The resurrection
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-06-2017, 10:43 PM
RE: The resurrection
The bible is 2000 years old (give and take the edited verses) so i'm pretty sure those views are outdated.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Commonsensei's post
16-06-2017, 06:03 AM
RE: The resurrection
(15-06-2017 05:24 PM)GotIssues Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 03:25 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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 Your source from Kohler is over 100 years old so I'm pretty sure this view is outdated.

LOL. Yet you are unable to say how or why. Great goin' there sport.
Only divine beings possessed immortality in ancient Hebrew culture, so whatever ENGLISH word is used to translate the ancient Hebrew word is actually irrelevant, UNTIL IT'S defined, (which you have never done).
You have been given sources for that, more than once, and THAT is the point. (And BTW, if it was correct 100 years ago, then it still is). Nice try. Fail again. Try harder.

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
16-06-2017, 07:42 AM
RE: The resurrection
(16-06-2017 06:03 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  LOL. Yet you are unable to say how or why. Great goin' there sport.
Only divine beings possessed immortality in ancient Hebrew culture, so whatever ENGLISH word is used to translate the ancient Hebrew word is actually irrelevant, UNTIL IT'S defined, (which you have never done).
You have been given sources for that, more than once, and THAT is the point. (And BTW, if it was correct 100 years ago, then it still is). Nice try. Fail again. Try harder.

You still looking for that source that says the word for "soul" is mistranslated every time in the Old Testament or are you ready to be honest and admit that you just made that up?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2017, 08:07 AM
RE: The resurrection
(16-06-2017 07:42 AM)GotIssues Wrote:  
(16-06-2017 06:03 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  LOL. Yet you are unable to say how or why. Great goin' there sport.
Only divine beings possessed immortality in ancient Hebrew culture, so whatever ENGLISH word is used to translate the ancient Hebrew word is actually irrelevant, UNTIL IT'S defined, (which you have never done).
You have been given sources for that, more than once, and THAT is the point. (And BTW, if it was correct 100 years ago, then it still is). Nice try. Fail again. Try harder.

You still looking for that source that says the word for "soul" is mistranslated every time in the Old Testament or are you ready to be honest and admit that you just made that up?

Just as soon as you define the word, and tell us why the ENGLISH translation makes sense in that ancient culture, sport.

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
16-06-2017, 09:19 AM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2017 09:43 AM by GotIssues.)
RE: The resurrection
(16-06-2017 08:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Just as soon as you define the word, and tell us why the ENGLISH translation makes sense in that ancient culture, sport.

Just waiting for you show all those lexicons, linguistic experts and Hebrew philologists wrong cupcake. Where is the claim made in any scholarly literature that every time the word rendered as "soul" in the Old Testament it's a mistranslation? What modern scholarly source confidently claims such a thing?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GotIssues's post
16-06-2017, 03:27 PM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2017 04:08 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: The resurrection
(16-06-2017 09:19 AM)GotIssues Wrote:  
(16-06-2017 08:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Just as soon as you define the word, and tell us why the ENGLISH translation makes sense in that ancient culture, sport.

Just waiting for you show all those lexicons, linguistic experts and Hebrew philologists wrong cupcake. Where is the claim made in any scholarly literature that every time the word rendered as "soul" in the Old Testament it's a mistranslation? What modern scholarly source confidently claims such a thing?

Well, for starters, this guy lists about twenty examples of where the modern rendering (and understanding) of the words translated into English as "soul" are incorrectly employed, with plenty of links to the scholars he is citing:

http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/vi...ntext=auss

If you're not willing to read that, it essentially points out that the words translated as soul are actually better off translated as "mind", or "breath", or simply "the person", since the Hebrews thought of the body and that which it animated the body as one thing, if described by two different words. But the idea of the mind-soul duality came from outside Judaism and was borrowed by the Christians (and certain sects of post-Hellenic-era Judaism) to create the body-soul duality we think of when we use the word, today.

Encyclopedia Britannica says the following:

"The early Hebrews apparently had a concept of the soul but did not separate it from the body, although later Jewish writers developed the idea of the soul further. Biblical references to the soul are related to the concept of breath and establish no distinction between the ethereal soul and the corporeal body. Christian concepts of a body-soul dichotomy originated with the ancient Greeks and were introduced into Christian theology at an early date by St. Gregory of Nyssa and by St. Augustine."

