What Is The Soul?

[dafydd]

Why no answer David?

That would involve thinking,not quoting the babble.

 

[I Ratant]

...You won't answer of course,believers always dodge the akward questions.The ignore button is calling.

.
No, no!
There's a promised thread on women coming!
We gonna learn all about cooties, I bet!
Can't wait.

 

[Trent Wray]

.
No, no!
There's a promised thread on women coming!
We gonna learn all about cooties, I bet!
Can't wait.

Where is PaulBethke when you need him

 

[David Henson]

Actually, we do want evidence. We keep asking for evidence, but nobody ever provides evidence that stands up to scrutiny. People often claim to have evidence, but either they fail to deliver, or the "evidence" is nonsense, so we tend to be a little jaded about it.

Could you, please, give an example of what evidence you are asking for? Provide an example of evidence that isn't viewed as nonsense?

I say this because anything can be evidence for anything. A man takes a walk in a city he has never been to. He gets lost and starts to panic. He reluctantly decides to take a shortcut through a dark alley. Just as he hears the dying moan of a person he trips over the form lying in a pool of blood in the alley. As he gets up he feels something foreign on the ground and without thinking picks it up. At that moment the police arrive with their spotlight on the man standing in the dark alley over the now dead man holding the bloody knife in his hand with blood all over him. All of this is used as evidence that he killed the man in the alley but he didn't. Evidence is subjective and doesn't equate with truth.

We do have evidence that people make up myths and "Holy" texts, and that many other people believe these myths and texts to be true. (Eg, Book of Mormon, Scientology, Cargo Cults, etc.) If you want us to accept the Bible as evidence, you could begin by showing us why we should regard it as something more than just another collection of myths and fables.

Start a new thread entitled "The Bible On Trial." You are the prosecution and I am the defense. Make your case for the lack of evidence and I will provide what you need.

Not at all. To confirm you have the truth, all you have to do is test it against reality. Have you done this with the "truth" of the Bible? If so, how? And what were the results.

The Bible has proved itself to me without a doubt. That is a personal thing. What did it for me might not do it for anyone else.

Good, that's a great start. It's accurate and in line with proved science. Um, exactly what proved science would that be?

Skeptics raise a few points regarding where the Bible allegedly goes against proved science. Most skeptics now see these points as lame, but you still see them from time to time. They are Pi, Hares Chewing Cud, Insect Legs, and Prenatal Influence. I have discussed each of these with atheists to my satisfaction, but as I said most atheists place no import upon them and the rest will ignore the evidence against the claims made against the Bible. I have had a few that said "Oh. Yeah. Okay, that makes sense, well done." But that is rare.

The way I see it those are lame examples, but some people think of them as serious. The way I see it the Bible disagrees with science when it comes to evolution, though the term evolution is constantly evolving as it should. I could provide you with an article I wrote on Mutations, but I don't feel the disagreement with the theory of evolution is as important as most evolutionists and creationists do. So the Bible and science disagree. That is healthy. Sometimes even science disagrees with science.

Also science has provided no conclusion that there is any evidence of the global deluge, but it isn't as if they are looking for it or evidence can't be gathered to logically propose the possibility. Most science minded atheists are not going to accept any evidence for the Bible when it comes to science because they are simply diametrically opposed to anything Biblical.

The Tower of Babel story that claims all the different languages came into existence in a single day is in line with the science of linguistics?

Philology classifies languages into families, the parent language of major families typically is not identified. Its lost. What evidence would you expect?

Or that Jacob breeding striped goats by having the (non-striped) parents look at striped reeds while copulating is in line with the science of genetics?

There you see?! You are talking about Prenatal Influence which I mentioned earlier. I can provide you with an answer. In fact maybe I will repost all of the ones I mentioned.

The figures in both Exodus and Numbers that show the population of Hebrews beginning with less than a hundred rapidly growing to millions in less than a century is in line with the science of demography?

Consider Kenya in the 1980's. They had a similar growth of population. In Egypt there was no food shortage.

The claim in Leviticus that hares chew the cud is in line with the science of zoology?

Heh. I'm going to have to post those articles.

The claim in Joshua that God made the sun stand still, and in Isaiah that he made it move backward by 10 degrees is in line with the science of astronomy?

No. Exactly how that took place is uncertain, but it would be a matter of the supernatural which would require faith. 2 Chronicles 32:31 mentions that princes from Babylon sent messengers to inquire about it, which would indicate that it wasn't just a local thing.

