Permie

When the breath of life enter the man, it was no longer in God, but in man, who never was holy and pure. Yes, the bible was written in the language of men, but all scripture is given by inspiration of God. It was His Holy Spirit that guided men to write His words to us. If it was mans thoughts and understanding of Gods workings, then they would not be from Him, but man. Your last statement makes me wonder ... do you believe that scripture is an exhaustive, inerrant and inspired word of God? Hello OneLight, I was just going over the last 20 or 30 posts to contemplate all that has been transpiring with the intent to make a comprehensive post before long... when I have time to sit down and give undivided attention and thought to it. Anyway, I saw your question and thought it should be answered right away. Yes I do. While it is exhaustive, it is also written: It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. Proverbs 25:2 Ever have something sitting right in front of your eyes, and yet still not see it? The bible can be like that... continually revealing itself. Jesus also intimated this: I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. John 16:12 Some things are hard to see in scripture, yet they are there, just concealed. Glory, glory to God in His Highest! Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. John 16:13 With the love of Christ, Permie

Thank you, OneLight, for showing that the fearful are Christians. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Revelation 21:8 I still maintain that "perfected love" casts out all fear. 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. 16And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. 17Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. 18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

That's incorrect according to Scripture. Jer

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Revelation 21:8 Why would the verse repeat the unbelieving twice? That sure is one long run on sentence then with all the "ands" in it. I do see that the word "kai" includes the possibility of the meaning "also". If all the commas, which indicate a separation, were removed then I would tend to agree with you. As it is, the use of the commas indicate a separation/difference as the word "also" (kai) would too. With the commas as they are used, I read them as a list.

Thank you soooo much, traveller!

Hello OneLight, I'll be leaving shortly, but had a few minutes and thought I'd stop in here while having a cup of coffee. I too use the same source you referenced to post scripture. I generally use the "keyword search" tab, because like I said, I know what's written, but I don't know where it is specifically. Just to be clear, am I understanding correctly that for you personally, you want to see the actual scripture posted? As an example, say that I have used scripture in a "conversational" manner in a sentence. Would you then want just the book, chapter verse referenced at the end of that sentence? Or would you want it referenced in full? I don't want to cause your eyes to blink and will really try to do what's needed for you as well as others as I know their preferences in reading. Or, is that not what you are talking about? Like in writing to Gentlewind, I think she recognizes the particular scripture when it's written in a conversational manner, and I would not necessarily always have to post the scripture while talking to her. That may be due to her being Berean though. Where it is in scripture would suffice, but full scripture is even better. Just saying that it is biblical leaves no pointer as to where to find it. My reason is that I try not to assume what one is referring to, for there are many places in scripture that are closely related in meaning, but until I can read it in context, I am not willing to just go by someones word ... no offense. I too prefer the full scripture and will do that in the future for you. Book, chapter and verse number alone just leaves me without even wanting to read a post. No offense is or was taken, btw. I cannot edit the original, but will include the change in mine. Thank you for that.

Hi LadyC, Still waiting on that phone call to say, okay, let's go! So I am now having a second cup of coffee, LOL Yes, that part of losing the train of thought is something that occurred to me too. I was thinking that I could do the referencing during my re-reading of the post I am about to make and then make the references last. Just so I too wouldn't lose my train of thought. I do hope that will be the case for you. The 10 years that I have been looking up the passages online and posting them hasn't done much for me in remembering them. Though, granted, just lately I have started trying to remember the book, chapter and verse too. I really don't know how successful I will be regarding this even with the added extra effort. Sometimes my own personal RAM (computer term for random access memory) is challenged on the simplest of matters. Ever use the terms: thing-ah-mah-jiggie, the watchya-mah-call-it and the such? LOL, indication of RAM overload. Ah, there's my telephone call! May God bless us all! With the love of Christ, Permie

Hello OneLight, I'll be leaving shortly, but had a few minutes and thought I'd stop in here while having a cup of coffee. I too use the same source you referenced to post scripture. I generally use the "keyword search" tab, because like I said, I know what's written, but I don't know where it is specifically. Just to be clear, am I understanding correctly that for you personally, you want to see the actual scripture posted? As an example, say that I have used scripture in a "conversational" manner in a sentence. Would you then want just the book, chapter verse referenced at the end of that sentence? Or would you want it referenced in full? I don't want to cause your eyes to blink and will really try to do what's needed for you as well as others as I know their preferences in reading. Or, is that not what you are talking about? Like in writing to Gentlewind, I think she recognizes the particular scripture when it's written in a conversational manner, and I would not necessarily always have to post the scripture while talking to her. That may be due to her being Berean though. I do hope to resume our ongoing conversations soon. 3-d life can keep me busy at times, which I think is true for most people. Looking forward to your response. With the love of Christ, Permie OneLight, can/would you edit my post to provide a larger font size? Size 3, perhaps? Thank you.