(Bold emphasis my own.)

Bucky has already shown you from the Jewish Encyclopedia that the notion of an individual and separate, immortal [edit: fixed spelling error here] soul was not even a thing in the culture of the Ancient Near East.

You are trying to push your concept through with arrogance, rather than stopping to consider what our replies are to your assertions. Is it really that hard for you to grasp, the idea that Christian theology borrowed some of the modern concepts of "soul" from other religions and inserted them into their interpretation of Judaism?

For cryin' out loud, we know Jesus couldn't have been born in December, but that the Christmas holiday was invented out of the Pagan winter solstice ceremonies, and that Easter is based on Ostara, the celebration of rebirth in the spring that was attributed to a goddess common among pagan religions (thus the bunnies and the eggs-- fertility symbols)... not to mention that most of our days of the week and several of our months are borrowed from Hellenism and/or Norse-Germanic religions. It's shouldn't be so hard for you to grasp that other concepts you think are Biblical are actually the offspring of a mating between poorly-understood Judaism and the other religious ideas/philosophies common at the time Christianity was being crafted.

For your interpretation of nephesh as "soul" to be true, it would mean that animals also have souls, since Genesis 1:21, since "nephesh" is translated there as (every) "living creature". The word itself has roots, as you should know, in the concept of breath-- as in living things-- so it's a pretty good translation, in that verse.

I was waiting for Bucky to slap your arrogant ass about the head and shoulders with your willful blindness... but since he has apparently (and wisely, I'd say) decided that you have no intention of being honest about this subject, and given up on you, so I thought I'd step in. I'm a bit more patient than he is.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
16-06-2017, 03:33 PM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2017 05:31 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The resurrection
(16-06-2017 09:19 AM)GotIssues Wrote:  Just waiting for you show all those lexicons, linguistic experts and Hebrew philologists wrong cupcake. Where is the claim made in any scholarly literature that every time the word rendered as "soul" in the Old Testament it's a mistranslation? What modern scholarly source confidently claims such a thing?

So, you have no credentials, no references, and no definitions. No explanation as to why the ENGLISH word "soul" should be used to translate an idea that does not mean today what it did then.

Tabor, James, "What the Bible says about Death, Afterlife, and the Future" : "The ancient Hebrews had no idea of an immortal soul living a full and vital life beyond death, nor of any resurrection or return from death. Human beings, like the beasts of the field, are made of "dust of the earth," and at death they return to that dust (Gen. 2:7; 3:19). The Hebrew word nephesh, traditionally translated "living soul" but more properly understood as "living creature," is the same word used for all breathing creatures and refers to nothing immortal.

Thomson (2008). Bodies of Thought: Science, Religion, and the soul in the early Enlightenment. p. 42. For mortalists the Bible did not teach the existence of a separate immaterial or immortal soul and the word 'soul' simply meant 'life'; the doctrine of a separate soul was said to be a Platonic importation.
Even as we are conscious of the broad and very common biblical usage of the term "soul," we must be clear that scripture does not present even a rudimentarily developed theology of the soul. The creation narrative is clear that all life originates with God. Yet the Hebrew scripture offers no specific understanding of the origin of individual souls, of when and how they become attached to specific bodies, or of their potential existence, apart from the body, after death. The reason for this is that, as we noted at the beginning, the Hebrew Bible does not present a theory of the soul developed much beyond the simple concept of a force associated with respiration, hence, a life-force.", Avery-Peck, "Soul", in Neusner, et al. (eds.), "The Encyclopedia of Judaism", p. 1343 (2000)

Neyrey (1985). "Soul". In Achtemeier; Harper; Row. Harper’s Bible Dictionary (1st ed.). pp. 982–983. In the nt, ‘soul’ retains its basic Hebrew field of meaning. Soul refers to one’s life: Herod sought Jesus’ soul (Matt. 2:20); one might save a soul or take it (Mark 3:4). Death occurs when God ‘requires your soul’ (Luke 12:20). ‘Soul’ may refer to the whole person, the self: ‘three thousand souls’ were converted in Acts 2:41 (see Acts 3:23). Although the Greek idea of an immortal soul different in kind from the mortal body is not evident,