The claim Job 38:22-23 that God keeps a store of snow and hail set aside for emergencies is in line with the science of meteorology?

One possibility is that the result of the flood would have changed a worldwide tropical or sub-tropical climate into what we have today, with the polar icecaps, which are melting at a rapid pace and this could be a problem. However, I think that it is simply a case of expression. To say that God has a storehouse of ice and hail simply means that he has those things at his disposal. The science of meteorology doesn't speculate on this, but egg size hailstones killed 25 people and injured 200 in Henan Province, China in the summer of 2002 and in 1545 the Italian sculptor Benvenuto Cellini wrote: "We were one day distant from Lyons . . . when the heavens began to thunder with sharp rattling claps. . . . After the thunder the heavens made a noise so great and horrible that I thought the last day had come; so I reined in for a moment, while a shower of hail began to fall without a drop of water. . . . The hail now grew to the size of big lemons. . . . The storm raged for some while, but at last it stopped . . . We showed our scratches and bruises to each other; but about a mile farther on we came upon a scene of devastation which surpassed what we had suffered, and defies description. All the trees were stripped of their leaves and shattered; the beasts in the field lay dead; many of the herdsmen had also been killed; we observed large quantities of hailstones which could not have been grasped with two hands."

All those many references to the earth resting on pillars is in line with the science of geology?

Another case of expression. Similar to the foundation of our marriage or the cornerstone of the establishment.

Isaiah 40:22 plainly states that the Earth is a circle (Hebrew chugh which means globe, spherical, circle) a long time before science came to that conclusion. Skeptics often take expressions like "four corners of the earth" and similar phrases that we use today as implying a Biblical flat earth, but that is pretty lame in my opinion.

The claim that Jonah survived in the belly of a "great fish" for three days is in line with the science of biology?

Its your turn. What evidence is there that the event couldn't have happened.

The claim that prayer can reliably cure all disease is in line with the science of medicine? (If so, that would easily win Randi's Million Dollar Challenge!)

Again it is your turn. Provide evidence that the Bible says prayer can reliably cure all disease.

The claim that a dragon will knock the stars from the sky with its tail is in line with the science of cosmology?

The stars here represent angels, of whom Satan is the ruler. (Job 38:7 / Matthew 12:24 / Revelation 12:3-4, 9) Revelation chapter 12 deals with the enmity between Jehovah‘s seed and Satan's seed. (Genesis 3:15 / John 12:31 / Matthew 2:13) Satan‘s influence isn't limited to rebellious humans, but also includes rebellious spirit creatures in heaven. (Genesis 6:1-2 / Jude 1:6 / 1 Peter 3:19-20 / 2 Peter 2:4-5 / Ephesians 6:12 ) It is often overlooked that Genesis 3:15 is actually the first prophecy of Jesus Christ. At the same time that verse is dealing with the sin of Adam and Satan in a way that appears to address the woman and the serpent it is actually looking far ahead into the future; at the results of the events having just taken place. The serpent, Satan, has laid down the seed for rebellious followers and likewise, God would provide his own seed contrary to this. God's seed, of which Jesus Christ would become the king, would suffer some losses, but would prevail over the rebellious.

Also, similar metaphoric use of the heavenly actually represent social and political upheaval.

Copernicus didn't know a millionth about astronomy about what we know today, but his idea that the earth revolves around the sun instead of the other way around still holds true after more than 450 years, because it describes the solar system with a high degree of accuracy.

And the only reason the Bible is thought to disagree is because the Church thought that the expression in the Bible "the rising sun" meant that Thomas Aquinas' being influenced by Aristotle's geocentric beliefs was right. We say the sun rises today but we know the earth isn't at the center.

 

[Nonpareil]

Could you, please, give an example of what evidence you are asking for? Provide an example of evidence that isn't viewed as nonsense?

We can't tell you what we're looking for until you state exactly what it is that you are trying to prove. Simply saying "souls exist" isn't good enough; we need a list of properties before we can test for it.

 

[Trent Wray]

The Bible has proved itself to me without a doubt. That is a personal thing. What did it for me might not do it for anyone else.

Focus on providing evidence as to what caused this, or don't expect us to feel the same way. And you should know that a personal thing is subjective.

Which is fine. You don't need us to validate this for you. It's okay for you to have faith. Just realize it's your own and let others have their own.

Your entire argument boils down to "a personal thing" and every piece of objective evidence you think you will offer rests on top of that foundation, a subjective one. Take it away, and your argument falls apart. You don't want to focus on the root, personal thing, then don't bring it up. And if you don't want to, I would say you are the lazy one avoiding the point to continue your pointlessness fantasy. And it's a fantasy because you don't want to examine the root, so you don't even know if it's real or not.