Dear Gentlewind, I see no derailing done. My prayer is always that the Father's will be done and that the Lord's truth and love be manifest. Yes, no derailing has been done. Unity, love, fellowship, understanding, humility... this is what I have seen, not derailing, and I praise God. Plus, as I have only a few hours this morning and had planned on only reading here for a bit before getting things arranged for the day ahead, this has been a very uplifting happenstance. Guess what? I am the same way with the bible. I do not know the chapters and verses of scripture. I only know the words written between the bible's covers. Yes, I too might know the general area the verse is, but I too am numerically challenged in this area. I mainly 'think' in the language of the KJV, but the NASB also is predominant. I like several different versions for different reasons, but all in all I love all that concerns God! When people just post the book chapter and verse during a conversation, it makes my eyes blink...their point has immediately been lost to me. Let me see the scripture itself! LOL I too will refer to scripture in a conversational way, but then I noticed that one guy at the other site you mentioned who didn't recognize it to be scripture that was being referred to. Remember him? Said he had studied the New Testament 77 times? But would then come in and say why didn't you post any scripture? All you are writing are your own words! He just didn't recognize the words as scriptural. So now, if I remember too, I'll put into parenthesis (that's biblical) as a help to others who might be the same way. Thank you, Gentlewind, for blessing this thread as you have done. May Our Father's will continue to be done!

Well, guys and gals, I have to run along now. Talk to all later, Lord willing. Have a blessed day... Today is the day the Lord hath made! Let us be glad and rejoice in it!

The verse Gen 2:7 only contains the word neshamah, which as it can be seen at that site you referenced is God's Spirit. No, it cannot be seen. Go to the website I referenced and look up "breath" to find "neshamah" (it's spelled n@shamah in there ifyou don't have the correct fonts). Then click on that word to see where it is used in Scripture. Then read the verses to which it comes from. I still have the site up. I have just read the 24 verses that uses Neshamah, and all but 2 in Job, 1 verse in Proverbs, and 1 verse in Isaiah all mention breath as it pertains to life. The ones that don't speak of life. I thought the following verse was appropriate. 5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out ; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein Isaiah 42:5 From the same site: Definition 1. breath, spirit 1. breath (of God) 2. breath (of man) 3. every breathing thing 4. spirit (of man) The bible tells us the God is Spirit. I do not imagine the Hebrew to be incorrect. You do know what sticklers they are about the Word don't you? A simple writing error such as a misspelling and it, the whole thing the entire scroll, was trashed. The Hebrew is not incorrect. It is your translation we are refuting. If the writer of Genesis meant to say God's Spirit was placed into man, he would have used the word ruwach as he did in: Genesis 1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit [ruwach] of God moved upon the face of the waters. Genesis 6:3 - 3 And the LORD said , My spirit [ruwach] shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh : yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Genesis 41:38 - And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit [ruwach] of God is? These verses are all describing the "workings of the Spirit of God" as man perceives those workings i.e. Ruwach, as you have indicated. Two different words. Ruwach, the "workings", and neshamah: breath, which the bible and that site both say are Spirit, which is God.

I understand that they are two different aspects. That doesn't change the fact that only neshamah is used in Gen 2:7. There is no ruwach in that verse. Why is ruwach being brought up when it isn't even used in that verse? Because you claimed that when God breathed life (nĕshamah) into man, He gave man His Spirit (ruwach), here and again, while agreeing with Gentlewind, here. To me, this is adding to the verse what isn't there. This causes imagination, and we are to cast down imaginations and take all thoughts captive to the obedience of Christ. Let us use the words as they are written and not add to them. Ruwach is in many other places of the bible, appropriately. Permie, Actally, You are the one adding to it's meaning. In the Bible when God wants to speak of His Holy Spirit he uses the Word Ruwach. In this particular instance a different Word is used and that Word does not indicate God's Holy Spirit rather it indicates the Life of man. So the basis of your understanding is merited upon an error not on the Words part but your own. Peace, Dave Thank you, Dave, you have clarified what the issue is for me. Appreciated. Sometimes we all just need a little help with interpretations of the communications between us. Okay, I'll accept that Ruwach is used for Holy Spirit specifically*. Yet, that still has me questioning: Is there anything in God that is not holy and pure? (This is in reference to the posts between OneLight and I, which I hope you did see and therefore are aware of what I mean.) *I think that it might be useful here to mention that the bible is written in the language of men: how we perceive God's workings. This is what I am thinking the word Ruwach is specifically used for.

I understand that they are two different aspects. That doesn't change the fact that only neshamah is used in Gen 2:7. There is no ruwach in that verse. Why is ruwach being brought up when it isn't even used in that verse? Because you claimed that when God breathed life (nĕshamah) into man, He gave man His Spirit (ruwach), here and again, while agreeing with Gentlewind, here. Right - this has been my understanding as well. By which basis do you claim that neshamah is God's Spirit? As I mentioned above, justt because some translators used the word "spirit" instead of "breath" in their translations does not mean the Lord placed His Spirit into man in Gen. 2:7. The verse Gen 2:7 only contains the word neshamah, which as it can be seen at that site you referenced is God's Spirit. I do not imagine the Hebrew to be incorrect. You do know what sticklers they are about the Word don't you? A simple writing error such as a misspelling and it, the whole thing the entire scroll, was trashed.

