Breath of life is the same in man and animals

[changdudus]

Well I think I've something good for debate . It's very challenging topic unless you've strong biblical evidence to disprove
Man and animals have the same spirit only differ in their bodies .

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings webra,

Well I think I've something good for debate . It's very challenging topic unless you've strong biblical evidence to disprove
Man and animals have the same spirit only differ in their bodies .

I am interested in this subject but not willing to commit myself to a formal debate as yet. Could you please clarify what you are suggesting as your position - especially the possible contradiction of terms? Are you saying that man and beast have the same "breath of life"? For example in Genesis 2:7 God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life - is this the breath of life that you are speaking about - or are you claiming that man also received an immortal soul or immaterial spirit at this particular time and the term "breath of life" includes one or both of these?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[changdudus]

Thank you for your concern to reply . Tho you'll not take it as debate ,still we can discuss this .You'll agree will me that man is made up of spirit and the body .The spirit is immaterial part of a man ,when the two combine it becomes soul . So the spirit is the living part of soul (God breath )
Let me give you an example ,you know very well that the sun is the sole source of energy . Without sun no fire, vegetation or any form of energy will exist here , just the same way as God is the sole source of life , without him no any form of life will exist here.
Let me sum up by asking you this , do you think God has two forms of life ,one for animals and the other for human beings ?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again webra,

Thank you for your concern to reply . Tho you'll not take it as debate ,still we can discuss this

One reason that I did not agree to a debate was that I have discussed a few topics in the general part of the forum, but never had a formal debate, so I have no real idea of what is required. I was also uncertain of your position on this subject and did not know if we were on the same side of the fence. I am not sure if we are allowed to simply discuss the subject in this location as you suggest.

You'll agree will me that man is made up of spirit and the body .The spirit is immaterial part of a man ,when the two combine it becomes soul . So the spirit is the living part of soul (God breath )

No, I do not agree with the above explanation. The Bible definition of “soul” is different to the above. God’s breath in Genesis 2:7 was simply air breathed into Adam’s nostrils so that he started to breathe, just like when a baby is born it starts to breathe.

Let me give you an example ,you know very well that the sun is the sole source of energy . Without sun no fire, vegetation or any form of energy will exist here , just the same way as God is the sole source of life , without him no any form of life will exist here.

Perhaps I can accept the above.

Let me sum up by asking you this , do you think God has two forms of life ,one for animals and the other for human beings ?

I am not sure of what you are stating here. Does this agree with your earlier definition of "soul", body and spirit?

Because of the above I am not sure that we would progress in a formal debate. If you would like to start a thread in a discussion area I will decide if I want to join in.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[changdudus]

Well thanks for your reply . About this section , I'm not very much conversant too but the small idea I have , I think one is to defend the gospel while the other is to oppose . However, it dosnt mean the opposer is agnostic . But just to challenge you to see how you understand the bible
So in this section ,when somebody persist in opposing the bible , don't start developing ill feelings about his faith (James 4:7) but rather disapprove him with quotes ,verses and reasons for defending the the bible.
About discussions ,you seems not comfortable in this section but I really wanted to have detailed discussion but not challenges so that by the grace of God ,something that we didn't know is going to be revealed .(Eph 3:2-5)
So I really don't know how you would wish but let you comment . Thanks

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again webra,

Well thanks for your reply . About this section , I'm not very much conversant too but the small idea I have , I think one is to defend the gospel while the other is to oppose . However, it dosnt mean the opposer is agnostic . But just to challenge you to see how you understand the bible <br />
So in this section ,when somebody persist in opposing the bible , don't start developing ill feelings about his faith (James 4:7) but rather disapprove him with quotes ,verses and reasons for defending the the bible.<br />

My impression of this section is that it is a place where Debates are arranged on specific titles. My participation would be on the basis of my present understanding of the particular Bible teaching, with the aim of clarifying or correcting my own view, and possibly helping others. I am conscious that there is a wide range of opinion on many Bible subjects. When I read your subject I was interested, as you seemed to have some commendable aspects to your belief, even though it seemed to be different to some parts of my own understanding. Your statements also seemed to be different to standard views including your avatar of C of E.

About discussions ,you seems not comfortable in this section but I really wanted to have detailed discussion but not challenges so that by the grace of God ,something that we didn't know is going to be revealed .(Eph 3:2-5)<br />
So I really don't know how you would wish but let you comment . Thanks

As stated, this is a formal debate area, and I am uncertain that I want to commit to this full aspect, factors being time, ability and lack of a real knowledge of some aspects of this subject. If this subject develops here as a formal debate I will be happy to view it from the peanut gallery.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[changdudus]

Well ,since my membership ,I was so much interested in blog section , I've been mostly posting my articles there, in fact there was a time I was among top 7active members .
Lately I've been trying to explore other parts of this section to see how it works .
I've posted some questions in both Christian apologetics and general theology..... but it seems mothers are not interested in dealing with complicated topics . By the way ,may I know something from you . Are you a gentleman or a lady ? If you're a lady then you seemed to be very courageous . You're not new to my site . I've been browsing your articles in some areas . I'm sorry to ask this .
I'm not sure if I've been complying with as per the terms ,I don't know even how avator works ,maybe you're an old sailor here you can help me .Are you one of the controller board ?
So should I forward my topic to peanuts gallery or what do you suggest ? I was interested to see this topic reaching it's final destination and I would be so happy if you're not excluded . Much blessings

 

[dysert]

Well I think I've something good for debate . It's very challenging topic unless you've strong biblical evidence to disprove
Man and animals have the same spirit only differ in their bodies .

I'm unable to do a formal debate on this (I'm leaving for a week on Wednesday). But I don't agree with you. The phrase "breath of life" does refer to both mankind (Gen. 2:7) and to animals (Gen. 6:17; 7:15), but the Hebrew differs between the two uses. This leads me to believe that there's a qualitative difference between the breath of life infused into mankind versus what was infused into animals.

Add to this the fact that Scripture nowhere talks about animals having an immortal soul (like man does), and that animals are not mentioned as being in heaven (Revelation's "horses" aside), and that there is no representative animal (like Adam) for them nor a Redeemer (Christ) for them, and I believe there's sufficient evidence to believe that the breath of life infused into mankind was for the eternal soul, and that the breath of life infused into animals was for their life force on earth.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I'm unable to do a formal debate on this (I'm leaving for a week on Wednesday). But I don't agree with you. The phrase "breath of life" does refer to both mankind (Gen. 2:7) and to animals (Gen. 6:17; 7:15), but the Hebrew differs between the two uses. This leads me to believe that there's a qualitative difference between the breath of life infused into mankind versus what was infused into animals.

Add to this the fact that Scripture nowhere talks about animals having an immortal soul (like man does), and that animals are not mentioned as being in heaven (Revelation's "horses" aside), and that there is no representative animal (like Adam) for them nor a Redeemer (Christ) for them, and I believe there's sufficient evidence to believe that the breath of life infused into mankind was for the eternal soul, and that the breath of life infused into animals was for their life force on earth.

We could set this up for you after you get back.

 

[changdudus]

Animal having "breath of life " has nothing to do with morality . In the case of soul ,that is a different issue . Breath of life here simply mean The livingness in either animals or human beings .
These verses I think will give the best elaboration
- Gen 2:7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils "the breath of life", and the man became a living being.
- Gen 1:30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the "breath of life" in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
- Gen 7:15 Pairs of all creatures that have the "breath of life" in them came to Noah and entered the ark.
- Gen 6:17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the "breath of life" in it. Everything on earth will perish.
Do you think these other "breath of lives " differs from the initially of Adam's ?

 

[dysert]

Animal having "breath of life " has nothing to do with morality . In the case of soul ,that is a different issue . Breath of life here simply mean The livingness in either animals or human beings .
These verses I think will give the best elaboration
- Gen 2:7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils "the breath of life", and the man became a living being.
- Gen 1:30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the "breath of life" in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
- Gen 7:15 Pairs of all creatures that have the "breath of life" in them came to Noah and entered the ark.
- Gen 6:17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the "breath of life" in it. Everything on earth will perish.
Do you think these other "breath of lives " differs from the initially of Adam's ?

It's not a question of my *thinking* they're different. They *are* different.

• Gen. 2:7 uses Strong's H5397 for "breath" of life - man
• Gen. 1:30 doesn't use "breath of life" (in the KJV anyway)
• Gen. 7:15 uses Strong's H7307 for "breath" of life - animals
• Gen. 6:17 uses Strong's H7307 for "breath" of life - animals

It's obvious we're talking about two different qualities of the "breath of life": one for man, and the other for animals. I don't see any room for debate on this.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Guys, this is not a debate thread; it's a proposal thread.

 

[changdudus]

Well you might be right . But lets agree on one thing . God is not responsible for the lives of animals (Neh 9:6) , but if he is ,he has two channels of lives ,one for animals and the other for human beings . (Eccl 3:19)

 

[dysert]

Well you might be right . But lets agree on one thing . God is not responsible for the lives of animals (Neh 9:6) , but if he is ,he has two channels of lives ,one for animals and the other for human beings . (Eccl 3:19)

I must say I don't know where you're getting your ideas

 

[changdudus]

I think my idea is coming from (Eccl 3: 19-21)
I hope you've read that ?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Mod Hat...

Last chance; this is not a debate forum.

Do you want to continue this discussion in a formal debate? We can set one up. If not, take this discussion to General Theology please.

Thanks.

Mark
Adviser Assistant.

 

[changdudus]

Thanks Mr MarkRohfrietsch

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Thanks Mr MarkRohfrietsch

You are welcome; and BTW, Mark is good enough!