What does it mean?

[Permie]

I agree that God gave man his spirit, but it was not His Spirit.

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.

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.)

Let

[OneLight]

If I may ...

The reason why it is not included is because nĕshamah, breath of life, is not ruwach, the Spirit of God. This is what we have been trying to point out.

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.

[nebula]

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 do not know what you mean by a "disadvantage".

Anyway - what you said:

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)

Are you familiar with homonids? Words that are spelled the same but have different meanings (may or may not be pronounced the same)?

Like the word "bat". A bat can be a club used in baseball, or using this club to hit the ball, or it can be an animal. To know which is being referenced, one must know the context it is being used. ( I bat the ball with the bat while a bat flew overhead. )

The word "present" can mean a gift or here (as in "I'm here").

Hebrew is like that - only it has a lot more of them. The Hebrew vocabulary is not very large.

Thus, the word neshamah can mean different things - it all depends on the context.

You cannot look at the word and assume all definitions of the word apply to it - just like "bat."

What you need to do is look through the Lexicon for the word neshamah and see when it is translated as "spirit" and when it is translated as "breath" - and why it was translated that way.

Look up the word "spirit" and see the difference between the translation comes from neshamah and when it comes from ruwach - and notice the difference.

One cannot interchange meanings as they please.

And the best way to understand a language is to learn from those who speak the language. I have never heard anyone who speaks Hebrew who would call the Spirit of God Neshamah.

[nebula]

If I may ...

The reason why it is not included is because nĕshamah, breath of life, is not ruwach, the Spirit of God. This is what we have been trying to point out.

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.

[Permie]

If I may ...

The reason why it is not included is because nĕshamah, breath of life, is not ruwach, the Spirit of God. This is what we have been trying to point out.

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.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Permie

[Permie]

If I may ...

The reason why it is not included is because nĕshamah, breath of life, is not ruwach, the Spirit of God. This is what we have been trying to point out.

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.

By which basis do you claim that neshamah is God's Spirit?

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.

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.

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.

[Matthitjah]

If I may ...

The reason why it is not included is because nĕshamah, breath of life, is not ruwach, the Spirit of God. This is what we have been trying to point out.

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

[Permie]

If I may ...

The reason why it is not included is because nĕshamah, breath of life, is not ruwach, the Spirit of God. This is what we have been trying to point out.

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.

[nebula]

By which basis do you claim that neshamah is God's Spirit?

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.

Please show me where "neshamah" is refers directly to the Spirit of God.

As I mentioned above, just 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.

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?

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Jamilea,

There is a distinct difference in what she is saying and what those refuting her are saying.

She is trying to build a basis for the original assertion, in error, that the Spirit of God is in all men.

Peace,

Dave