What is a soul?

[Pythons]

You are so intent on making fun of the other party that you fail to see how the flaw in your comprehension. This entire discussion is a futile effort.

God willing I hope to remedy that...

[Pythons]

In the future, could you point out which chapter I’m supposed to be looking in? I did a search on the word altar and didn’t get any hits on the first page so I have no idea where I’m supposed to be looking

#111, sorry about that, that’s what I get for sneaking this out at work in a rush.


Do you really think that would apply here that EVERYONE buried in the land of Israel would be under the altar in the heavenly sanctuary?
T.A.O., its figurative speech. “Under the Altar” indicated proximity and the Altar was inside Jerusalem so “the souls” were in the Holy City.


Pythons, you’re the one that wants this verse in Revelation to be literal and you kept bringing up the heavenly sanctuary. If it’s literal, then there are literally souls under the literal altar because John was seeing the literal sanctuary. If you want to insist on it being literal, then it has to be uniformly so.

I do not need this verse to be literal to defend my position while your article of faith requires you do. I was just insuring we closed that loophole should you suggest this Scripture was symbolic. Apply what you just said to “we are in Christ” and “Christ is in us”. If we are Christian’s in good standing, is Christ only “symbolically” in us, or is He “really in us” this is plainly figurative speech to describe a literal reality.


John didn’t see pneumas though Pythons, he saw souls (psuche). He saw angels and specifically mentions them separately in other verses, so we know the “angel” or “spirit” definition you’re trying to apply to Rev 6:9 doesn’t apply at all.

Pneuma (s)= (spirit) = human soul that has left the body
Psuche (s) = (Soul) = the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death.

You have a Strong’s, the context determines the meaning of the word. If you need me to detail how to use a Strong’s I would be happy to show you.


I asked that Adventism be kept out of our conversation, but since you’re unable to do that and want to mock our scholars, would you like for me to point you to some NON-Adventist and NON-JW scholars that believe that the soul and spirit are completely different things? The Catholic church teaches “immortality of the SOUL” and in you trying to defend that, you have to twist a whole lot of verses about the spirit.

I have no doubt of your sincerity T.A.O. You are asserting the meaning is,

There is no soul apart from the body Pythons. Every one of those verses I quoted earlier in this thread PROVE that, numerous times.


What you’ve done is selectively listed verses proving something that you, me and every Biblical lexicon and Scripture concordance already agree with. I have no beef with the Scriptures you’ve quoted. You know what the issue is and it would serve us as well as the readers of this thread if you started to address them. I already believe the word ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ can mean a living person so I’m not twisting anything. To insist that’s all it means is Scripture twisting that only Sadducees (and likeminded ‘scholars’) can support. How about listing some names of Non-SDA and Non-JW scholars that assert that “there is no soul apart from the body”.



No you haven’t. You have yet to explain to me why an “existence” can take a bath, eat blood, be destroyed, etc etc

It’s very simple, if the context determines the rendered meaning is a living person than because living people eat, drink, take baths and die that’s how it works. What you’ve done is correctly taken the context of a soul equating to a living person then INCORRECTLY applied that context to every other text to generate your sincere belief “that there is no soul outside the body”. This is just like a certain friend you have trying to tell me the 10 Commandments are never called a Testimony when they were specifically called that in the Bible, and to add injury to insult, were kept in, “The Ark of the Testimony”.


According to Paul it is far better to be with Christ then it is to "be in the body". The "Reward" is the resurrection body because that is equated with eternal life whereas the soul apart from the body is merely an existence compared to it.



An “existence” is some sort of presence. So John could LITERALLY see “existences” or presences under the altar in Revelation 6:9? Is that what you’re contending?

No, what John literally witnessed was the literal City of God, the New Jerusalem. It’s the same one Paul described,

“You have come (NOT WILL COME) to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the City of the Living God. You have come (NOT WILL COME) to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly (BREAK), to the Church of the first born, whose names are written in heaven. You have come (NOT WILL COME) to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel”. Hebrews 12,22

This describes the believer, in the here and now , HAS come to the Literal City of God which is inhabited by God the Father, Jesus, angels and the spirits of righteous men. Previously, these “spirits” were in the Bosom of Abraham and those same spirits were moved into the City of God so that where Jesus was, the spirits of just men made perfect would be.