 

[David Henson]

Focus on providing evidence as to what caused this, or don't expect us to feel the same way. And you should know that a personal thing is subjective.

Which is fine. You don't need us to validate this for you. It's okay for you to have faith. Just realize it's your own and let others have their own.

Your entire argument boils down to "a personal thing" and every piece of objective evidence you think you will offer rests on top of that foundation, a subjective one. Take it away, and your argument falls apart. You don't want to focus on the root, personal thing, then don't bring it up. And if you don't want to, I would say you are the lazy one avoiding the point to continue your pointlessness fantasy. And it's a fantasy because you don't want to examine the root, so you don't even know if it's real or not.

Nothing to say on my OP, trent?

 

[Trent Wray]

Nothing to say on my OP, trent?

I'm responding to your various other posts that strayed from your own OP. I want to know WHY you posted it in the first place, beyond the cover store bait-catch b.s. You act like you don't want to go there and reveal your true agenda, but you keep letting me drag it out of you anyway You're too easy, and I'm trying to show you something about your OP but you're missing it because you don't want your own questions answered by anyone other than you.

You're obvious to everyone but you.

If you don't want to get to the point, tell me to stop posting in this thread, because that is where I'd like to go. But you said you'd play by my rules.

The point:
"I believe the bible is true no matter what. Let me teach you what I know, or you can help me prove to myself what I already know for my own ego."

This is not a conversation. No one asked you to start posting your facts. If you want to be challenged, then accept all the challenges. An inquisitive mind would ask: "Before we get to your teaching of facts, why do you believe them to be fact?"

Which you've answered: "It's personal."

If you don't want to go there, there is no point. You will learn nothing. And we won't either ... because that point is what is driving you and your tactics. You are wasting YOUR time. And you are blind to it.

ETA: Sorry to be rude, but I'm going to duck out and be tied up until later this evening, most likely. Have a good day/night

 

[I Ratant]

...
If you don't want to go there, there is no point. You will learn nothing. And we won't either ... because that point is what is driving you and your tactics. You are wasting YOUR time. And you are blind to it.
...

.
" The claim that Jonah survived in the belly of a "great fish" for three days is in line with the science of biology?"
.
A person that could post this answer to the question of survival in a digestive system has no common sense, and isn't worth bothering with having had what brains there were scooped out and discarded, and replaced by blinded faith..
.
" What evidence is there that the event couldn't have happened."
.
Other than providing amusement, davidhenson is a total loss to the world of intellectual discussion.

 

[paximperium]

Nothing to say on my OP, trent?

What is there to say about your OP?
Nice story. So what?

 

[I Am The Scum]

Remember, guys. Any time the Bible has been shown to be patently false, that part was figurative, not literal.

 

[dafydd]

.
No, no!
There's a promised thread on women coming!
We gonna learn all about cooties, I bet!
Can't wait.

Ok,I'll hang around,but sometimes his superciliousness outweighs his comedy value.Should be laugh though.

 

[dafydd]

Most science minded atheists are not going to accept any evidence for the Bible when it comes to science because they are simply diametrically opposed to anything Biblical.

If you knew anything about science you would be diametrically opposed to anything biblical too.

 

[Robin]

David,

You just complained that this was an unproductive conversation and that nobody appeared to be interested in the meaning of "soul" in the Bible.

I think my contribution was on-topic and quite productive, and yet you appear to have completely ignored it and engaged in unproductive to-and-fro with others.

Were you not serious?

From Strong's:

nephesh:
Definition
a soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, passion, appetite, emotion
NASB Word Usage
any (1), anyone (2), anyone* (1), appetite (7), being (1), beings (3), body (1), breath (1), corpse (2), creature (6), creatures (3), dead (1), dead person (2), deadly (1), death (1), defenseless* (1), desire (12), desire* (2), discontented* (1), endure* (1), feelings (1), fierce* (2), greedy* (1), heart (5), heart's (2), herself (12), Himself (4), himself (19), human (1), human being (1), hunger (1), life (146), life* (1), lifeblood* (2), lives (34), living creature (1), longing* (1), man (4), man's (1), men* (2), mind (2), Myself (3), myself (2), number (1), ones (1), others (1), ourselves (3), own (1), passion* (1), people (2), people* (1), perfume* (1), person (68), person* (1), persons (19), slave (1), some (1), soul (238), soul's (1), souls (12), strength (1), themselves (6), thirst (1), throat (2), will (1), wish (1), wishes (1), yourself (11), yourselves (13).​

and

ruach:

