings. Human beings uniquely possess sapience, the rational and reasoning faculties which raise us above other animals. Both men and dogs have animal life, but only humans have rational life--only human beings are rational in our ability to think about our place in the universe, to wonder about moral concerns, and the like. And in a specifically Christian context, that means only human beings are morally responsible. Only human beings can sin. And only human beings can bear the kind of unique relationship with God that requires a moral, rational sort of life. Of all earth's creatures, only human beings pray, for example.

Is formal prayer the only kind of communion we can have with God? Perhaps we've got it wrong- prayer is the result of human frailty and falibility?

There may be something like the precursor to religion found in the great apes. Great apes may have the ability to experience feelings of awe, going by what observers have said about them.

Plus this all begs the question of why rationality is the only marker for a being worthy of moral concern. That's a topic in itself, I suppose. I'm just a bit dubious about medieval Christian explanations of what makes human beings unique. My view of Christianity doesn't require human beings to be unique, because I have a more cosmic view of salvation.

 

[FireDragon76]

It says that the plants, etc will come from the earth. Doesn't mean we have to wait around for them. They don't come from the air.
The same book that says Creation was 6 days is the same book that say Jesus is Savior. If you discard part of it, how do you know the rest is true? Jesus referenced Noah, and so did Paul--is the Flood fake too?

It's called faith because we don't know for certain. If we had certainty, faith would be unnecessary.

 

[FireDragon76]

Spirit was always part of life, from the beginning. "Soul" is just a mode of spirit playing with matter.