St John did not view a ‘symbolic city’ descending from heaven, he was allowed to see into the future when the Holy City of God comes from where it currently is to earth. A spirit within the context of Apocalypse 6, 10 was associated with being “naked” so that is why you read in v. 10 that they were all given white robes and told to wait until God was ready to pronounce HIS Judgment. You can call it whatever you want T.A.O. , provided you realize that these Spirits or “Souls” described in the Apocalypse are not resurrected people because of that little word "OF", as in 'souls of those righetous'





I have, and so did RC. A soul is a breathing creature. If they don’t have a spirit they are a corpse. It doesn’t get any simpler than that really.

Indeed you and RND have said that and by saying that destroy your own theology and supporting argumentation for anything you believe where the first definition of the word becomes the final and only definition of the word for the rest of the Bible. You’ve done a very good job of making this clear and be certain ,I will certainly remind you of this when (if you allow) a discussion into the Investigative judgment. I’m sure you can already see what your rule has done to the seventh day Sabbath.


First of all, I’ve never boasted about citing scripture. I didn’t write the verses and can take NO credit for gathering what the Lord has already provided for us.

Secondly, I’ve been ridiculed endlessly for my method of research, even though I agree with the Strong’s definition RC posted using the silly method that I did.

If you’re going to apply a foreign definition (something NOT found in scripture) of what the soul is, then you need to explain to me how a soul can take a bath, eat food, be destroyed, and get married.

I answered the “heaven” part earlier in my post.

You’ve posted Scripture that proves the soul in those cases equates to a living person and their actions and emotions and I don’t know of anyone who will say that what you said those Scriptures mean isn’t what they mean. You’ve taken indecent liberties with the other Scriptures and without addressing counterpoints brought to your attention believe you’ve put forth the truth.


Post # 231

Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

If souls of saints are in heaven, and those verses in Revelation are literal, I wonder if it's these guys?


You can’t even say it, can you… “If souls OF saints” are in heaven, and those verses in Revelation are literal, I wonder if it’s these guys?” LOL!

I saw under the altar THE SOULS OF THOSE WHO HAD BEEN KILLED” (Bible)
Vs.
I saw under the alter those souls who had been killed (Trust AndObey)

[TrustAndObey]

Pythons, I didn't get an e-mail that you replied to this thread again so I apologize for not responding sooner. I'm off of Spring Break and have a lot to do this AM, but I will get back with you later.

[Pythons]

I'm off vacation and back in school. I was on Spring Break last week. This has been a really tough semester, and I appreciate the well wishes!
Not a problem, I'm not as bad as some might make me out to be.



No worries. Most of the time I’m posting with tons of distractions, not unlike now, so I totally understand.

Every day is like that for me lol...


I totally get that it’s figurative. I don’t base my beliefs on figurative though.

It's only "under the altar" thats figurative of where the literal souls are. Location of the literal souls is painted figurativly as the sanctuary is literal.



I believe John did indeed see the heavenly sanctuary and souls under the altar, Pythons. However, I also believe he did indeed see a ten-headed beast as well. Both are symbolic of something else. Daniel was seeing a literal statue, but that statue was symbolic of something else, agreed?

The Sanctuary is literal so it couldn't be symbolic.


Revelation is obviously prophetic since it’s a vision of the Lord’s Day, the day our Lord returns….which hasn’t happened yet.

We can agree that the sanctuary John witness is literal.



Here’s the problem with “religious” debates and people only looking at one side of a coin. There are a whole lot of definitions listed in Strong’s for the word spirit, but you picked the one that fits your theology.


I accept all the definitions because the context determines the meaning every single time.



I have to apply different definitions to different verses, because obviously they aren’t all talking about the same thing. Some of the verses I listed clearly referred to living people, some to dead people, some to animals, etc.

The context determines the meaning and that's why some of the definitions in Strong's equate the soul as that which lives outside the body. It's not logical to accept one definition while rejecting the other when they both come out of the same book.



That’s very nice of you. I’m glad you brought this up because I’ve been dying to talk to someone (for real) who is an expert on the Strong’s concordance.

I actually don’t use the Strong’s concordance very often, and when I do, it’s usually just for comparisons. I just happened to agree with the definitions that RC posted for the soul because I felt they accurately described what anyone can read for themselves in scripture.

I'm not an expert by any means but I can assure you that I can show you how to use one as good as I can.


Are there some outside sources that Dr. Strong may have relied on for his interpretations of words? For instance, if Dr. Strong referred to Sunday as the “Lord’s Day”, where would he get that idea?

Secular history of the Romans as well as Jewish history all confirm "The Lord's day" = Sunday, that's how.



It certainly wouldn’t be from scripture, right, since there’s only one verse in the entire bible that uses the term “Lord’s day”…and it doesn’t talk about a day of the week, but of an event—the great day of our Lord’s return.

If John was in the Spirit "on the Lord's day" prior to witnessing the events then it was on a specific day, Sunday, as confirmed by Secular history.


Also..…was Dr. Strong a prophet of God? If not, and he allowed outside influences to help determine how he defined words in scripture, is it possible that he may have made mistakes in defining words due to his own or other peoples’ theology or preconceived ideas?

Please don't take this the wrong way but that is exactly a JW argument, it's spot-on JW. If you can't trust secular history how do you build your case for 1844?



I also need a little clarification on this…..did he get to pick which definition fits which verse? If he did, was it according to what he derived as “context” while reading the bible…..and is it possible that someone might disagree with him without disagreeing with scripture? If we get to pick which definitions fit which verses, is it also possible that we could make mistakes?

The context determines the meaning, otherwise written material is worthless.


One definition for the soul is our desires, for instance, so can we apply that definition to the verses that talk about a soul eating blood? Of course not.

Of course, this isn't the issue.



Are we to consider Dr. Strong as an authoritative author of our faith, or do we rely on scripture/Holy Spirit? More importantly, can you tell me with no doubts, that Dr. Strong let scripture interpret itself without any personal interpretation of his own or anyone else’s, ever?

If we move away from Traditional definitions we should have a good reason for doing it based on truth from what we can establish---certainly not from taking a person who had no education in Greek or the other languages word on it because of "special understanding".



And lastly, can you point me specifically to the verses that Dr. Strong decided referred to spirit as “a human soul that has left the body”? I’d like to see all of them, and decide for myself.


I'm at work now so I'll edit later and get you a few of them.




I’ll have to get back with you on quoting Non-SDA and Non-JW authors because I have a great book from a pastor in the Seventh-day Baptist church. I also have some literature from two authors within the Messianic church. I don’t want to misquote anyone and I don’t have time to dig them out of my garage this week. So can I have an extension?


No rush at all.. Just please don't use Luther (I've had a lot of SDA's use him and it ends in their embarassment).



It won’t satisfy you anyway Pythons, because not all SDBs and Messianics agree on this subject. Neither of those churches, that I know of, even talk about this subject from the pulpit because individual people within those churches disagree and it’s “safe” just not to talk about it.


reasonable doubt is enough for me Sister.



I do have resources though, so I can definitely provide them. I’d rather we let scripture interpret itself, but if you don’t believe me, then I guess I’ll show you (if you’ll give me an extension).

of course



After class tonight I’ll try to find some websites from the same authors, but I can’t make any guarantees because my sister is here from Colorado and I am hoping to spend more time with them before they leave on Thursday.

Family first, seriously no rush.



That’s quite the accusation that I only picked verses that fit one definition. I worked pretty hard on my silly list, so if you’d please supply one that lists verses that fit YOUR definition of the soul, I’d genuinely like to see them all. Let us reason together and rightly divide the Word, okay?

I'll have it up for you tonight. There is a problem with posting at CF now and who knows where it will end up lol...



Are you talking about my pesky friend RND? :)

Oh man, there’s that accusation again, so now I guess I’ll ask once more for you to supply a list of verses where the soul is clearly talking about an “existence” that lives outside of the body and has immortality. It’s only proper.

I think my post is getting too long, so I’ll submit this one and answer the second part of your previous post later today. Deal?

I'm not saying any names :) I'll have that list for you.

[Pythons]

Pythons, I didn't get an e-mail that you replied to this thread again so I apologize for not responding sooner. I'm off of Spring Break and have a lot to do this AM, but I will get back with you later.
Be safe and have fun on vacation :)

[Jimlarmore]

Let's take a good look at what Jesus says about something.

John 14:1-3
Let not your heat be troubled , ye believe in God believe also in me. In My Father's house are many mansions, if it were not so I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you and if I go to prepare a place for you I WILL COME AGAIN AND RECEIVE YOU UNTO MYSELF THAT WHERE I AM THERE YE MAY BE ALSO.

Look at the bolded parts of these verses. First off Jesus said He was going to prepare a place of His disciples in His Father's house. Then He said that He would come again and receive us unto Himself that where He was there we may be also.

So let's make some key observations here.

1. Going to heaven is directly tied into the second coming.

Christ did NOT say that when you die your soul would go to heaven and He would bring it back to unite that soul with the body. In the book of John Christ said many times that He would raise the faithful up at the last day. He also said that all who are in the grave would hear His voice and come forth. If they were already in heaven this wouldn't make any sense because they would already be there and wouldn't need to come forth.

2. Christ is preparing heaven for a future event of coming to save/get/redeem the faithful. When He said I will come again He was promising to reward and get His disciples at that future event not at their death. Rev 22:12 makes it very clear that when Christ comes His reward is with Him. If the souls were already in heaven they would be rewarded at death not at His second coming.

These are just a few things to consider. I got a lot more.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

[TrustAndObey]

I'm off vacation and back in school. I was on Spring Break last week. This has been a really tough semester, and I appreciate the well wishes!

#111, sorry about that, that’s what I get for sneaking this out at work in a rush.

No worries. Most of the time I’m posting with tons of distractions, not unlike now, so I totally understand.

T.A.O., its figurative speech. “Under the Altar” indicated proximity and the Altar was inside Jerusalem so “the souls” were in the Holy City.

I totally get that it’s figurative. I don’t base my beliefs on figurative though.

I do not need this verse to be literal to defend my position while your article of faith requires you do. I was just insuring we closed that loophole should you suggest this Scripture was symbolic. Apply what you just said to “we are in Christ” and “Christ is in us”. If we are Christian’s in good standing, is Christ only “symbolically” in us, or is He “really in us” this is plainly figurative speech to describe a literal reality.

I believe John did indeed see the heavenly sanctuary and souls under the altar, Pythons. However, I also believe he did indeed see a ten-headed beast as well. Both are symbolic of something else. Daniel was seeing a literal statue, but that statue was symbolic of something else, agreed?

Revelation is obviously prophetic since it’s a vision of the Lord’s Day, the day our Lord returns….which hasn’t happened yet.

Pneuma (s)= (spirit) = human soul that has left the body
Psuche (s) = (Soul) = the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death.

Here’s the problem with “religious” debates and people only looking at one side of a coin. There are a whole lot of definitions listed in Strong’s for the word spirit, but you picked the one that fits your theology.

I have to apply different definitions to different verses, because obviously they aren’t all talking about the same thing. Some of the verses I listed clearly referred to living people, some to dead people, some to animals, etc.

You have a Strong’s, the context determines the meaning of the word. If you need me to detail how to use a Strong’s I would be happy to show you.

That’s very nice of you. I’m glad you brought this up because I’ve been dying to talk to someone (for real) who is an expert on the Strong’s concordance.

I actually don’t use the Strong’s concordance very often, and when I do, it’s usually just for comparisons. I just happened to agree with the definitions that RC posted for the soul because I felt they accurately described what anyone can read for themselves in scripture.

Are there some outside sources that Dr. Strong may have relied on for his interpretations of words? For instance, if Dr. Strong referred to Sunday as the “Lord’s Day”, where would he get that idea? It certainly wouldn’t be from scripture, right, since there’s only one verse in the entire bible that uses the term “Lord’s day”…and it doesn’t talk about a day of the week, but of an event—the great day of our Lord’s return.

Also..…was Dr. Strong a prophet of God? If not, and he allowed outside influences to help determine how he defined words in scripture, is it possible that he may have made mistakes in defining words due to his own or other peoples’ theology or preconceived ideas?

I also need a little clarification on this…..did he get to pick which definition fits which verse? If he did, was it according to what he derived as “context” while reading the bible…..and is it possible that someone might disagree with him without disagreeing with scripture? If we get to pick which definitions fit which verses, is it also possible that we could make mistakes?

One definition for the soul is our desires, for instance, so can we apply that definition to the verses that talk about a soul eating blood? Of course not.

Are we to consider Dr. Strong as an authoritative author of our faith, or do we rely on scripture/Holy Spirit? More importantly, can you tell me with no doubts, that Dr. Strong let scripture interpret itself without any personal interpretation of his own or anyone else’s, ever?

And lastly, can you point me specifically to the verses that Dr. Strong decided referred to spirit as “a human soul that has left the body”? I’d like to see all of them, and decide for myself.


What you’ve done is selectively listed verses proving something that you, me and every Biblical lexicon and Scripture concordance already agree with. I have no beef with the Scriptures you’ve quoted. You know what the issue is and it would serve us as well as the readers of this thread if you started to address them. I already believe the word ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ can mean a living person so I’m not twisting anything. To insist that’s all it means is Scripture twisting that only Sadducees (and likeminded ‘scholars’) can support. How about listing some names of Non-SDA and Non-JW scholars that assert that “there is no soul apart from the body”.

I’ll have to get back with you on quoting Non-SDA and Non-JW authors because I have a great book from a pastor in the Seventh-day Baptist church. I also have some literature from two authors within the Messianic church. I don’t want to misquote anyone and I don’t have time to dig them out of my garage this week. So can I have an extension?

It won’t satisfy you anyway Pythons, because not all SDBs and Messianics agree on this subject. Neither of those churches, that I know of, even talk about this subject from the pulpit because individual people within those churches disagree and it’s “safe” just not to talk about it.

I do have resources though, so I can definitely provide them. I’d rather we let scripture interpret itself, but if you don’t believe me, then I guess I’ll show you (if you’ll give me an extension).

After class tonight I’ll try to find some websites from the same authors, but I can’t make any guarantees because my sister is here from Colorado and I am hoping to spend more time with them before they leave on Thursday.

That’s quite the accusation that I only picked verses that fit one definition. I worked pretty hard on my silly list, so if you’d please supply one that lists verses that fit YOUR definition of the soul, I’d genuinely like to see them all. Let us reason together and rightly divide the Word, okay?

It’s very simple, if the context determines the rendered meaning is a living person than because living people eat, drink, take baths and die that’s how it works. What you’ve done is correctly taken the context of a soul equating to a living person then INCORRECTLY applied that context to every other text to generate your sincere belief “that there is no soul outside the body”. This is just like a certain friend you have trying to tell me the 10 Commandments are never called a Testimony when they were specifically called that in the Bible, and to add injury to insult, were kept in, “The Ark of the Testimony”.

Are you talking about my pesky friend RND? :)

Oh man, there’s that accusation again, so now I guess I’ll ask once more for you to supply a list of verses where the soul is clearly talking about an “existence” that lives outside of the body and has immortality. It’s only proper.

I think my post is getting too long, so I’ll submit this one and answer the second part of your previous post later today. Deal?

[TrustAndObey]

It’s very simple, if the context determines the rendered meaning is a living person than because living people eat, drink, take baths and die that’s how it works. What you’ve done is correctly taken the context of a soul equating to a living person then INCORRECTLY applied that context to every other text to generate your sincere belief “that there is no soul outside the body”. This is just like a certain friend you have trying to tell me the 10 Commandments are never called a Testimony when they were specifically called that in the Bible, and to add injury to insult, were kept in, “The Ark of the Testimony”.

What about the verses I posted that talk about the soul going into the grave? Is that something a LIVING person does?

[TrustAndObey]

Pythons, did you ever get a chance to look up the verses you were talking about? They may be buried in this thread because of the update mess, but I wanted to check before I went digging for them.

[Pythons]

Pythons, did you ever get a chance to look up the verses you were talking about? They may be buried in this thread because of the update mess, but I wanted to check before I went digging for them.

I'm about a third of the way done with my Strong's post. In it I review the context of the verses you bring up. It's going to be long.

[TrustAndObey]

I'm about a third of the way done with my Strong's post. In it I review the context of the verses you bring up. It's going to be long.

I hope this reply doesn't get buried.

I listed a lot of verses, so I understand the reply will be long...but I'm a little confused. Why are you going over the verses I already posted? I thought they were pretty self-explanatory.

It will be interesting to see what Strong's suggests they mean, I suppose.

I was more specifically asking for any verses that would appear to fit the Strong's definition of a spirit being "a soul that leaves the body after death".

[reddogs]

I hope this reply doesn't get buried.

I listed a lot of verses, so I understand the reply will be long...but I'm a little confused. Why are you going over the verses I already posted? I thought they were pretty self-explanatory.

It will be interesting to see what Strong's suggests they mean, I suppose.

I was more specifically asking for any verses that would appear to fit the Strong's definition of a spirit being "a soul that leaves the body after death".

Sometimes people dont like the obvious meaning and try to fit a round peg into a square hole........:)

[TrustAndObey]

Pythons, did you ever post a reply?

[Pythons]

It's coming T&O, don't you worry about it not....

:)

[TrustAndObey]

It's coming T&O, don't you worry about it not....

:)

You sounded like my grandmother. I HATE my gran....

haha...I'm just kidding.

No hurry, I just wanted to make sure it didn't get buried when we had all the confusion.

[Pythons]

No worries, I'm drafting something that will put this issue to bed after a severe spanking!

:)

[TrustAndObey]

From Scripture I'm sure. ;)

[sentipente]

From Scripture I'm sure. ;)
All Scripture or only the Scripture you accept?

[TrustAndObey]

John 6:40 And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

[thecountrydoc]

Perhaps it will be of help in answering the original quetion if we go back to Gen. 2:7 and take a closer look at the meanings of the words used there to tell us about God's creation of man.

"And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Gen. 2:7.There are four phrases here that containe words whose meanings, from the Hebrew, I think will be of help in gaining a fuller understanding of exctly how Adam became a "living Soul."

God formed man. Aditional important details about Adam's creation are given. We are allowed to peer, as it were, into the work shop of God and to watch His hand preforming the mysterious act of creation. The word for "to form," yasar, implies an act of moulding and fashioning into a form corresponding in design and appearance to the divine plan. The word is used in describing the activity of the potter (Isa. 29:16; 49:5 ect.), of the goldsmith fashioning idols (Isa. 44:9; Hab. 2:18), and of God, who fashions various things, amoung others, the light (Isa. 45:7), the human eye (Ps. 94:9), the heart (Ps.33:15), and the seasons (Ps. 74:17).

Of the dust of the ground. That man is composed of materials derived from the ground, the elements of the earth, is confirmed by science. Decomposition of the human body after death bears witness to the same fact. The major elements making up the human body are oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen. Many others exist in smaller proportions. How true that man was made of "the dust of the ground," and also whence he was taken (Eccl. 12:7).

The breath of life. "Breath," neshamah. From the Source of all life the life-giving principal entered the lifeless body of Adam. The agency by which the spark of life was transfered to his body is said to be the "breath" of God. The same thought appears in Job 33:4. "The breath [nesamah] of the Almigty hath given me life." Imparted to man the "breath" is equvalent to his life; it is life itself (Isa. 2:22). At death there is "no breath [neshamah, life] left in him" (1 Kings 17:17). This "beath of life" in man differs in no way from the "breath of life" in aimals, for all recieve life from God. (Gen. 2:21, 22; Eccl. 3:19). It therefore can not be the mind or intellegence.

A living soul. When the lifeless form of man was infused with divine "breath," neshamah, of life, man became a living "soul," nephesh. The word nephesh has a variety of meanings: (1) breath (Job 42:21), (2) life (1 Kings 17:21; 2 Sam. 18:13; ect.), (3) heart as the seat of affectios (Gen. 34:3; S.of Sol. 1:7; ect.), (4) living being (Gen 12:5; 36:; Lev. 4:2; ect.), and (5) for emphasizing the personal pronouns (Ps. 3:2; 1 Sam. 18:1; ect,). Note that the nephesh is made by God (Jer. 38:16), and can die (Judges 16:30), be killed (Num. 31:19), be eaten (metaphoricaly, Eze. 22:25), and be refreshed (Ps. 19:7; Heb.). None of this applies to the spirit, ruach, indicating clearly the great difference between the two terms. It is obvious from the above survey that the translation "soul" given by the KJV to nephesh of Gen 2:7 is not appropriate, if the commonly used expresion "imortal soul" is implied. Although pouplar, this concept is completely foreign to the Bible. This passage may be rightly translated: Man became a living "being" (RSV). When "soul" is considered synonymous with "being," we gain the Scriptural meaning of nephesh in this text.

I hope that this additional explaination will give you a clear understanding for the question that has been ask. If you have additional questions please feel free to ask.

Respectfully,your brother in Christ,
Doc

[Pythons]

I've got some questions Doc,

Man "became" a living soul. I see the same Scripture you do and I agree with this Scripture in total.

No lexicographical material that I have access to restricts Nephesh to "the breath". A quick review of any Lexicon shows that Nephesh has three meanings which are determined by context (life principle / figurative usage / & the spirit or soul which departs at death).

The Sadducees affirmed that Nephesh only meant 'breath' and that man and animals were no different when they died. Christ corrected them harshly.

I'm waiting for some materials to come in the mail that will aid me in showing the truth of this matter but until I can post the material I'll leave you with these questions.


"If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body". Philippians 1, 22

I want you to use the same Hermeneutic you did in Eccl on the above text and I would like you to state your findings on what it says.

Now Doc, how would Paul "Know" he was with Christ and that it would be far better then "remaining in his body" if Paul would have been DEAD and knoweth not anything?

Jesus Promised the Apostles He would be "WITH THEM" until the End of the World (Matthew 28,20).

The holy Apostle stated that,

"I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height or depth, nor anything else in all creatoin, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord". Romans 8,37

"You have come [not will come] to the heavenly Jerusalem and to the spirits of Just men made perfect". Hebrews 12

Notice that the text does not say souls made perfect but the "SPIRITS OF JUST MEN".

Soul sleep was unknown in Judaism except for the Sadducees. Seventh day Adventists did not accept this teaching until being forced to because of the IJ Doctrine.

How could Jesus promise to BE WITH the Apostles to the end of the world if He wasn't WITH THEM until the end of the world?

[TrustAndObey]

Pythons, you're funny.

I haven't even studied the IJ and I came to the conclusion about a soul (and the fact that they sleep EVERY night) from reading the Bible and the Bible alone.

When you do finally finish this elusive paper of yours and PM it to me, can I post it in this thread?

[TrustAndObey]

Pythons, if you get e-mails from subscribed threads, here's a non-Adventist source that agrees that death is sleep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSZbOGeVAgE

[TrustAndObey]

On his site the video is 20+ minutes, so on youtube you have to click on the different parts to view it all.

[TrustAndObey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH8nZsPtltA

[TrustAndObey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAlqOkf3Gvs&feature=related

[TrustAndObey]

I'm not sure why Nicholas didn't use these verses from Christ Himself? He used one where Martha said the same thing during the resurrection of Lazarus and I see why, but these verses are what sealed the deal for me personally:

John 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

I'll have to e-mail him. :)

[TrustAndObey]

I never did get a response from Pythons on the paper he was working on.

I'll ask his permission to post it here when he finishes it though.

[oldsage]

No lexicographical material that I have access to restricts Nephesh to "the breath". A quick review of any Lexicon shows that Nephesh has three meanings which are determined by context (life principle / figurative usage / & the spirit or soul which departs at death).

I would like to know what lexicons you have access to? I am using the TWOT, BDB, Holladay, and the HALOT and my reading of them show the main idea of the word is "windpipe open for breathing"

Now the word in differing context mean "breath", "life", "appetite", "emotions", "person", etc. Most Systematic Theologies tend to agree early Hebrew thought was when a person died he was in the grave until there was a physical resurrection, save for the Sadducee who didn't believe in a resurrection.

Now these same Systematic Theologies take a Dichotomy or a Trichotomy view in the Apostolic Scriptures and lable it Progressive Revelation. Of course I would say they have been influenced by ideas outside Scriptures and are reading them into the text and not in light of the revelation of what has been shown in the Hebrew Scriptures.

What sources have you been using to do this study? Aside from the Biblical text of course since we all use that as our main text.

Blessings,
Chris

[TrustAndObey]

Wow Oldsage, speaking of a resurrection! You sure resurrected this old thread! :)

[oldsage]

Wow Oldsage, speaking of a resurrection! You sure resurrected this old thread! :)
Since I never get around that much month old threads is like yesterday :sorry:

[TrustAndObey]

Since I never get around that much month old threads is like yesterday :sorry:

How's the new business going? Have you had anyone try to sue you yet for "brain freeze"? I saw on the news where someone tried to sue the Icee people because they drank it too fast, had a brain freeze, and crashed into a building.

LOL!

PEOPLE!!

[TrustAndObey]

Pythons, now that you're back, I wanted to ask you if you ever received that "silver bullet" you mentioned?