Definition
breath, wind, spirit
NASB Word Usage
air (2), anger (1), blast (2), breath (31), breathless* (1), cool (1), courage (1), despondency* (1), exposed (1), grief* (1), heart (1), inspired (1), mind (3), motives (1), points (1), quick-tempered* (1), side (4), sides (2), Spirit (76), spirit (127), spirits (3), strength (1), temper (2), thoughts* (1), trustworthy* (1), wind (98), winds (7), windy (2), wrath (1).
​

For a passage that uses both words:

Eze 18:20 The soul (nephesh) who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
Eze 18:21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die.
....
Eze 18:31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit (ruach). Why will you die, O house of Israel?
​

So clearly this is suggesting that a soul might not die and that a spirit is something that will die and will need to be renewed. Which is quite the opposite of what you are suggesting.

Psyche and spirit both come from words that can mean "breath" and I also note that Strongs says of nephesh "From naphash; properly, a breathing creature". In Genesis 2:7 God breathes into the nostrils of the man he has formed and the man becomes a nephesh.

So I think the words are closer than you think and also each can mean a number of things.

It is probably a mistake to assume that the usage of these words in the Bible was any more precise or less ambiguous than the usage of the equivalent words we have in our language today.

 

[Brian-M]

Could you, please, give an example of what evidence you are asking for? Provide an example of evidence that isn't viewed as nonsense?

For example, in 1 Corinthians 15:4-6, after the resurrection Jesus is supposed have been seen over 500 people at once. A few eyewitness accounts would be a good start at demonstrating historical accuracy.

But you need more than that to demonstrate the supernatural element...

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Excellent! If true believers can safely drink poison that would kill an ordinary person, you have a repeatable scientific test that can be used to demonstrate the truth of The Bible.

In fact, any repeatable test of claims in The Bible that cannot be explained by science would be very good evidence of the truth of The Bible.

I say this because anything can be evidence for anything. A man takes a walk in a city he has never been to. He gets lost and starts to panic. He reluctantly decides to take a shortcut through a dark alley. Just as he hears the dying moan of a person he trips over the form lying in a pool of blood in the alley. As he gets up he feels something foreign on the ground and without thinking picks it up. At that moment the police arrive with their spotlight on the man standing in the dark alley over the now dead man holding the bloody knife in his hand with blood all over him. All of this is used as evidence that he killed the man in the alley but he didn't. Evidence is subjective and doesn't equate with truth.

Evidence is not the same as proof. Being caught standing over a freshly murdered person with the murder weapon in your hand is very strong evidence for you being the murderer, and that evidence is objective fact, not subjective opinion, but it is not proof that you committed the murder. I'm only asking you for evidence that the supernatural claims in the Bible are true, not conclusive proof.

Start a new thread entitled "The Bible On Trial." You are the prosecution and I am the defense. Make your case for the lack of evidence and I will provide what you need.

Um... you're not quite getting this, are you? Making the case for a lack of evidence would look like this:



The only way to make a case for a lack of evidence of anything would be by not making a case at all. If you actually wanted to do the trial thing, it would be "Evidence Supporting The Bible" versus "Evidence Contradicting The Bible". The case for a lack of evidence would be irrelevant to either side.

You're here trying to convince us of your point of view, it's up to you to provide an argument to support it. If one of us were to start a thread about the nonexistence of the soul (or the falsity of The Bible) it would be up to us to provide an argument to support our opinion.

The Bible has proved itself to me without a doubt. That is a personal thing. What did it for me might not do it for anyone else.

Good for you. But don't expect your personal experience to convince us that it's real any more than the personal experience of a UFO abductee would convince us that flying saucers and little gray aliens with anal probes are real.

Skeptics raise a few points regarding where the Bible allegedly goes against proved science. Most skeptics now see these points as lame, but you still see them from time to time. They are Pi, Hares Chewing Cud, Insect Legs, and Prenatal Influence. I have discussed each of these with atheists to my satisfaction, but as I said most atheists place no import upon them and the rest will ignore the evidence against the claims made against the Bible. I have had a few that said "Oh. Yeah. Okay, that makes sense, well done." But that is rare.

The biggest reason for bringing these up is when dealing with people who argue about the infallibility of The Bible. I agree that many of them, such as PI are very lame indeed. But the point is, where do you draw the line? Where do you say, this is a metaphor, this is a mistake, this was just a guess, this was just evocative imagery, but, no, that part is absolutely, without question true? The whole thing ends up as one big mess of Pareidolia, confirmation bias and special pleading. The perfect environment for fostering irrational belief.

So the Bible and science disagree. That is healthy. Sometimes even science disagrees with science.

Yes, The Bible disagrees with science, and yet you still claimed that "it is accurate and in line with proved science".

Science sometimes disagrees with science. Old beliefs are challenged, and are discarded if shown to be wrong, and human understanding advances. Religion often disagrees with religion. Old beliefs are challenged, and each side sticks firmly with their existing opinion no matter what, and human understanding stagnates. Which way is better?

Also science has provided no conclusion that there is any evidence of the global deluge, but it isn't as if they are looking for it or evidence can't be gathered to logically propose the possibility.

Have you heard of varves? Annual layers of sediment deposited on lake beds around the world. A coarse layer deposited from rushing river-water of the spring thaw, followed by a finer layer that settles on the bottom during winter. Hundreds of thousands of alternating layers, in some case many millions of alternating layers, each layer easily distinguished by eye and easily countable.

If the great flood had happened, there would be a great big thick layer of mixed-up sediment that even a nearsighted, senile geologist could spot in a second. A layer that could be found in varves all around the world, and would be noticed by thousands of geologists. No such layer exists.

Science can't reach the "conclusion that there is any evidence of the global deluge" if there isn't any such evidence to be found.

Most science minded atheists are not going to accept any evidence for the Bible when it comes to science because they are simply diametrically opposed to anything Biblical.

Science minded people don't turn a blind eye to clear, convincing, testable evidence.

Isaiah 40:22 plainly states that the Earth is a circle (Hebrew chugh which means globe, spherical, circle) a long time before science came to that conclusion. Skeptics often take expressions like "four corners of the earth" and similar phrases that we use today as implying a Biblical flat earth, but that is pretty lame in my opinion.

I never said The Bible didn't say the Earth was a circle. Whether or not the word for circle can also refer to a sphere is debatable, which is why I didn't bring it up.

Its your turn. What evidence is there that the event couldn't have happened.

Aside the problem of spending three days immersed in strong acid without dissolving, stomachs do not generally contain pockets of air, let alone enough breathable air to last for three days.

Again it is your turn. Provide evidence that the Bible says prayer can reliably cure all disease.

Easy...

Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. "Greater works than these shall he do."

And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

 

[Brian-M]

David,

You just complained that this was an unproductive conversation and that nobody appeared to be interested in the meaning of "soul" in the Bible.

I think my contribution was on-topic and quite productive, and yet you appear to have completely ignored it and engaged in unproductive to-and-fro with others.

Were you not serious?

That reminds me, he never responded to my comment on the subject either...

Actually, the Old Testament doesn't say anything about the soul. The word soul does not exist in Ancient Hebrew. The Hebrew word Nephesh is sometimes translated as soul, but can also be translated as life.

So that text you were quoting could be interpreted as saying that life is in the blood. That's rather sensible, because without our blood, we tend to die.

From Wikipedia...

Nephish is defined in but one place in the Old Testament and that is in the form of a recipe:

* 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 [nephesh]. NIV
* And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul [nephesh].[5] KJV

Nephesh recipe:

1. Take one physical body
2. Insert the breath of life into the body
3. Results: A living, breathing, nephesh

This word usually designates the person as a whole[6] or its physical life.

So where the word soul is found in The Bible, life would be a better translation. There is nothing in the Old Testament about soul at all.

 

[maatorc]

The Hebrew nephesh and the Greek psykhe both mean a person or animal or the life which the person or animal enjoys......

......"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.

As is well explained in the literature of the mystical tradition and occult anatomy, the soul is understood as the mental body. See, for example, page 297 in "Comte De Gabalis".

 

[quarky]

Wish we could discuss the "Jubilee" here. Now that's some interesting Bible stuff.

 

[devnull]

The Bible has proved itself to me without a doubt. That is a personal thing. What did it for me might not do it for anyone else.

Then it isnt evidence. QED.

 

[David Henson]

David,

You just complained that this was an unproductive conversation and that nobody appeared to be interested in the meaning of "soul" in the Bible.

I think my contribution was on-topic and quite productive, and yet you appear to have completely ignored it and engaged in unproductive to-and-fro with others.

Were you not serious?

I agree. You are absolutely right. I will go back to the original now so I can quote it. My apologies.