The resurrection
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-06-2017, 03:39 PM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2017 03:53 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The resurrection
(14-06-2017 02:46 PM)GotIssues Wrote:  
(14-06-2017 02:32 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No. Absolutely NOT. This is a translation issue. I know this incident well. Saul goes to the Witch of Endor, and (illegally) asks her to conjur the "shade" of Samuel. Look up the archaic Hebrew. It's NOT translated correctly. Saul can't see what she conjurs, (only witches can see "shades"). He says to her, "What do you see ?". She says "I see a DIVINE BEING coming up etc". It puts ALL kinds of things in a different light.
a. Their concept of what a "divine being is",
b. it does NOT mean "spirit". Hebrew shades were not souls/spirits. Look them up.

What is the "shade" of Samuel then? The Hebrew uses this word - אוֹב 'owb
http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/0178.html

1) water skin bottle
2) necromancer
1b) necromancer, one who evokes the dead
1c) ghost, spirit of a dead one
1d) practice of necromancy
3) one that has a familiar spirit

When Psalm 16:10 says you will not abandon my "soul" to Sheol then that seems to me a pretty clear indication that they thought Sheol was where souls/spirits went.

All mistranslated. Hebrew culture (as scholars of the ancient Near East know), had a unique concept of "shade". As I said, get a book about ancient Hebrew culture and LEARN about it. The psalm was translated to make sense to modern readers. It never said 'soul".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

"She'ol (/ˈʃiːoʊl/ SHEE-ohl or /ˈʃiːəl/ SHEE-əl; Hebrew שְׁאוֹל‎ Šʾôl), in the Hebrew Bible, is a place of darkness to which all the dead go, both the righteous and the unrighteous, regardless of the moral choices made in life, a place of stillness and darkness cut off from life and from God.

The inhabitants of Sheol are the "shades" (rephaim), entities without personality or strength.[2] Under some circumstances they are thought to be able to be contacted by the living, as the Witch of Endor contacts the shade of Samuel for Saul, but such practices are forbidden (Deuteronomy 18:10).

While the Old Testament writings appear to describe Sheol as the permanent place of the dead, in the Second Temple period (roughly 500 BC–70 AD) a more diverse set of ideas developed. In some texts, Sheol is considered to be the home of both the righteous and the wicked, separated into respective compartments; in others, it was considered a place of punishment, meant for the wicked dead alone. When the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek in ancient Alexandria around 200 BC, the word "Hades" (the Greek underworld) was substituted for Sheol, and this is reflected in the New Testament where Hades is both the underworld of the dead and the personification of the evil it represents.

There is no exact equivalent concept in other cultures.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
14-06-2017, 05:49 PM
RE: The resurrection
Quote:When scripture talks about dead sometimes it refers to dead physical body or corpse, sometimes it refers to embodied spirits


Is there some kind of invisible legend on the first page which tells you when it is and when it isn't? I always love it when they claim that some parts are literal and some are allegorical and you have to be a believer to know the difference.

Seems like a load of crap, to me.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Minimalist's post
14-06-2017, 05:55 PM
RE: The resurrection
(24-02-2017 05:08 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(24-02-2017 03:30 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I found these googling around for what the Bible says about an afterlife or resurrection.

"His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish." - Psalm 146:4

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten." - Ecclesiastes 9:5

When scripture talks about dead sometimes it refers to dead physical body or corpse, sometimes it refers to embodied spirits
Psalm and Ecclesiastes refers to dead physical body or corpse.
When scripture refers to embodied spirits then we can see that dead think, talk, know things.

> How do you make that distinction?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2017, 06:24 PM
RE: The resurrection
(24-02-2017 05:08 PM)Alla Wrote:  When scripture refers to embodied spirits then we can see that dead think, talk, know things.

So somebody made up some shit about 2500 years ago, wrote it down, and you think you "can see" and draw some conclusions from that ?
Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
15-06-2017, 01:03 PM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2017 01:07 PM by GotIssues.)
RE: The resurrection
(14-06-2017 03:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  All mistranslated.


Scholarly source?

Quote:Hebrew culture (as scholars of the ancient Near East know), had a unique concept of "shade". As I said, get a book about ancient Hebrew culture and LEARN about it. The psalm was translated to make sense to modern readers. It never said 'soul".


Scholarly source for this too? The Hebrew word for "soul" is נֶפֶשׁ nephesh which is used to mean "soul" 475 times in the Hebrew Bible.

Are you telling me all of those 475 instances are mistranslated?

In contrast, the word for "shades" is רָפָא rapha' which is only used 8 times in the Hebrew Bible.

Quote:"She'ol (/ˈʃiːoʊl/ SHEE-ohl or /ˈʃiːəl/ SHEE-əl; Hebrew שְׁאוֹל‎ Šʾôl), in the Hebrew Bible, is a place of darkness to which all the dead go, both the righteous and the unrighteous, regardless of the moral choices made in life, a place of stillness and darkness cut off from life and from God.

The inhabitants of Sheol are the "shades" (rephaim), entities without personality or strength.[2] Under some circumstances they are thought to be able to be contacted by the living, as the Witch of Endor contacts the shade of Samuel for Saul, but such practices are forbidden (Deuteronomy 18:10).

While the Old Testament writings appear to describe Sheol as the permanent place of the dead, in the Second Temple period (roughly 500 BC–70 AD) a more diverse set of ideas developed. In some texts, Sheol is considered to be the home of both the righteous and the wicked, separated into respective compartments; in others, it was considered a place of punishment, meant for the wicked dead alone. When the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek in ancient Alexandria around 200 BC, the word "Hades" (the Greek underworld) was substituted for Sheol, and this is reflected in the New Testament where Hades is both the underworld of the dead and the personification of the evil it represents.

There is no exact equivalent concept in other cultures.

"In Sheol, souls exist as shades, rephaim, in a dark world..." - See 1 Sam 28; Ps 88.10; Prov 2.18; 5.5; 7.27; 9.18; Isa 14.9; 26.14, 19. - Mark Finney

"They were called shades not because they were thought of as ghosts or spirits, but because they existed as nonpersonal entities who had only the semblance of their former selves - being bereft of all personality and strength." - Richard Longenecker, Life in the Face of Death, pg. 8. https://books.google.com/books?id=AvCmK0...&q&f=false

So to clarify, it seems "shades" were basically "dead souls" that are deprived of their former personality. This belief then evolved into the modern concept of a personal soul over a long period of time, obviously.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2017, 01:40 PM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2017 02:12 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The resurrection
(15-06-2017 01:03 PM)GotIssues Wrote:  Scholarly source?

First you tell me where you are translating from, and what your credentials are to even discuss the question, or make that assertion.
How do you know what the Hebrew "word for soul" is, and how do you know what they meant when the word was used ?
Why do you assume it's the same as what the word means in other cultures ? You seem to have left out a few others (???), why is that ?
It is TOTALLY dependent ofn context, and it is not the same concept of "some separate thing" that leaves a body after death, that the Greeks had, or that seems prevalent today.
The word for "soul" in the Old Testament is nephesh. Nephesh is translated in following ways (the numbers being the number of occurrences of each way):
any 3
appetite 2
beast 2
body 4
breath 1
creature 9
dead 5
dead body 4
desire 4
fish 1
ghost 2
heart 15
hearty 1
herself 2
himself 8
life 117
lust 2
man 3
mind 15
mortally 1
myself 1
one 1
own 1
person 29
pleasure 3
soul 475
thing 2
themselves 3
thyself 1
will 4
would have it 1
yourselves 6


Quote:Scholarly source for this too? The Hebrew word for "soul" is נֶפֶשׁ nephesh which is used to mean "soul" 475 times in the Hebrew Bible.

Scholarly references for the link, and their translation credentials.

Quote:Are you telling me all of those 475 instances are mistranslated?

Yes I am. We KNOW the culture had no concept / notion of "dualism" in the sense of "souls" that the Greeks did.

Quote:So to clarify, it seems "shades" were basically "dead souls" that are deprived of their former personality. This belief then evolved into the modern concept of a personal soul over a long period of time, obviously.

No. Humans did not have "souls" in ancient Hebrew thought, as a SEPARATE part of a living being. "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Humans were a "unity" ... alive. Souls (the "life force") was not distinct from the body. "For dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return".

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/dualism
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/body-soul/

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
15-06-2017, 02:35 PM
RE: The resurrection
(15-06-2017 01:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  First you tell me where you are translating from, and what your credentials are to even discuss the question, or make that assertion.

Nope, that's your claim so time to back it up or admit you're full of s%@t.

Quote:How do you know what the Hebrew "word for soul" is,


Because of Hebrew lexicons and the Old Testament dictionary. How do you know what it is?

Quote:and how do you know what they meant when the word was used?

From the context.

Quote:Why do you assume it's the same as what the word means in other cultures ? You seem to have left out a few others (???), why is that ?
It is TOTALLY dependent ofn context, and it is not the same concept of "some separate thing" that leaves a body after death, that the Greeks had, or that seems prevalent today.
The word for "soul" in the Old Testament is nephesh. Nephesh is translated in following ways (the numbers being the number of occurrences of each way):
any 3
appetite 2
beast 2
body 4
breath 1
creature 9
dead 5
dead body 4
desire 4
fish 1
ghost 2
heart 15
hearty 1
herself 2
himself 8
life 117
lust 2
man 3
mind 15
mortally 1
myself 1
one 1
own 1
person 29
pleasure 3
soul 475
thing 2
themselves 3
thyself 1
will 4
would have it 1
yourselves 6

This is all irrelevant. It's rendered as "soul" 475 times! So are you telling me all those linguistic experts and Hebrew philologists are wrong?

Quote:Scholarly references for the link, and their translation credentials.


Lol! Care to tell me what's wrong with the link Mr. Expert?

Quote:Yes I am. We KNOW the culture had no concept / notion of "dualism" in the sense of "souls" that the Greeks did.

Source that they're all mistranslated? Or admit you're full of s%!t. Greek dualism is a red herring.

Quote:No. Humans did not have "souls" in ancient Hebrew thought, as a SEPARATE part of a living being. "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Humans were a "unity" ... alive. Souls (the "life force") was not distinct from the body. "For dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return".

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/dualism
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/body-soul/

You're just splitting hairs. Shades were "souls" albeit a different more primitive kind of variety. Now let's see those sources Mister Balls.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2017, 03:25 PM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2017 03:58 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The resurrection
(15-06-2017 02:35 PM)GotIssues Wrote:  You're just splitting hairs. Shades were "souls" albeit a different more primitive kind of variety. Now let's see those sources Mister Balls.

LMAO. No problemo, Mr. Fundy.
Assertion no evidence.
Obviously your're VERY invested in simplistic one notion Fundamentalism. The nuances clearly are antithetical to you.
Just because the word "soul" is used, means nothing. The MEANING has to be demonstrated. You have done nothing to do that.

So you have no credentials, and no training in the subject.
The fact that you would even say "more primitive kind of variety" belies your ignorance, bias, and no training in these matters.
Why is it "more primitive" ? As opposed to what ? The REAL thing ? Why exactly is the later more authentic or more "advanced" ?

The fact it's translated IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS is NOT irrelevant. Nice try there sport.
There were NO "immortal souls". Only divine beings were immortal.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...f-the-soul

http://books.google.com/books?id=goq0VWw...er&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=goq0VWw...it&f=false

In Bronze age cultures, identity was rooted in clan affiliation (as anyone who studied History knows), not in "individual" identity. The idea of "immortal individual souls" would have been meaningless in that context.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
15-06-2017, 04:25 PM
RE: The resurrection
I always get a little pissy when xtians try to tell Jews how to be Jews.

Go to the source, I say.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/...tradition/

Quote:The subject of death is treated inconsistently in the Bible, though most often it suggests that physical death is the end of life. This is the case with such central figures as Abraham, Moses, and Miriam.

There are, however, several biblical references to a place called Sheol (cf. Numbers 30, 33). It is described as a region “dark and deep,” “the Pit,” and “the Land of Forgetfulness,” where human beings descend after death. The suggestion is that in the netherworld of Sheol, the deceased, although cut off from God and humankind, live on in some shadowy state of existence.

While this vision of Sheol is rather bleak (setting precedents for later Jewish and Christian ideas of an underground hell) there is generally no concept of judgment or reward and punishment attached to it. In fact, the more pessimistic books of the Bible, such as Ecclesiastes and Job, insist that all of the dead go down to Sheol, whether good or evil, rich or poor, slave or free man (Job 3:11-19).


The entire concept seems to have evolved from being a non-issue to a barely disguised retelling of the Greek Hades.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
15-06-2017, 05:24 PM
RE: The resurrection
(15-06-2017 03:25 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 02:35 PM)GotIssues Wrote:  You're just splitting hairs. Shades were "souls" albeit a different more primitive kind of variety. Now let's see those sources Mister Balls.

LMAO. No problemo, Mr. Fundy.
Assertion no evidence.
Obviously your're VERY invested in simplistic one notion Fundamentalism. The nuances clearly are antithetical to you.
Just because the word "soul" is used, means nothing. The MEANING has to be demonstrated. You have done nothing to do that.

So you have no credentials, and no training in the subject.
The fact that you would even say "more primitive kind of variety" belies your ignorance, bias, and no training in these matters.
Why is it "more primitive" ? As opposed to what ? The REAL thing ? Why exactly is the later more authentic or more "advanced" ?

The fact it's translated IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS is NOT irrelevant. Nice try there sport.
There were NO "immortal souls". Only divine beings were immortal.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...f-the-soul

http://books.google.com/books?id=goq0VWw...er&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=goq0VWw...it&f=false

In Bronze age cultures, identity was rooted in clan affiliation (as anyone who studied History knows), not in "individual" identity. The idea of "immortal individual souls" would have been meaningless in that context.

So I guess that scholarly source which says the word "soul" has been mistranslated doesn't exist? Your source from Kohler is over 100 years old so I'm pretty sure this view is outdated.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: