• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What Is The Soul?

David Henson

Banned
D
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
720
The Hebrew nephesh and the Greek psykhe both mean a person or animal or the life which the person or animal enjoys. In a basic literal sense the soul is the blood of any living creature and in a more figurative sense it is the life of or the person or animal itself.

The soul dies, it is mortal. It is not the same as the spirit, they (the spirit and the soul) are sometimes used in the same verse of the Bible with obvious use of the words indicating they are different.

Recently, when The Jewish Publication Society of America issued a new translation of the Torah, or first five books of the Bible, the editor-in-chief, H. M. Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College, stated that the word "soul" had been virtually eliminated from this translation because, "the Hebrew word in question here is 'Nefesh.'" He added: "Other translators have interpreted it to mean 'soul,' which is completely inaccurate. The Bible does not say we have a soul. 'Nefesh' is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his veins, his being." - The New York Times, October 12, 1962.

"There is no dichotomy of body and soul in the O T. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepes [nephesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person . . . . The term psykhe is the N T word corresponding with nepes. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being." - New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450.

"The Hebrew term for 'soul' (nefesh) was used by Moses . . . . signifying an 'animated being' and applicable equally to nonhuman beings. . . . New Testament usage of psyche ('soul') was comparable to nefesh." - The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976), Macropædia, Vol. 15, p. 152.

"The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture." - The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564.
 
trentwray said:
Then I'm assuming you already think you know the answer. Are you wanting to debate the topic, possibly alter your own stance, or serve some other agenda?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have thought that a primarily atheist audience would be interested in debating the subject of the soul. If you are asking me if I know what the Bible says the soul is, the answer is yes. If you are asking me if I would be interested in alternative explanations the answer is also yes. If you are asking me if I think it possible that my explanation is incorrect the answer, again is yes. Wouldn't be the first time, wouldn't be the last. If you are asking me if I'm interested in debating the subject . . . maybe, maybe not.
 
David Henson said:
I wouldn't have thought that a primarily atheist audience would be interested in debating the subject of the soul. If you are asking me if I know what the Bible says the soul is, the answer is yes. If you are asking me if I would be interested in alternative explanations the answer is also yes. If you are asking me if I think it possible that my explanation is incorrect the answer, again is yes. Wouldn't be the first time, wouldn't be the last. If you are asking me if I'm interested in debating the subject . . . maybe, maybe not.
Click to expand...
Fair enough :)

My personal opinion is that for a non-believer to view themselves as having a soul would probably be rare. If you want to view the soul in a materialistic sense, it could be any number of aspects to a person's consciousness and/or drives/goals/needs that they quantify under a specific umbrella and label it "soul". So in that case, I think it's extremely subjective.

For example, a person might say, "my soul is in my business" and not believe in an eternal soul. Another might say, "I share my soul with my partner," etc and so forth. Or one might say, "my heart and my soul." I don't personally think one has to be a believer to equate a part of their personality or character in this way. But again, I'm saying that a belief in the soul isn't anything other than a way to group certain aspects of one's conscious being together and label it. Like a person does their ego, or an alter personality, or a social version of themselves as opposed to a private version, or "this is what my heart is," etc and so forth. Very subjective in nature.

Considering the idea of an immortal soul for a believer, well take your pick. Those who think they are correct think they are correct. If you can prove the existence of an eternal soul and define it with objective laws and rules that can be verified, then you can create a non subjective model for a soul, like you can a human being, a brain, etc and so forth. Until then, the belief in an immortal soul is by faith and boils down again to being highly subjective. Multiple religions and denominations claim various things about the soul. Again, it's subjective. What the soul is, is in the eye of the beholder. Until it comes into the realm of objective indisputable fact.

Now the spirit, is another matter. Most understand a spirit to be "eternal" or continuing it's existence after death. Believing this requires faith, as there is no evidence you can point to right this moment that a spirit exists, and if it does, exists after death. And when we say evidence, we do not mean anecdotal. I mean, produce a spirit right here right now, or show me one that has existed beyond the life of a being. Now. Appealing to books or stories doesn't cut it, because it can't be shown experimentally. It requires faith to believe, because there is no evidence grounded in objectivism.
 
I pretty much agree with you, trentwray, but have two points in response.

trentwray said:
Considering the idea of an immortal soul for a believer, well take your pick. Those who think they are correct think they are correct. If you can prove the existence of an eternal soul and define it with objective laws and rules that can be verified, then you can create a non subjective model for a soul, like you can a human being, a brain, etc and so forth. Until then, the belief in an immortal soul is by faith and boils down again to being highly subjective. Multiple religions and denominations claim various things about the soul. Again, it's subjective. What the soul is, is in the eye of the beholder. Until it comes into the realm of objective indisputable fact.
Click to expand...

