The Soul

[DLH]

What is the soul? The English word comes from a root that means "to bind," because the superstitious would bind the hands and feet of the dead to insure that they can't harm the living as the un-dead. This is a real sad case of the closest thing in the English language being close enough to translate the Hebrew nephesh and the Greek psykhe, which basically come from a root word meaning "breather." The Bible teaches the soul is the life, experience, and blood of any breathing creature.

What happened? Well Alexander The Great's conquest of the summer of 332 B.C.E. is what happened!

Image: Alexander The Great In The Temple Of Jerusalem, by Sebastiano Conca: 1736

Greek philosophy and mythology began to influence Jewish thinking after Alexander. Like that of Socrates and Plato.

Plato quoting Socrates: "The soul, . . . if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, . . . goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear . . . and all the other human ills, and . . . lives in truth through all after time with the gods." - Phaedo, 80, D, E; 81, A.

"The concept of immortality is a product of Greek thinking, whereas the hope of a resurrection belongs to Jewish thought. . . . Following Alexander’s conquests Judaism gradually absorbed Greek concepts." - Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la Bible (Valence, France; 1935), edited by Alexandre Westphal, Volume 2, page 557.

Ezekiel 18:4 "Look! All the souls - to me they belong. As the soul of the father so also the soul of the son - to me they belong. The soul who sins is the one who will die."

So, the English word is misleading, historically speaking, and the religious have confused the meaning, resulting in the denial of what is real being misunderstood and dismissed as mythology, by the intellectual atheists, who probably admire Socrates and Plato, where the confusion was introduced into religious thinking in the first place.

Gen. 2:7: "Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul."

Adam came to be a living soul Genesis 2:7 / 1 Corinthians 15:45
The Blood is the soul (life, Hebrew nephesh) Genesis 9:5
Animals are souls. Genesis 1:20, 21, 24, 25 / Leviticus 24:17-18.
The soul dies Ezekiel 18:4 / Matthew 10:28 / Acts 3:23.
The soul is not the same as the spirit. Ecclesiastes 12:7; 3:19 / Hebrews 4:12

"There is no dichotomy of body and soul in the O T. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepeš [neʹphesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person. . . . The term [psy·kheʹ] is the N T word corresponding with nepeš. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being." - New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450.

"The Hebrew term for 'soul' (nefesh, that which breathes) was used by Moses . . . , signifying an 'animated being' and applicable equally to nonhuman beings. . . . New Testament usage of psychē ('soul') was comparable to nefesh." - The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976), Macropædia, Vol. 15, p. 152.

"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.

"The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen in the East and St.*Augustine in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . His [Augustine’s] doctrine . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism." - New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp.*452,*454.

"The concept of immortality is a product of Greek thinking, whereas the hope of a resurrection belongs to Jewish thought. . . . Following Alexander’s conquests Judaism gradually absorbed Greek concepts." - Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la Bible (Valence, France; 1935), edited by Alexandre Westphal, Vol. 2, p. 557.

"Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato." - Presbyterian Life, May 1, 1970, p. 35.

"The problem of immortality, we have seen, engaged the serious attention of the Babylonian theologians. . . . Neither the people nor the leaders of religious thought ever faced the possibility of the total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a passage to another kind of life." - The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., p. 556.

 

[none]

in nature there is nature, anything supernatural isn't going to be found in nature

 

[DLH]

in nature there is nature, anything supernatural isn't going to be found in nature

Okay, but the soul, according to the Bible, isn't supernatural. The Hebrew word for soul comes from a word meaning "breather." Any animal or person who breathes. It isn't supernatural.

 

[none]

I guess you didn't read this part:

"The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen in the East and St.*Augustine in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . His [Augustine’s] doctrine . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism." - New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp.*452,*454.

if it ( soul ) is just a label that means breather it is pretty useless. if it just means breather then breather is sufficient.
why is any of the content you provided about the description of soul noteworthy or relevant to what is a soul, is it under authority that makes the content you provided legitimate?

 

[DLH]

if it ( soul ) is just a label that means breather it is pretty useless. if it just means breather then breather is sufficient.

I was just giving you the etymology of the word. It doesn't just mean breather, it comes from a word that means breather.

why is any of the content you provided about the description of soul noteworthy or relevant to what is a soul, is it under authority that makes the content you provided legitimate?

Huh? Legitimate? Could you elaborate, please?

 

[none]

I was just giving you the etymology of the word. It doesn't just mean breather, it comes from a word that means breather.

why is any of the content you provided about the description of soul noteworthy or relevant to what is a soul, is it under authority that makes the content you provided legitimate?

Huh? Legitimate? Could you elaborate, please?

what makes you think the content you posted is valid?
and you seem to be shoe horning the word soul into existence that means something other than breather, when breather may work sufficiently to describe life, if that is what you are trying to do... you are trying to describe life...?
so what if the Bible defines soul, of what importance is it?
do you have a problem with the word organism, what about being? a being?

 

[DLH]

what makes you think the content you posted is valid?

Why wouldn't I? Unless you have some pertinent information to the contrary?

and you seem to be shoe horning the word soul into existence that means something other than breather, when breather may work sufficiently to describe life, if that is what you are trying to do... you are trying to describe life...?

Not at all, in fact, that's what you seem to be doing. A person or animal's life experiences are his soul, not merely life itself, although where would we make that distinction? Someone living, that is, having life, isn't necessarily a specific reference to that person's life in a genera sense of just being alive. Many translations will translate the Hebrew or Greek words otherwise translated as soul as life depending upon context if the English word soul doesn't relate the pagan influence of a soul per say. For example, Ezekiel 18:4 can be translated as "The soul that sins shall die" or in order to avoid confusion or promote the not entirely accurate pagan influence of an immortal soul, render the passage as "the life that sins shall die."

so what if the Bible defines soul, of what importance is it?

Well, the pagan transmogrification of the concept of the Biblical Hebrew nephesh / Greek psykhe causes some confusion. For a start it (the pagan soul) just isn't accurate, it isn't in line with the Bible. This could have some effect on, for example, the pagan teaching of hell, which also isn't supported by scripture. Your soul can't be tortured forever in hell if it isn't immortal.

do you have a problem with the word organism, what about being? a being?

I have no problem with those words, though they don't necessarily relate in context to that of which we speak. "the organism that sins shall die" or "the being that sins shall die" organism isn't appropriate, but being is closer. What should be done is what the Jerusalem Bible of 1966 does, namely, to transliterate the word into the Hebrew or Greek.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

"The English word comes from a root that means "to bind," because the superstitious would bind the hands and feet of the dead to insure that they can't harm the living as the un-dead."

Most etymologies give it as derived from Proto-Germanic saiwaz, meaning "from (or of) the sea", as souls were said to dwell in thw sea before birth and after death. Where did you get this etymology? I'm not saying it's wrong, because the roots of the word are uncertain, but it does go against the mainstream consensus. What is this root meaning "to bind"?

 

[none]

what makes you think the content you posted is valid?

Why wouldn't I? Unless you have some pertinent information to the contrary?

try answering the question, you do understand the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim... so what makes you think the content you posted is valid?
one reason could be the source of the information, the source could be faulty there for not validating the claims.

and you seem to be shoe horning the word soul into existence that means something other than breather, when breather may work sufficiently to describe life, if that is what you are trying to do... you are trying to describe life...?

Not at all, in fact, that's what you seem to be doing. A person or animal's life experiences are his soul, not merely life itself, although where would we make that distinction? Someone living, that is, having life, isn't necessarily a specific reference to that person's life in a genera sense of just being alive. Many translations will translate the Hebrew or Greek words otherwise translated as soul as life depending upon context if the English word soul doesn't relate the pagan influence of a soul per say. For example, Ezekiel 18:4 can be translated as "The soul that sins shall die" or in order to avoid confusion or promote the not entirely accurate pagan influence of an immortal soul, render the passage as "the life that sins shall die."

why not shit can the word soul?
the word soul only makes sense in the context of the bible, right? sin/soul both made up to compliment each other.
so now you mention sin, you have to define sin now unless you want to be ambiguous.

so what if the Bible defines soul, of what importance is it?

Well, the pagan transmogrification of the concept of the Biblical Hebrew nephesh / Greek psykhe causes some confusion. For a start it (the pagan soul) just isn't accurate, it isn't in line with the Bible. This could have some effect on, for example, the pagan teaching of hell, which also isn't supported by scripture. Your soul can't be tortured forever in hell if it isn't immortal.

oh so this is about the right interpretation of a fictional account, gotcha...

do you have a problem with the word organism, what about being? a being?

I have no problem with those words, though they don't necessarily relate in context to that of which we speak. "the organism that sins shall die" or "the being that sins shall die" organism isn't appropriate, but being is closer. What should be done is what the Jerusalem Bible of 1966 does, namely, to transliterate the word into the Hebrew or Greek.

Yeah you like the concept of sin, it is now your main talking point... what is sin? is sin a fictional ailment?

 

[Sarpedon]

The soul was one of the primitive ideas people used to explain the apparent miracle of human life and intelligence, before the function of the different organs, like the brain was known. Just as the four humors were used to explain moods and sicknesses before the actual causes of these things were understood.

Like the four humors, the soul is an obsolete medical theory that should be discarded.

If you think otherwise, please prove that a person has one soul, rather than two as the ancient egyptians thought. Do this without quoting scripture or using empty and meaningless linguistic arguments, which seem to be your favorite.

 

[Kharakov]

in nature there is nature, anything supernatural isn't going to be found in nature

Okay, but the soul, according to the Bible, isn't supernatural. The Hebrew word for soul comes from a word meaning "breather." Any animal or person who breathes. It isn't supernatural.

Would matter, which absorbs and retransmits (breathes) light, be "souls"?
If an electron stays in a higher orbital for a bit longer, is an atom holding its breath?

What about spacetime, what place does it have (besides everywhere)?

 

[DLH]

"The English word comes from a root that means "to bind," because the superstitious would bind the hands and feet of the dead to insure that they can't harm the living as the un-dead."

Most etymologies give it as derived from Proto-Germanic saiwaz, meaning "from (or of) the sea", as souls were said to dwell in thw sea before birth and after death. Where did you get this etymology? I'm not saying it's wrong, because the roots of the word are uncertain, but it does go against the mainstream consensus. What is this root meaning "to bind"?

Very good, Scaevola. At one time this was generally thought to be the case, however I think the latter explanation is more practical and historically accurate. It is only my opinion, mind you, that both burial at sea and binding were thought to have the same desired effect.

"Modern English soul continues Old English sawol, sawel, first attested in the 8th century, cognate to other Germanic terms for the same concept, including Gothic saiwala, Old High German seula, sela, Ols Saxon seola, Old Low Franconian sela, sila, Old Norse sala. The Further etymology of the Germanic word is uncertain. A common suggestion is a connection with the word sea and from this evidence alone it has been speculated that the early Germanic peoples believed that the spirits of deceased rested at the bottom of the sea or similar. A more recent suggestion (Wikipedia) connects it with a root for "binding." Germanic sailian, related to the notion of being "bound" in death. The practice of ritually binding or restraining the corpse of the deceased in the grave to prevent s/he return as a ghost." - Supreme God: Body, Will, Wisdom and Work

 

[DLH]

The soul was one of the primitive ideas people used to explain the apparent miracle of human life and intelligence, before the function of the different organs, like the brain was known. Just as the four humors were used to explain moods and sicknesses before the actual causes of these things were understood.

Like the four humors, the soul is an obsolete medical theory that should be discarded.

If you think otherwise, please prove that a person has one soul, rather than two as the ancient egyptians thought. Do this without quoting scripture or using empty and meaningless linguistic arguments, which seem to be your favorite.

Sorry, Sarpedon, but this sort of explanation, to me, sounds like scientific speculation. Science is really bad at trying to guess these sort of spiritual matters. That has been my experience.

 

[DLH]

Okay, but the soul, according to the Bible, isn't supernatural. The Hebrew word for soul comes from a word meaning "breather." Any animal or person who breathes. It isn't supernatural.

Would matter, which absorbs and retransmits (breathes) light, be "souls"?
If an electron stays in a higher orbital for a bit longer, is an atom holding its breath?

What about spacetime, what place does it have (besides everywhere)?

I wouldn't know about spacetime, Kharakov, but as for comparing the soul to matter or plants and wood and the many things that breath isn't the same. The soul has experiences. If we are talking about the biblical soul, it isn't a metaphysical concept, its a practical concept. If your soul is resurrected it isn't your body, it isn't a mystical immortal entity apart from you, so what is it? Matter? Energy? No. It's you. It should be pointed out that Jehovah God uses the term my soul in an anthropomorphic sense like he would use the term "My eyes" or "My hands" even though he is a spirit and not possessing these human, physical characteristics. (Leviticus 26:11, 30 / Psalm 24:4 / Isaiah 42:1 / John 4:24)

 

[bilby]

The soul was one of the primitive ideas people used to explain the apparent miracle of human life and intelligence, before the function of the different organs, like the brain was known. Just as the four humors were used to explain moods and sicknesses before the actual causes of these things were understood.

Like the four humors, the soul is an obsolete medical theory that should be discarded.

If you think otherwise, please prove that a person has one soul, rather than two as the ancient egyptians thought. Do this without quoting scripture or using empty and meaningless linguistic arguments, which seem to be your favorite.

Sorry, Sarpedon, but this sort of explanation, to me, sounds like scientific speculation. Science is really bad at trying to guess these sort of spiritual matters. That has been my experience.

Science and spirituality certainly produce conflicting explanations for things; But given that science has allowed us to do a whole bunch of things that were once regarded as impossible, while spirituality has achieved exactly zero advances in recorded history, I know which side of the debate is the one that is 'really bad at trying to guess'. And it ain't science.

 

[DLH]

try answering the question, you do understand the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim... so what makes you think the content you posted is valid?

Atheists are so cute when they try.

one reason could be the source of the information, the source could be faulty there for not validating the claims.

Cool. Why don't you do that. I would myself but I'm afraid I may introduce my own bias into the, uh . . . equation. Yeah. That's it.

why not shit can the word soul?

WHAT?!!

the word soul only makes sense in the context of the bible, right? sin/soul both made up to compliment each other.

No. No.

so now you mention sin, you have to define sin now unless you want to be ambiguous.

Oooo!!! I don't think I've been ambiguous before, I think I'll be that for a while!

oh so this is about the right interpretation of a fictional account, gotcha...

No. But it doesn't matter at this point in our discourse. Tis but a theoretical argument.

Yeah you like the concept of sin, it is now your main talking point... what is sin? is sin a fictional ailment?

Sin means to miss the mark. For example, you are my boss. You say "Show up for work at 9:00 A.M. sharp" and I show up at 9:30 A.M., that is my sin against you. The Hebrew and Greek words were used in a literal sense for archers or stone throwers who wouldn't miss their mark (target), like at Judges 20:16. Us being of sin, or inheriting it means that we live in the result of Adam's sin against Jehovah, much like the son of an imprisoned criminal lives under the effect of his father's crime, though he isn't being punished for it.

 

[DLH]

Sorry, Sarpedon, but this sort of explanation, to me, sounds like scientific speculation. Science is really bad at trying to guess these sort of spiritual matters. That has been my experience.

Science and spirituality certainly produce conflicting explanations for things; But given that science has allowed us to do a whole bunch of things that were once regarded as impossible, while spirituality has achieved exactly zero advances in recorded history, I know which side of the debate is the one that is 'really bad at trying to guess'. And it ain't science.

I get so tired of that sort of ignorant comment from science minded atheists who have some misguided and Utopian idea of a vague entity called "Science."

The scientific effort itself was firmly established by theologians. The Father of Science, Isaac Newton being one of them. The first colleges were established by theologians. Most of the advances in modern technology were made by the military industrial complex, not science. Cell phones, the Internet, for example. The Bible described the earth as spherical and hanging upon nothing 700 years before science. Darwin was a failed minister, Dawkins was Christian. Give me a break. Do some research.

 

[none]

Or you could explain why your assumptions are valid

 

[bilby]

Science and spirituality certainly produce conflicting explanations for things; But given that science has allowed us to do a whole bunch of things that were once regarded as impossible, while spirituality has achieved exactly zero advances in recorded history, I know which side of the debate is the one that is 'really bad at trying to guess'. And it ain't science.

I get so tired of that sort of ignorant comment from science minded atheists who have some misguided and Utopian idea of a vague entity called "Science."

The scientific effort itself was firmly established by theologians. The Father of Science, Isaac Newton being one of them. The first colleges were established by theologians. Most of the advances in modern technology were made by the military industrial complex, not science. Cell phones, the Internet, for example. The Bible described the earth as spherical and hanging upon nothing 700 years before science. Darwin was a failed minister, Dawkins was Christian. Give me a break. Do some research.

I get so tired of that sort of ignorant comment from religion minded theists who have some misguided and dystopian idea of a vague entity called "Science."

The scientific effort itself was firmly established by theologians, but was not theological in nature. The Father of Science, Isaac Newton had a huge number of really dumb ideas as well as his really good ones - it is to be expected that people will believe crazy shit, given how endemic it has been throughout history. The first colleges were established by theologians, attempting to prove that God was behind the phenomena of the natural world; instead, they found that He was irrelevant. Most of the advances in modern technology were made by the military industrial complex, using science as their methodology, not spirituality. Cell phones, the Internet, for example. The Bible described the earth as spherical, and flat, and having corners, and being a barrier separating waters, and all kinds of other shit hanging upon nothing 700 years before science; which just goes to show, that if you throw enough spaghetti at the wall, some of it will stick. Most scientists in history have also been theists - and yet no trace of Gods or souls has ever been found. Give me a break. Do some research.

 

[DLH]

Or you could explain why your assumptions are valid

Because, my clever little salmon marinated in a white wine sauce, until you successfully challenge them they are valid. I gave historical, theological, scriptural, even artistic references. If they aren't valid challenge them.