Berry, Wendell (1997). "Christianity and the Survival of Creation". In Wolfe, Gregory. The New Religious Humanists. The Free press. p. 253. The crucial test is probably Genesis 2:7, which gives the process by which Adam was created: '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.' My mind, like most people’s, has been deeply influenced by dualism, and I can see how dualistic minds deal with this verse. They conclude that the formula for man-making is man equals body plus soul. But that conclusion cannot be derived, except by violence, from Genesis 2:7, which is not dualistic. The formula given in Genesis 2:7 is not man equals body plus soul; the formula there is soul equals dust plus breath. According to this verse, God did not make a body and put a soul into it, like a letter into an envelope. He formed man of dust; then, by breathing His breath into it, He made the dust live. The dust, formed as man and made to live, did not embody a soul, it became a soul-that is, a whole creature. Humanity is thus presented to us, in Adam, not as a creature of two discrete parts temporarily glued together but as a single mystery.

Kries (1997). Piety and humanity: essays on religion and early modern political philosophy. p. 97. In Leviathan, soul and body are one; there are no "separated essenses [sic]"; death means complete death - the soul, merely another word for life, or breath, ceases at the death of the body.

"For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their memory is gone. Their love, their hate and their jealousy have long since vanished; never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun." Ecc 9:5-6

Fudge; Peterson (2000). Two views of hell: a biblical & theological dialogue. p. 173. Theologian Edward Fudge defines mortalism as "the belief that according to divine revelation the soul does not exist as an independent substance after the death of the body."

"The early Hebrews apparently had a concept of the soul but did not separate it from the body, although later Jewish writers developed the idea of the soul further. Old Testament references to the soul are related to the concept of breath and establish no distinction between the ethereal soul and the corporeal body. Christian concepts of a body-soul dichotomy originated with the ancient Greeks and were introduced into Christian theology at an early date by St. Gregory of Nyssa and by St. Augustine.—Britannica, 2004

Twentieth century biblical scholarship largely agrees that the ancient Jews had little explicit notion of a personal afterlife until very late in the Old Testament period. Immortality of the soul was a typically Greek philosophical notion quite foreign to the thought of ancient Semitic peoples. Only the latest stratum of the Old Testament asserts even the resurrection of the body, a view more congenial to Semites." - Donelley, "Calvinism and Scholasticism in Vermigli's doctrine of man and grace", p. 99 (1976)

"Modern scholarship has underscored the fact that Hebrew and Greek concepts of soul were not synonymous. While the Hebrew thought world distinguished soul from body (as material basis of life), there was no question of two separate, independent entities. A person did not have a body but was an animated body, a unit of life manifesting itself in fleshly form—a psychophysical organism (Buttrick, 1962)."

Although Greek concepts of the soul varied widely according to the particular era and philosophical school, Greek thought often presented a view of the soul as a separate entity from body. Until recent decades Christian theology of the soul has been more reflective of Greek (compartmentalized) than Hebrew (unitive) ideas.", Moon, "Soul", in Benner & Hill (eds.), "Baker encyclopedia of psychology & counseling, p. 1148 (2nd ed. 1999)

"A broad consensus emerged among biblical and theological scholars that soul-body dualism is a Platonic, Hellenistic idea that is not found anywhere in the Bible. The Bible, from cover to cover, promotes what they call the "Hebrew concept of the whole person." G. C. Berkouwer writes that the biblical view is always holistic, that in the Bible the soul is never ascribed any special religious significance. Werner Jaeger writes that soul-body dualism is a bizzare idea that has been read into the Bible by misguided church fathers such as Augustine. Rudolf Bultmann writes that Paul uses the word soma (body) to refer to the whole person, the self, so that there is not a soul and body, but rather the body is the whole thing. This interpretation of Pauline anthropology has been a theme in much subsequent Pauline scholarship.", McMinn & Phillips, "Care for the soul: exploring the intersection of psychology & theology", pp. 107-108 (2001).

"The general consensus is that the Old Testament rejected any natural or innate immortality.", McNamara, "Beauty and the Priest: Finding God in the New Age", p. 64 (1997).

"Indeed, the salvation of the 'immortal soul' has sometimes been a commonplace in preaching, but it is fundamentally unbiblical. Biblical anthropology is not dualistic but monistic: human being consists in the integrated wholeness of body and soul, and the Bible never contemplates the disembodied existence of the soul in bliss.", Myers (ed.), "The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary", p. 518 (1987).

"There is no suggestion in the OT of the transmigration of the soul as an immaterial, immortal entity. Man is a unity of body and soul—terms that describe not so much two separate entities in a person as much as one person from different standpoints. Hence, in the description of man's creation in Genesis 2:7, the phrase 'a living soul' (kjv) is better translated as 'a living being.'", Elwell & Comfort (eds.), "Tyndale Bible dictionary", p. 1216 (2001)

"In contrast to the two enigmatic references to Enoch and Elijah, there are ample references to the fact that death is the ultimate destiny for all human beings, that God has no contact with or power over the dead, and that the dead do not have any relationship with God (see, inter alia, Ps. 6:6, 30:9–10, 39:13–14, 49:6–13, 115:16–18, 146:2–4). If there is a conceivable setting for the introduction of a doctrine of the afterlife, it would be in Job, since Job, although righteous, is harmed by God in the present life. But Job 10:20–22 and 14:1–10 affirm the opposite.", Gillman, "Death and Afterlife, Judaic Doctrines Of", in Neusner, "The Encyclopedia of Judaism", volume 1, p. 176 (2000)

"'Who knows whether the breath of human beings rises up and the breath of an animal sinks down to the earth?' (Eccles 3:21). I

"The life of a human being came more directly from God, and it is also evident that when someone dies, the breath (rûaḥ, e.g., Ps 104:29) or the life (nepeš, e.g., Gen 35:18) disappears and returns to the God who is rûaḥ. And whereas the living may hope that the absence of God may give way again to God’s presence, the dead are forever cut off from God’s presence. Death means an end to fellowship with God and to fellowship with other people. It means an end to the activity of God and the activity of other people. Even more obviously, it means an end to my own activity. It means an end to awareness."

"But the Jew did not believe that human beings consist of an immortal soul entombed for a while in a mortal body.", Caird & Hurst, "New Testament Theology", p. 267 (1994).

"While the idea of an immortal soul is an established belief for most Christians, it cannot be supported by Biblical texts.", Ford & Muers, "The modern theologians: an introduction to Christian theology since 1918", p. 693 (2005).

"Consequently Buddhist and biblical views of the self agree that there exists no immortal soul that remains self-identically permanent through time.", Ford & Muers, "The modern theologians: an introduction to Christian theology since 1918", p. 693 (2005).

"Berkouwer has a long chapter on the meaning of the soul called "The Whole Man." Here he denounces the theory of a "substantial dichotomy" between an immortal soul and a mortal body.", Moody, "The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation", p. 182 (1990).

"It is generally accepted that in biblical thought there is no separation of body and soul and, consequently, the resurrection of the body is central. The idea of an immortal soul is not a Hebrew concept but comes from Platonic philosophy. It is, therefore, considered a severe distortion of the NT to read this foreign idea into its teaching.", Vogels, "Review of "The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality", by James Barr", Critical Review of Books in Religion, volume 7, p. 80 (1994).

As we can see, the attempt to use the "ad populum" argument (many numbers of mis-translations) to support the notion that the word "soul" is the correct translation of a concept that is IN NO WAY equivalent to what is has become today, is utter nonsense, and nothing but amateurish Fundamentalism.

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
[+] 6 users Like Bucky Ball's post
16-06-2017, 03:36 PM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2017 03:40 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: The resurrection
I stand corrected. Bucky was working on it as I typed on his behalf. My deepest apologies, B!

Edit to Add: As for the "slapping your arrogant ass about the head and shoulders"... CALLED IT!!

[Image: tumblr_mqg6azxfY91rfbf9jo4_250.gif]

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2017, 05:37 PM
RE: The resurrection
No fair using facts when all the other guy has are fairy tales, you two!

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
29-06-2017, 03:40 PM
RE: The resurrection
(20-02-2017 07:35 PM)f stop Wrote:  "As far as the resurrection, it's the best attested historical fact of antiquity ever recorded!"

Pure B.S. What's the best way to refute it?

With the apostle Paul's argument: If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. The New King James Version. (1982). (1 Co 15:19–20). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

We've got a bouncing baby firstfruit being born in the sky 23 Sept 17. The head's gone before us. The body is soon on her way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: