What is a "soul?"

[Frits]

2 hours ago, Josheb said:

Yep, that is true, but it has nothing to do with the point(s) being discussed by Charlie and I. When we speak of the "spirit" or "Spirit" given man at creation we are not talking about the Pentecost-given Spirit. No one is. At least I have yet to observe anyone asserting or suggesting such a thing in these 46 pages of posts (but perhaps I missed it). 

For your consideration: 1) God has many Spirits, and 2) the Spirit of God is given in many ways to many people for many reasons but there is only one regenerative Spirit, so 3) these various spirits should not be conflated or confused. Isaiah speaking of himself and prophetically of God's Anointed One declared, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me..." but no one holds the Spirit was upon Isaiah in the same manner as it was upon Jesus or that the Spirit-originated incarnation of Christ is identical to the experience of Pentecost. Similarly, the apostles were given the Spirit to preach and heel and cast out but that endowment was not salvific or regenerative; it was not identical to that which occurred at Pentecost. These expression of God's Spirit should not be confused or conflated.

So Pentecost has nothing to do with Eden and no one, certainly not Charlie or I are suggesting any such thing (do please feel to correct me there, Charlie, if I have that incorrect). 

This has already been answered and addressed and discussed from various povs so I don't know why it is deemed fit to ask again. There is no "soul" in Genesis 1 and 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Hebrew term is "living being." Look it up. This idea of body and soul and spirit in Genesis 2 comes from the KJV by way of Hellenism and  tradition, not something the Genesis 2 text actually states. 

After all these posts and the abundance of forensic examination no one should be posting "soul" that way wheh speaking Genesis 2:7. What Genesis 2:7 states is God took dust from the earth and breathed His life-giving breath into it to create a living being. 

Not a "soul." 

This same life-giving breath was breathed into all the animals. No mention of a "soul" in either. So my answer to your question is atypical: as far as Genesis 2:7 goes neither man nor any other animal has a soul! ! 

We have to go elsewhere in scripture to find, know of, and understand what is later called a "soul" and a "spirit" of man, of men, in man, in men, in a man, of God, etc. And these should not be confused or conflated, either. 

 

 

So Frits, if you're going to continue to drop in and out of the conversations it will behoove you to do the onerous work of 1) reading through what has already been posted, and 2) tolerating my expectation you'll have read at least enough to be informed so as 3) not to ask questions already answered or questions that don't have anything to do with the point of exchange when you jump in. I don't mind answering questions and replying to new additional commentary but there's little reason to recycle already-posted content if cogent discourse is the goal. This always becomes one of the burdens of lengthy ops. This op has been amazing and should probably get some kind of ribbon or star or something because 46 pages of mostly civil discourse is amazing, especially given the diversity of views expressed. 

 

 

.

By putting the beginning and the end side by side (eg after 46 pages!), you can easily see where a theory results in:

Has the Lord God breathed the breath of life into the nostrils of the birds, the fish, the cattle, the creeping things, and the wild beasts, as He did in Adam?  No.  Adam's soul has different potencies and abilities than any animal!

So, according to this "no-soul-theory", Adam and Eve "without a soul" could not really love God at all.  Thus, "like all other animals," they had no morals, and so could not show love and obedience to their Creator.

The commandment of the Lord Jesus,

'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.' (Mt.22:37)

..did not apply to the first human pair at all!  Adam and Eve were like the "animals" and for "animals" the commandment of the Lord Jesus does not apply.
(This is what we call a monkey story.)

Hmm... Somewhere I read "There is no Hades", and now
 "There is no soul".

And then I read that text from Acts 2:

'He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in Hades'

[Charlie744]

6 minutes ago, David1701 said:

I won't comment on everything; but there is one matter that is very important and that must be addressed.

The Holy Spirit is one of the Persons in the Godhead - the third Person of the Trinity.  He is entirely distinct from the human spirit that every human being has.

The human spirit in an unbeliever is very UNHOLY, which is why we must be born again, in order to be saved.  When someone is born again, he gets a new, soft-hearted human spirit AND he is given the Holy Spirit, to indwell him.

Ez. 36:26,27 (VW)

26 I will also give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
27 And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you shall keep My judgments and do them.

Thanks David! This is such a complicated topic and there are so many interesting responses and comments found here. 

First, I would like to ensure I do not want to confuse The Holy Spirit with the Spirit which I believe was placed/entered into Adam at the time of his creation. 

As I mentioned in the earlier posts, there is NOTHING stated in Genesis or any other books of the Bible that the Spirit of God was breathed into Adam! That is my own personal belief based on the comments previously mentioned: that God created man in His image, what was this difference between His image and all the other creatures He created, all creatures breath air, but God specifically breathed into man- a very unique and personal act, unlike any other creature, man had a “covering”. Was this covering the result of His breathing “simple air” into Adam’s lungs or was HIS Spirit entered into Adam separating our souls (being) from the other creatures, after the fall what was lost? Certainly not the body and not the soul ( here I am continuing the definition of a soul as A+B=C and not an independent part or a 3rd component of man). What was lost- the God given Spirit or His Righteousness not given to any other creature, did Adam lose this covering and God replaced it with an animal skin covering? Why was this written if not to draw attention to something very important- man had lost something that was part of his original creation, fallen man could no longer be in His presence without being or having His Spirit within him - he had to be removed from Eden- but this “soul” did not die! He still was a “soul” only incomplete, God’s Plan of Salvation was to restore His Spirit into His creation- this is where Pentecost is so important- He has given us a way to restore His Spirit... we chose to disobey God in the Garden and give up His Spirit and now we are given the opportunity to receive it back into our soul (make us complete once again as He had created us). In the Upper Room Jesus symbolically breathed on His followers- this was not just “air”, but a unique and very special and personal act symbolizing the same act He preformed in His creation of Adam. Now at Pentecost He will make His Spirit available to any and all who would accept Him. Also, and this is just my take on things (NOT specifically stated in Scriptures), but I believe there are two steps (bad word) that occurred in Adam & Eve’s creation: God breathed His Spirit into Adam but not Eve. After Jesus rose He breathed His Spirit onto His followers in the Upper Room. But at Pentecost He did not breathe His Spirit into those 3,000. 

So there is NOTHING stated in Genesis that tells us HIS breathing into Adam was more than “air”, but there is enough circumstantial (correct use of this word?) to pull this together and though the Scriptures (for me anyway). So, if we find in Revelation that we will be made complete as though we were in Genesis and that “missing part or component” is His Spirit, then we have come full circle and the definition in 2:7 will maintain its integrity to Revelation. 

To me there are 3 major fence posts that show we are keeping in line if you will: Genesis telling us He must have imparted His Spirit within us (unlike ANY of His other creations), we lost it by disobeying Him. The second major marking was the crucifixion and resurrection of the Messiah and where He once again breathed His Spirit into His followers AND sent His Holy Spirit at Pentecost for all who would accept it, and the last mile marker in Revelation where He will perfect us by resurrecting those who believe in Him and He will restore His Spirit when He calls us from the grave to meet Him in the air. Full circle and I believe this would/will confirm (for me) the true definition of a soul and its parts / make up by God at creation. Finally, within these 3 mile markers of you will, there are more than a few mentions of the body or the spirit or the soul. Consequently we would need to view / interpret these verses under this definition ... and each mention will have to maintain the integrity of this definition... if not, then this definition is flawed!

Charlie

[David1701]

24 minutes ago, Charlie744 said:

Thanks David! This is such a complicated topic and there are so many interesting responses and comments found here. 

First, I would like to ensure I do not want to confuse The Holy Spirit with the Spirit which I believe was placed/entered into Adam at the time of his creation. 

As I mentioned in the earlier posts, there is NOTHING stated in Genesis or any other books of the Bible that the Spirit of God was breathed into Adam! That is my own personal belief based on the comments previously mentioned: that God created man in His image, what was this difference between His image and all the other creatures He created, all creatures breath air, but God specifically breathed into man- a very unique and personal act, unlike any other creature, man had a “covering”. Was this covering the result of His breathing “simple air” into Adam’s lungs or was HIS Spirit entered into Adam separating our souls (being) from the other creatures, after the fall what was lost? Certainly not the body and not the soul ( here I am continuing the definition of a soul as A+B=C and not an independent part or a 3rd component of man). What was lost- the God given Spirit or His Righteousness not given to any other creature, did Adam lose this covering and God replaced it with an animal skin covering? Why was this written if not to draw attention to something very important- man had lost something that was part of his original creation, fallen man could no longer be in His presence without being or having His Spirit within him - he had to be removed from Eden- but this “soul” did not die! He still was a “soul” only incomplete, God’s Plan of Salvation was to restore His Spirit into His creation- this is where Pentecost is so important- He has given us a way to restore His Spirit... we chose to disobey God in the Garden and give up His Spirit and now we are given the opportunity to receive it back into our soul (make us complete once again as He had created us). In the Upper Room Jesus symbolically breathed on His followers- this was not just “air”, but a unique and very special and personal act symbolizing the same act He preformed in His creation of Adam. Now at Pentecost He will make His Spirit available to any and all who would accept Him. Also, and this is just my take on things (NOT specifically stated in Scriptures), but I believe there are two steps (bad word) that occurred in Adam & Eve’s creation: God breathed His Spirit into Adam but not Eve. After Jesus rose He breathed His Spirit onto His followers in the Upper Room. But at Pentecost He did not breathe His Spirit into those 3,000. 

So there is NOTHING stated in Genesis that tells us HIS breathing into Adam was more than “air”, but there is enough circumstantial (correct use of this word?) to pull this together and though the Scriptures (for me anyway). So, if we find in Revelation that we will be made complete as though we were in Genesis and that “missing part or component” is His Spirit, then we have come full circle and the definition in 2:7 will maintain its integrity to Revelation. 

To me there are 3 major fence posts that show we are keeping in line if you will: Genesis telling us He must have imparted His Spirit within us (unlike ANY of His other creations), we lost it by disobeying Him. The second major marking was the crucifixion and resurrection of the Messiah and where He once again breathed His Spirit into His followers AND sent His Holy Spirit at Pentecost for all who would accept it, and the last mile marker in Revelation where He will perfect us by resurrecting those who believe in Him and He will restore His Spirit when He calls us from the grave to meet Him in the air. Full circle and I believe this would/will confirm (for me) the true definition of a soul and its parts / make up by God at creation. Finally, within these 3 mile markers of you will, there are more than a few mentions of the body or the spirit or the soul. Consequently we would need to view / interpret these verses under this definition ... and each mention will have to maintain the integrity of this definition... if not, then this definition is flawed!

Charlie

I suggest, strongly, that you stick to what Scripture says and avoid speculation.

[DignifiedResponse]

5 hours ago, Frits said:

This "for ever and ever" is the same "for ever and ever", that is also used by the writer in the Hebrew letter:

The words are the same.  Yes.  But as shown you from scripture, God lives forever (the eternal fire), not the wicked, which are not indwelt by God.  God is a "consuming fire" to sin.

Only the righteous dwell with "everlasting burnings", not the wicked.

So, the "aeon" is determined by the material itself (thus they become "ashes", "as the fat of lambs", &c), and the condition that surrounds it (it lasts only as long as there is material to burn, for once fire has nothing more to burn it dies of itself (it was not "quenched" (forcibly put out)), then God uses that carbon, and recreates the New Earth there and the only thing that came through was the Ark of New Jerusalem that floated on the Sea (Lake) of Fire.  The righteous live with God for ever (aeon), but the wicked are perished (gone) for ever (aeon).

Aeon just means a period of unspecified time.  Context always dictates it's uses as shown.  The scriptures have shown that "aeon" can come to an end.

The fire that consumes them on earth (Rev. 20; Isa. 24, &c) is simply an aeonian fire.  Just as Noah's flood.  It comes up (and rain falls) for a time and then goes away.

The wicked do not get eternal existence, neither are eternally tortured.  They cease to be for ever.  The "torment" is but for a "season", while "2nd death" is lasting.  The one leads to the other.  Do not make the "torment" the eternal portion and death (oblivion) non existent, otherwise they will have never suffered the wages for sin..

Edited December 28, 2020 by DignifiedResponse

[Charlie744]

59 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, Charlie.

Thank you for your reply. I also apologize; I should not have assumed that you meant three parts, when you said nothing really to indicate that you believed that. I should have re-read your posts, for I did not remember the A and B parts, listed above. Sometimes, I read too quickly and assume summaries that aren't really there. I should read posts more thoroughly.

I still believe that even the two parts you mention are one part too much, and it's still an attempt to read the Scriptures in light of the theological philosophy. There are many arguments that we build from the silence of the Scriptures. However, an argument from silence is still a logical fallacy, UNLESS one qualifies one's position, admitting that the Scriptures are silent about the matter. The problem arises from building too much of our position upon those arguments from silence. Again, one must admit that the structure of one's position is based upon such arguments and is therefore suspect.

...that we know of! Again, this is an assumption built upon the apparent silence on the matter. I would like to point out a word that wasn't translated properly or as thoroughly as it might have been. It's the Hebrew word, "chayyiym." The word is spelled "chet-patach-yod/dagesh-chiriq-yod-mem." The "-chiriq-yod-mem" ending is a truly plural suffix; that is, it is not a dual plural word. It is used for numbers 3 or more. The root word is chay (Strong's Hebrew number 2416) which means "alive" or "living." As I said before, the word "nishmat" is a form used for the noun construct state. It means "a puff" but it also implies the word "of" between "nishmat" and the word which follows, "chayyiym." In English, we don't make adjectives plural, but Hebrew does. Therefore, in translation, we need to add a generalized word, such as "thing," and we get, "a puff of-living-[thing]s."

What "living things?" The "living things" were the animals already created on days 5 and 6, the birds, the fish, and the land animals! Thus, this "nishmat" is the puff of the birds, the fish, and the land animals already in existence!

Therefore, to say that the animals didn't receive such a puff is not necessarily correct! For me, to say that they did receive such a puff is not an argument from silence for this very reason!

Again, the Scriptures do not say anything about that. However, as you mentioned, the thing that truly separates us from the rest of the Creation is that the man - haa'aadaam - "Adam" was made in the image of God.

"God did not breathe air into Eve"...that we know of! God could indeed have breathed into Chavah ("Eve," a transliteration into English from the Greek transliteration written with epsilons so that it sounds like "Eh'-veh") the same puff of air that He did into Adam; the Scriptures are simply silent about it ... EXCEPT that we learn from Genesis 2:7 that God puffed air into the nostrils of "haa'aadaam!" Then, we also read the Scriptures that say,

 

Genesis 5:1-2 (KJV)

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 MALE AND FEMALE CREATED HE THEM; and blessed them, and called THEIR name "Adam," (Hebrew: haa'aadaam) in the day when THEY were created.

So, maybe the Scriptures are NOT so "silent" and we, being foreigners to the Hebrew language, simply miss it!

To all of this I will just say that the spirit of man is the "breath" of man; that is, a "forceful blowing" as when someone is passionate about what he is talking. That passion involves not only the thoughts behind the words but also the emotions. However, that is not a separate entity that goes anywhere after death. Instead, the mind - the brain - dies with the rest of the individual. However, God REMEMBERS the individual as he or she was and re-creates that person PRECISELY as he or she was before death. Then, that individual is transformed into an incorruptible, immortal being after the initial Resurrection.

God doesn't need to put His Spirit back into a person; the person is in the Holy Spirit of God already!

I had another thought, but being human, I've lost it ... temporarily. I believe it was important enough that God will give it back to my memory.

 

I am at risk of not being sincere or perhaps too “star struck”, but the comments from MANY members just within this topic are truly amazing!

Each day I can be assured I will find myself reading at least a few posts that cause me to just shake my head- how do these folks do this? How can they be so knowledgeable in the most complicated subject on earth? The Intelligence factor here is off the charts... and yet, these same folks allow me to play ball with them- I feel like I am the last person picked and stored in right field, but I am still playing!

There is certainly not much of your post to disagree with - but that is not something new.... 

I definitely agree I am, in my mind, attempting to fill in the blanks if you will... I may not be filling them in correctly but I am certain there are blanks to be filled in... God does not do random or coincidences. He always has a purpose And although there are many periods of “silence” within and or between His Words, I believe He has and would provide us with sufficient information to “fill in” these moments of silence.

I take your comments to heart and I hear you clearly- especially regarding the argument of silence. But here is how I see it: 

In Genesis God had created everything in 6 days. Even IF we could understand how He created everything it would have taken a gazillion years to go through— this is the kind of “silence” I understand and would never attempt to “fill in the blanks”. 

But for me, the attempt to define the meaning of a “soul” and apply this definition THROUGHOUT the Scriptures is not only necessary but required. Unlike the “silence of creation”, the soul, the spirit and the body (individually or together) are found from Genesis to Revelation. So we will not be needing to confirm a particular definition of how God created everything- that topic is not a integral part of His Plan of Salvation. But the concept of soul, body and spirit is! A true definition/understanding of these terms is critical and will allow us to see His Plan clearly. 

As you are well aware, if the definition of man is a tripartite, then we run the risk of of having to account for each part- does the body go into the ground but the soul go immediately to heaven (this may be a view in the majority and for me it seems ridiculous). What happened to the Spirit .. is it also with God or is immortal?

For me we are just doing “patchwork”. 

So, I believe He wants us to study His Word - including those purposely positioned “silent” things and not the more macro “silent things” like the creation of the universe, etc.

Bottom line- thoroughly enjoy your thoughts/responses.. can not imagine how many folks here can be fluent in Greek, Hebrew and English... the Good Lord did not give me these skills or how to see them..  there as foreign to me as music, arts, etc.—- to me it is ALL Greek (pun intended).

Side note- my father in law was absolutely brilliant in electrical engineering... he earned his masters at 16 from Rensselaer Poly. at 17, worked with Warner Von Braun after WWII... unbelievable logical mind— and many in this site remind me the manner and level he would communicate with others. However, his mind was so deficient in areas that were rather simple for my understanding— I could not understand how this brilliant individual could not grasp some rather mundane concepts. This site is a goldmine for me! In so many ways I am a first grade student sitting in a graduate level class... so interesting, Charlie 

 

 

[Charlie744]

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

I suggest, strongly, that you stick to what Scripture says and avoid speculation.

Thanks David and I can understand why you might make this comment.... I am certainly new to the Scriptures!

But I would like to say that if there were 100 people in a classroom and all were given the exact same Bible we would most likely find at least 70 different interpretations within the group- any topic.

We each see, understand and interpret things so differently... AND although I may have read a particular verse perhaps 10 times earlier, I have heard myself saying, “I never saw that before”! 

Again, I get your point, Charlie 

[Charlie744]

8 minutes ago, Josheb said:

????? 

What in all of the heavens and the earth are you talking about? Neither Charlie nor I were talking about any "no soul theory" nor was it asserted we couldn't really love God because we humans don't have a soul. When I said, "no soul" I simply and solely meant there is no "soul" mentioned in Genesis 2:7. The phrase is nephes hayyam or living being, not soul. I was not saying humans don't have a soul; I was saying the word "soul" doesn't appear in Genesis 2:7. The Hebrew is "living being" and that is something we are, not something we merely have. 

Nothing more was being said. 

So..... not only did you get the answer to did God breath His life giving breath into animals wrong,, you got the meaning of my "no soul" comment wrong. 

Ok, I need some more help here!

So, Genesis 2:7 does NOT include the word “soul” but “being”..... 

Are there verses that DO mention or include the word “soul” and not “being”, and therefore there are separate definitions for each?

I am going to suggest the next time God writes His Word that He writes in English... 

Charlie

[Alive]

2 minutes ago, Charlie744 said:

Ok, I need some more help here!

So, Genesis 2:7 does NOT include the word “soul” but “being”..... 

Are there verses that DO mention or include the word “soul” and not “being”, and therefore there are separate definitions for each?

I am going to suggest the next time God writes His Word that He writes in English... 

Charlie

Charlie, the wonder of this internet where we can so easily examine the words in the original texts translated to English words or other contemporary languages, is that we can first start there, when looking at a text. From there we go to context and background and audience. But we must first get the language itself correct.

I use these tools daily...it is really quite an adventure to desire and seek out what our Lord has indeed inspired.

[Alive]

4 minutes ago, Josheb said:

I don't think. At least not in the  OT. I might be incorrect. Retro covered a good bit of the language and how we get from "being to "soul" with the Hebrew. The chief problem is Hebrew is an idiomatic language that is nuanced and creates images with greater meaning beyond the ordinary use of the terms. English, on the other hand, is quite blunt comparatively speaking. Language is also a reflection of culture and here in the 21st century we in the English speaking world have benefitted  (he types dubiously) from the Existentialists so "being" is a much more loaded term but in earlier modern times bound to the KJV and the RCC traditions it was easy to slip into a Hellenized treatment of Hebrew. 

LOL!! You do that! Try to get it recorded 'cause I'd like to see how that pans out for you.  I don't see why we can't just use the word "nephesh" and accommodate its fuller meaning into English. We do that with all kinds of foreign words. The word "soul" is one of them!!!!!  Neither do I see why we can't say, "Serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your being." I don't think anyone is gonna get their knickers bunched up if we rendered Dt. 10:12 that way. 

 

And if He's not gonna speak in English then maybe He can start making humans with internal universal translators . Seems a little upgrade is in order.

That last will require an anatomical augmentation that transcends simple language translation. 

[Charlie744]

30 minutes ago, Alive said:

That last will require an anatomical augmentation that transcends simple language translation. 

I agree, but will that be part of the body, the soul? Will God breath that into us? Is that a universal Hebrew or Greek translator? Is this what is meant by speaking in tongues? 

This is just going to add another 45 pages to this topic...