I understand that they are two different aspects. That doesn't change the fact that only neshamah is used in Gen 2:7. There is no ruwach in that verse. Why is ruwach being brought up when it isn't even used in that verse? Because you claimed that when God breathed life (nĕshamah) into man, He gave man His Spirit (ruwach), here and again, while agreeing with Gentlewind, here. To me, this is adding to the verse what isn't there. This causes imagination, and we are to cast down imaginations and take all thoughts captive to the obedience of Christ. Let us use the words as they are written and not add to them. Ruwach is in many other places of the bible, appropriately.

Are you saying that God is anything but totally pure and holy. That anything in Him is of darkness? Would you kindly explain to me how you came to the conclusion that by pointing out the difference of the Spirit of God and the spirit of man is saying that God is not pure and holy? OK, I can see the confusion now. When God breathed into man, creating him a living creature, he was, at that time without sin. That would mean that nĕshamah, breath of life, was pure. It was not until man disobeyed God that man became sinful. Yes. It was the soul that sinned. The soul that sins dies. The spirit returns to God who gave it. (Last two sentences are biblical.)

Sure - I'm still figuring it out though since they changed the format. Super! The next few days I will be really busy, so I may not be bugging you too much until early next week. Another good interlinear bible is Interlinear Scripture Analyzer. This is the one I use. I'll entertain that site as well. Maybe I can figure out how to do the downloads and all that. Thank you!

I understand that they are two different aspects. That doesn't change the fact that only neshamah is used in Gen 2:7. There is no ruwach in that verse. Why is ruwach being brought up when it isn't even used in that verse?

Are you saying that God is anything but totally pure and holy. That anything in Him is of darkness? Would you kindly explain to me how you came to the conclusion that by pointing out the difference of the Spirit of God and the spirit of man is saying that God is not pure and holy? Sure. Outgoing breath comes from inside. God's breath that He breathed out came from inside Him. To me, anything coming from the inside of God is totally pure and holy and totally without darkness.

Sure - I'm still figuring it out though since they changed the format. Super! The next few days I will be really busy, so I may not be bugging you too much until early next week.

As you have established, the Hebrew word "neshamah" is what is being used in the scripture: Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. Neither of those underlined words are the ruwack, but are instead the neshamah. The definition of neshamah is: 1. breath, spirit 2. breath (of God) 3. breath (of man) 4. every breathing thing 5. spirit (of man) I have been consistently saying that this breath that caused us to be living souls is God's Spirit, and where does the Hebrew definition show it to be? In #5: The Spirit of Man! Since this is solid proof, what more needs to be said? Permie, you completely lost me. The word used for God's Spirit is ruwack - Reference (I've most often seen it spelled ruach, though) "Holy Spirit" is Ruach HaKodesh "Spirit of God" is Ruach Elohim So how can you say that neshamah is ruwack (ruach)? Coming at a disadvantage here regarding most of what you have written above, and you may be making a point that is now escaping me. Nevertheless, I am not saying that neshamah and ruwack are the same. Not trying to do any replacing, if that is what you are inferring. It's just that the site that you gave doesn't include ruwack in Gen 2:7, but only neshamah. We are talking about Gen 2:7 aren't we? That's where my focus is anyhow.

I like it, too. Here is the source page: http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/ You need to download the ability to correctly the Hebrew and Greek letters. By looking at One Light's post on the previous page I can see that two words I thought were the same were in fact different words. Thank you. Would it be okay if I were to ask assistance with that site from time to time, since it is new to me?

I have to ask, even though you are responding to Nebula. The Spirit of God is everywhere, being omnipresence. The spirit of man is limited to the individual. You also capitalize mans spirit as if it were deity, equal to Gods Spirit. How is it that you see the two as the same? I agree that God gave man his spirit, but it was not His Spirit. It may seem so. I was typing with excitement. I meant to fix that and didn't, but will. Are you saying that God is anything but totally pure and holy. That anything in Him is of darkness?

Nebula, That is a very cool site. I shall be bookmarking it. Wish I had such a site for the Greek. As you have established, the Hebrew word "neshamah" is what is being used in the scripture: Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. Neither of those underlined words are the ruwack, but are instead the neshamah. The definition of neshamah is: 1. breath, spirit 2. breath (of God) 3. breath (of man) 4. every breathing thing 5. spirit (of man) I have been consistently saying that this breath that caused us to be living souls is God's Spirit, and where does the Hebrew definition show it to be? In #5: The Spirit of man! Since this is solid proof, what more needs to be said? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD. Jeremiah 23:24 Praise the Lord!

Here we are on post #100 and no one has been able to identify/name the Spirit that God breathed into man to make us living souls. I wish you the best of luck with your request. May I suggest a different thread though? Ummm. . . wouldn't that be His own spirit? That's how I read it.