I think that if by believer you mean a believer in the Bible it becomes pretty black and white. Ezekiel 18:4 says the soul dies, so can't be immortal. I don't see how, even with any religious traditional attempt to transmogrify that simple fact, how any believer in the Bible could reasonably justify the position that the soul is immortal, especially if they had been shown what sort of influence Socrates had about the time of Alexander the Great, when the idea of the immortal soul began to infiltrate Jewish thinking.

trentwray said:
Now the spirit, is another matter. Most understand a spirit to be "eternal" or continuing it's existence after death. Believing this requires faith, as there is no evidence you can point to right this moment that a spirit exists, and if it does, exists after death. And when we say evidence, we do not mean anecdotal. I mean, produce a spirit right here right now, or show me one that has existed beyond the life of a being. Now. Appealing to books or stories doesn't cut it, because it can't be shown experimentally. It requires faith to believe, because there is no evidence grounded in objectivism.
Click to expand...

I expect that you are referring to the spirit itself in a broader sense from the perspective of the believer. Actually the Hebrew word ruach and the Greek word pneuma (from which we get the English pneumatic and pneumonia) simply mean an invisible active force. So it can be translated spirit, wind, breeze, breath or mental inclination. The spirit itself, is, in humans, never alive in a literal sense. It is the breath or the lifeforce in a person. Then there are spirit creatures who are alive and are "spirit" only in the sense that we can't see them, but they can produce results. God for example, and angels.

That is the Bible's take on it, anyway.
 
David Henson said:
I wouldn't have thought that a primarily atheist audience would be interested in debating the subject of the soul.
Click to expand...

Weellll.... there, there. It's not like that. An Atheistic audience is no different from any other audience. We invite any topic of discussion as long as it is conducted in a civil, polite and most importantly, honest manner.

David Henson said:
If you are asking me if I know what the Bible says the soul is...
Click to expand...

Hold it!!, hold it right there. You're right. Not interested.
This type of circular reasoning never led anywhere.
 
Last edited:
David Henson said:
I think that if by believer you mean a believer in the Bible it becomes pretty black and white. Ezekiel 18:4 says the soul dies, so can't be immortal. I don't see how, even with any religious traditional attempt to transmogrify that simple fact, how any believer in the Bible could reasonably justify the position that the soul is immortal, especially if they had been shown what sort of influence Socrates had about the time of Alexander the Great, when the idea of the immortal soul began to infiltrate Jewish thinking.
Click to expand...
By believer I mean anyone who believes in a soul that is a distinct entity in their body, or that exists after death .... regardless of what religion they adhere to.

I expect that you are referring to the spirit itself in a broader sense from the perspective of the believer. Actually the Hebrew word ruach and the Greek word pneuma (from which we get the English pneumatic and pneumonia) simply mean an invisible active force. So it can be translated spirit, wind, breeze, breath or mental inclination. The spirit itself, is, in humans, never alive in a literal sense. It is the breath or the lifeforce in a person. Then there are spirit creatures who are alive and are "spirit" only in the sense that we can't see them, but they can produce results. God for example, and angels.

That is the Bible's take on it, anyway.
Click to expand...
Do you believe in the soul and/or the spirit personally? In your own words, aside from any other source ... can you:

1) Say what they are?
2) Say why you believe they are there?
3) Provide evidence they are there?

Your own words ;) If not, it's cool, no worries.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
Hold it!!, hold it right there. You're right. Not interested.
This type of circular reasoning never led anywhere.
Click to expand...

I don't think that referencing the Bible is circular reasoning if the Bible is my reference point on the soul. I believe the Bible - the Bible says this on the soul.

If I said that I believe Gandalf was a troll in Middle Earth and used the Lord Of The Rings as a reference I would be wrong in what Gandalf was but I would be reasonable in using the Lord Of The Rings as a reference and the sensible response would be to correct me using the same work.
 
David Henson said:
If I said that I believe Gandalf was a troll in Middle Earth and used the Lord Of The Rings as a reference I would be wrong in what Gandalf was but I would be reasonable in using the Lord Of The Rings as a reference and the sensible response would be to correct me using the same work.
Click to expand...

The Bible and Lord of the Rings. A very valid comparison. Both fantasies.
 
trentwray said:
Do you believe in the soul and/or the spirit personally? In your own words, aside from any other source ... can you:

1) Say what they are?
2) Say why you believe they are there?
3) Provide evidence they are there?

Your own words ;) If not, it's cool, no worries.
Click to expand...

Hmmm . . . well, I studied the Bible carefully and until then I might have used the word soul in any generic sort of uninformed way, but now I would give you my own thoughts on what the soul and spirit are according to what I've learned from the Bible.

So, the question is, could I answer your question in my own words but according to what I've learned from the Bible?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom