Joel, "Sure, that sounds great. It is a good time
for a break. Do all want to quit now and come back?"
Anny, "I for one don't. This is too important for me right now.
I think a break will do."
Joel, "You sure. It is almost 3 am."
Anny, "I am positive. I wouldn't be able to sleep any ways. But
if your tired, please don't let me talk you into staying. I do
understand that you work, it seems long days and nights."
Anny, "Now I feel bad."
Joel, "It is okay. Really. How about you Tommy? You willing to
stay?
Tommy, "Oh sure, this is what I live for. Sharing.
Understanding. It is a joy."
Dan, "You know I am going to stay. Just need a few more cups of
your famous coffee Joel."
Joel, "Sure Dan. Any one else."
As Joel was pouring coffee for Tommy then Anny, Dan spoke up.
Dan, "I'm quite interested in this issue and are willing to
explore this issue closely. I'm really quite glad for this discussion
of ours for it has indeed enriched my understanding and appreciation of
scriptures. By the way, I thank you for dealing with the scriptures
Tommy presented, some of which I hope to touch here.
Indeed I can tell, by the confidence with which you speak, that you
have a well developed "system" of understanding with regards to this
issue. You have provided the most relevant scriptures to bolster your
arguments and I personally enjoyed studying what you had to say. What
I'm about to share with you now is simply another "system" by which we
can understand this issue. You and I know that as many people as we can
fit in a room here there can be as many differences in opinion on any
given topic. What we must do as right dividers of God's word is just to
understand what each of us is trying to say and then see and judge for
ourselves where the weight of evidence (i.e. scriptures, history,
logic, etcetera) lies, all the while seeking the Holy Spirit for his
help in understanding the truth that is in God's word. For in the end,
we are all simply seeing but a poor reflection as in a mirror, we are
all waiting for that day when we shall see face to face as it say in 1
Cor 13. So you were right in saying no one has a corner on the truth.
That said I'd like to invite you go over with me why I think the
scriptures itself support the idea that souls can exist apart from the
body in an intermediate state while awaiting the promised resurrection,
starting with the Old Testament. In my view there are 2 major things we
can look at in support of my belief, first, the usages of the Hebrew
word "nephesh" throughout the OT, and second, looking at what the OT
teaches about life after death.
Now as you've stated you believe that living soul = body + spirit. That
belief is quite understandable in light of the different uses of
"nephesh" in the OT, especially Gen 2:7 which I think is the main
anchor of your belief. But the thing is, because there are various uses
of "nephesh" in the OT, we need to have at least a basic appreciation
of the different uses of that word in order to determine its correct
application as far as life after death is concerned.
With that in mind, let's take another look at the uses of "nephesh" in
the OT. You were correct in identifying that there are 754 occurrences
of this word in the OT. Now although it was used also for animals, the
primary usage seems to be in reference to man and to God Himself. What
I'd like to focus in particular here is it's usage for God:
Judges 10:16, "And they put away the strange gods from among them, and
served the LORD: and his soul [nephesh] was grieved for the misery of
Israel."
Isaiah 1:14, "Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul
[nephesh] hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear
[them]."
Now if a living soul =
body + spirit, then God cannot use "soul" to refer to himself for he
has no physical body to speak of. He is by nature spirit. But he does,
which tells us that "soul" or "nephesh" can refer to the immaterial
part of man alone, separate from the body, as it does with God.
Another usage of "nephesh" that is interesting to note is in Number
5:2, "Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp
every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled
by the dead [nephesh]"
Again if a living soul = body + spirit, then a dead corpse cannot be
called a "soul" for it has no spirit or "breath of life" as you would
say. But "soul" is used for a dead corpse in the bible, apart from the
spirit.
There are others, "nephesh" can even refer to the seat of emotion,
volition, moral attitudes, and desire/longing for God (Mic. 7:1; Prov.
21:10; Isa. 26:9; Deut. 6:5; 21:14). What we can conclude in light of
the fact that "nephesh" has numerous nuances is that a "soul" is not
simply a combination of the flesh and spirit. We cannot simply rely on
one passage such as Gen 2:7 and use that to determine what soul means
everywhere else in scripture. I think what's wise to do for us in this
case is take the word "soul" on a case by case basis.
What's clear is that there is support from OT that the "soul" can mean
the immaterial part of man by itself without the body, such as its
reference to God who is Spirit with no body. This would go perfectly
with Genesis 35:18 when Rachel died at childbirth and her soul
"departed". And with 1 Kings 17 when Elijah prayed for the dead child
and his "soul" returned to him and he revived. I hear your responses on
these verses and it makes sense from your system of understanding, but
I suppose that's the hurdle to cross for us, the fact that we can all
have our own system of understanding things and read the same passages
but come up with different "twists" to explain things in support of our
"system". (By twist I'm not implying dishonesty of course.) What would
be good is if we could both try to look at each other's "system",
appreciate our reasoning behind it, and grow as a result.
Anyway, going back to my system of understanding that souls can depart
and return, I'd like to point out that the authoritative A Hebrew and
English Lexicon of the Old Testament is in agreement with me. According
to them the term "nephesh" has three basic meanings: the life
principle, various figurative usages, and the soul of man that "departs
at death and returns with life at the resurrection." (Brown, Driver,
and Briggs, 220.)
Other OT passages that depicts the soul as surviving after death are
these:
Psalm 16:10, "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt
thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption."
Psalm 30:3, "O LORD, thou hast brought up my [u]soul from the
grave[/u]: thou hast kept me alive, that I should not go down to the
pit."
Psalm 49:15, "But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave:
for he shall receive me. Selah."
Psalm 86:13, "For great [is] thy mercy toward me: and thou hast
delivered my soul from the lowest hell."
What's note worthy about these passages is not so much the "soul"
itself but the writer's belief in hell or the grave, the Hebrew
"sheol". While it is true that "sheol" also has a variety of meanings
such as simply the grave, there is no denying that one of the primary
meanings of it is the realm of the dead. It is no wonder then that
ancient Israel is implied in scripture to have believed they could
communicate with the spirits of the dead, a.k.a. necromancy (cf. Isa.
8:19; Lev. 19:31; 20:6; Deut. 18:11; 1 Sam. 28). They presumed that
there was such a thing as a disembodied conscious intermediate state.
Now you pointed to scriptures indicating that the dead "praise not",
are silent, whose thoughts perish. In light of the thoughts shared in
support of the survival of the soul after death, it would seem (here
comes my "twist") that the state of the dead can likely be described as
lethargic, almost comatose like, rather than completely gone. However
there are scriptures that depict as being active at times such as in
Isaiah 14:9-10, "Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet [thee] at
thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, [even] all the chief ones
of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the
nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become
weak as we? art thou become like unto us?"
I will end it here as I've shared a lot of thoughts already, there is
still the NT to tackle but this will suffice for now and I'll allow you
to respond. This has been a good exercise for me as well.
Joel, " A Wonderfully well said response. Thank you for your
appreciation and patience throughout this topic. And there is much
appreciation for your reverence to the truth in the view you have
taken. I like the way you think. You express yourself very well. It is
interesting to note that this, like many topics, when two people are
walking together, there can be two different paths taken from the same
directions of a map. And there is nothing wrong with that. As long as
both come to where they were appointed to go. It may take some one like
me a lot longer to get there, because, it is my norm to take the scenic
route. And I am glad that you don't hold that against someone like me.
There is nothing wrong with stating to someone else, that this is the
best route to take. It is the straightest. It is the truest. It is the
correct way. But like a child, sometimes we just don't listen. We don't
often think that others can be right. So we want to do it ourselves.
And as long as we do it with respect, let the learning begin. And I am
very willing to learn from you.
It is good to go and see if these things that you have said can be
proven true. You have said then this:
What I'd like to focus in particular here is it's usage for God:
Judges 10:16, "And they put away the strange gods from among them, and
served the LORD: and his soul [nephesh] was grieved for the misery of
Israel."
Isaiah 1:14, "Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul
[nephesh] hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear
[them]."
Now if a living soul = body + spirit, then God cannot use "soul" to
refer to himself for he has no physical body to speak of. He is by
nature spirit. But he does, which tells us that "soul" or "nephesh" can
refer to the immaterial part of man alone, separate from the body, as
it does with God.
You have given a very good point by pointing to Judges 10 and Isaiah 1.
Again, I like the way you think. I have to ask myself though, is the
premise correct? Meaning, namely, that God has no physical body? It is
most certainly true the God is spirit, not "a" spirit as some English
translations have put it. But it is also true that God took on a bodily
form in order to create man in "His own image, after His own likeness".
A comparison of the same phrase used of the birth of Seth to Adam shows
that it is a physical likeness.
Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son]
in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: ...
This
being the truth, scripture teaches that God is spirit, but in order to
communicate with man he took upon Himself a bodily form. Although, this
being true, I have to though state, it is really not the point because,
as I have suggested earlier, "nephesh" can also be translated "being".
So God is saying in these verses that He is grieved in His very being.
It is used in the same way when the Greek word is used in, for example
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy mind
and with all thy BEING".
But I don't want to just leave it at that. Because the first verse that
you have provided was checked to see if it was translated in accordance
to what the Hebrew says. And a question came out in my mind. It says,
Withdrawing Alien 'elohiym from the nearest part, to serve Yhovah. Is
that not one sentence I ask myself? In the English translations it says
then, "and his soul", but I can not find the word "His any where for
that to be translated such. Now clearly, it could be saying that. And
it is in every translation that I have looked at. But it is not 100%
positive. And whomever it is, it is saying that they were grieved with
all there Being. Scriptures are very leading and teach us a great many
things. And it tells us to compare spiritual with spiritual. And
besides, I am inquisitive. So I just have a need to verify, Comparing
this to a book that was written 275 or so years before Our Saviour, the
Septuagint should give an agreement that the English translators have
put forth. It says as follows:
And depose these gods, these aliens out from the midst of you; And
worship the Supremacy. And never gratify in them people. And ____ in
the pains of Israel
The point really is not that God has a soul, but is grieved in His
BEING. There is really no need to comment on Isaiah because it is the
same thing.
Then you point to another good verse and state: Another usage of
"nephesh" that is interesting to note is in Number 5:2, "Command the
children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and
every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead
[nephesh]" Again if a living soul = body + spirit, then a dead corpse
cannot be called a "soul" for it has no spirit or "breath of life" as
you would say. But "soul" is used for a dead corpse in the bible, apart
from the spirit.
In Numbers 5:2 "nephesh" can and should be translated "person". The
word often has that meaning as when a certain number of "souls",
meaning "persons" left to go to Egypt at the time of the famine. Gen
46:26 All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of
his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls [were] threescore
and six; ...
Consider this also, as I ask myself, if this nephesh is dead, then that
would disprove any suggestion that the soul lives after a person dies.
You said, "What we can conclude in light of the fact that "nephesh" has
numerous nuances is that a "soul" is not simply a combination of the
flesh and spirit". I ask myself, what are the terms of the thought
process that your putting forth. And the conclusion is that your
thinking of what a soul is, that is, that it is something man has. That
is not scriptural. Man does not have a soul, man became a living being.
As has been said previously, although it is true that there are nuances
of meanings in the word "soul", it is also true that every occurrence
can be translated either "being", "person" or "life". There are nuances
in those translations but they all mean the same
thing.
So "what is a soul"? It is a being, a person, a life. That being, or
person is, in the case of man, composed of a body and the breath of
life. But, in the case of the animals we are not told that they are
created in the same way as man, but they are still indeed, souls,
meaning beings.
While is is true that we, meaning me, can not rely only on one verse,
that being Genesis 2:7. We, meaning you and I, must reach a
definition of "soul" which fits each and every one of its occurrences.
The traditional definition does not fit the first few occurrences which
are translated "creature".
The definition that you have reached you have presented in this
statement:
"A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament is in agreement with
me. According to them the term "nephesh" has three basic meanings: the
life principle, various figurative usages, and the soul of man that
"departs at death and returns with life at the resurrection." (Brown,
Driver, and Briggs, 220.) "
Yes, that is a good witness for your point. I ask myself though, by
depending on dictionaries or lexicons, which are not inspired, unlike
the books that are written in the scriptures that are inspired, aren't
they therefore useless in determining the meaning of words. The only
way to determine definitions is to determine how the word is used in
scripture. Until we sit ourselves down and goes through all 700 plus
occurrences of the word we want, and need, to define, we cannot have a
scriptural definition. For one to pick out verses that support ones
view and another person to pick out other verses that support that view
is really not helpful. It would truly go on almost forever without
change, until all 700 plus has been defined. But lets continue anyway.
All the verses that you have pointed to in Psalms can and should be
translated as "life".
Looking at your last two statements. You should your self disagree with
the examples used. I ask you to reconsider them. I say this with
kindness in my heart and a smile in gentle warmness. I can't agree with
your "twist" on the state of death. I don't. Either does David. Put
into rememberance, that David decried the fact that he could not praise
God in the grave. He didn't hint to a fact, saying that he would be
"comatose" or "lethargic". That is not the most obvious reading of
these verses. That would be stretching it quite a ways. And Sheol can
not mean both the grave and a place of torture. That is to say, Christ
was in sheol. So it must be one or the other, meaning, either a place
of torture or the grave. I believe you will find that "grave' fits all
occurrences of "sheol" but the traditional meaning of "hell" does not.
Therefore, if words are to mean anything, they cannot be contradictory.
I Just have to say, this has been a blessing, Thank you.
Ain't that
life
13