Genesis in detail

Ok I am starting to see what you are saying...

The only reason I understand it is because I have seen the same thing in the new testament. I am going to write for a bit and not use scriptures right here because I am am writing about underlying techniques of understanding and not necessarily about any particular scripture but all of them in general.

It has to do with nephesh and the body and the spirit. I will grant you that nephesh may have been used haphazardly in the old testament and if not in places incorrectly.

At least the old testament has three words for it... The new testament uses only one half of the time and it is translated soul or spirit at the will of the translators. I will not disagree that nephesh may have been incorrectly supplied in places in the old testament due to discrepancies of earlier or just conflicting OT texts. This happened to the Greek/Aramaic translations of the new testament. In the Aramaic it will have a word for soul where in the Greek it will have a word for spirit.

So as you have stated the only rule that can solve this confusion is to look at the context and try to glean from the subject matter where the word nephesh occurs (understanding it could be the wrong word supplied by translators and/or scribes). This is what the new testament translators have had to do with the word pneuma. They have had to look at the context and discern if it is talking about the physical "force" (if not for a better word), life force or the spiritual force.

To make a long story short, this is how I choose to understand the Bible, old and new testament. When it uses the word soul or spirit or body (in any language), I have formed in my mind, the concepts of "body, soul and spirit". I look and the verse and it tells me which of these three it is mostly referring to.

In Genesis I see all three of these forces (body soul and spirit) being manipulated in some way or another... . So it really doesn't matter which words are uses in what places because all three are present. It is no wonder that the words are often confused because the three are fused into one being.

0 Replies

Leviticus 6:27
Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place.

Comment:
Why does the Bible set the flesh up against the blood? Then the Bible says the life is in the blood. So it is the flesh that is separated by the life force in the blood.

Leviticus 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls[nephesh]: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. [nephesh]

Comment:
Why does the blood make atonement? Because it is a life force... and the flesh is not. Here in the Torah is separation of the life force from the flesh...

Deuteronomy 12:23
Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life [nephesh]; and thou mayest not eat the life [nephesh] with the flesh.

Comment: They can eat the flesh of the animal, but not the blood "for the blood is nephesh"... body/flesh and soul/blood... an animal has a soul just as humans do...

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

It has to do with nephesh and the body and the spirit. I will grant you that nephesh may have been used haphazardly in the old testament and if not in places incorrectly.

This makes no sense. Are you saying that the Tanach, which is only in a Hebrew version and shows no imporant differences between the DSS and MT regarding the application of nefesh within the Tanach itself, uses its own language incorrectly, while the later Greek Testament uses the terminology correctly? That makes absolutely no sense at all. How do you justify such a position?

Quote:

At least the old testament has three words for it...

You're going to have to demonstrate that but I'm sure that's what you're planning on doing.

Quote:

I will not disagree that nephesh may have been incorrectly supplied in places in the old testament due to discrepancies of earlier or just conflicting OT texts.

I never made that statement. I said that the usage of nefesh in context in the Torah will tell us what the people of the Torah who spoke the language, what it meant to them. I do not believe it is used incorrectly. I believe it is used correctly. And I believe that your application is correct too, but not necessarily for the time at which the Torah was written. The meanings of words change.

Quote:

So as you have stated the only rule that can solve this confusion is to look at the context and try to glean from the subject matter where the word nephesh occurs (understanding it could be the wrong word supplied by translators and/or scribes).

Where do you get this idea that it could be the wrong word? Do you know anything about Jewish scribes and the way they function? It seems like you're making up the rules as you go along so that you can more easily back up your beliefs even if the text disagrees with you.

Quote:

To make a long story short, this is how I choose to understand the Bible, old and new testament. When it uses the word soul or spirit or body (in any language), I have formed in my mind, the concepts of "body, soul and spirit". I look and the verse and it tells me which of these three it is mostly referring to.

So in other words you begin with the assumption that it says soul, spirit, and body, and believe that instead of trying to figure out if the text might actually say something else.

Dauer

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Leviticus 6:27
Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place.

Comment:
Why does the Bible set the flesh up against the blood? Then the Bible says the life is in the blood. So it is the flesh that is separated by the life force in the blood.

Or a different translation:

Speak to Aharon and to his sons, saying:
This is the Instruction for the hattat-offering;
in the place where the offering-up is slain, the hattat is to be slain,
before the presence of YHWH;
it is a holiest holy-portion.
The priest who sacrifices-the-hattat-offering is to eat of it,
in a holy place it is to be eaten, in the courtyard of the Tent of Appointment.
Whatever touches its flesh becomes holy (property).
And if some blood is spattered on a garment,
(the spot) on which it is spattered is to be scrubbed in a holy place.
Now a vessel of earthenware in which it was boiled is to be broken;
if (it was) in a copper vessel that it was boiled, it is to be scoured and rinsed with water.

Lev 6:18-21 (but your numbers are as you stated them.)

So this explains the separation of blood and flesh. Blood addresses the issue of how to deal with blood. Flesh addresses teh issue of how to deal with the flesh just as copper vessels and earthenware vessels are dealt with differently. These are fairly practical matters. You are reading into it.

Quote:

Leviticus 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls[nephesh]: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. [nephesh]

Comment:
Why does the blood make atonement? Because it is a life force... and the flesh is not. Here in the Torah is separation of the life force from the flesh...

You are taking this verse out of context. Probably because you saw it done in Hebrews, yes? Let's look in context:

And any-man, any-man of the House of Israel or of the sojourners that sojourn in their midst
that eats any blood:
I set my face against the person who eats the blood;
I will cut him off from amid his kinspeople!
For the life of the flesh--it is in the blood;

At this point I am going to stop and point out that this is the conclusion. This is the reason not to eat blood. This is the reason it says "for the life of the flesh--it is in the blood" but it continues from here to explain the only place blood may be used. Also, I'll point out that connecting the life of the flesh with the blood is very reasonable. When the blood leaves, the creature dies. Moving along:

I (myself) have given it to you upon the slaughter-site, to effect-ransom for your lives,
for the blood -- it effects-ransom for life!
Therefore I say to the Children of Israel:
Every person among you is not to eat blood,
and the sojourner that sojourns in your midst is not to eat blood.
...
For the life of all flesh--its blood is its life!
So I say to the Children of Israel:
The blood of all flesh you are not to eat,
for the life of all flesh--it is its blood,
everyone eating it shall be cut off!

Lev 16:10-14

So as you can see, this passage is really about how blood is not supposed to be eaten because the blood is the life of a thing. But I will say it does seem they associated blood with life. This does not mean they saw it as conataining a soul. As I explained above, it's very easy to make the association between the loss of blood and life.

Quote:

Deuteronomy 12:23
Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life [nephesh]; and thou mayest not eat the life [nephesh] with the flesh.

Comment: They can eat the flesh of the animal, but not the blood "for the blood is nephesh"... body/flesh and soul/blood... an animal has a soul just as humans do...

How do you get soul from nefesh? All I see is the the blood is the nefesh. Can't eat the nefesh. Just like I explained about the bufallo god. It takes the heat off of the slaughterers because the life is returned to the earth.

Dauer

0 Replies

Daur you are dancing around the issue...

I am trying to solidify it

body soul spirit
formed made created

0 Replies

Daur wrote:

This makes no sense. Are you saying that the Tanach, which is only in a Hebrew version and shows no important differences between the DSS and MT regarding the application of nefesh within the Tanach itself, uses its own language incorrectly, while the later Greek Testament uses the terminology correctly? That makes absolutely no sense at all. How do you justify such a position?

Comment:
I am not saying that the Greek has it right over the Hebrew... the Greek is even more confusing and then the Hebrew. The Greek only uses one word "pneuma" for both the soul and the spirit and you have to guess which one is meant. Nothing can be more confusing then that... but the Greek adds insight into the Hebrew concepts.

There is a problem with "initial" understanding of certain phrases of the Torah when the words in the Torah are being used synonymously as you pointed out in one of your earlier posts.

Flesh is certainly not blood. I think that synonymous usages of words only clarify the readers need to understand fully the subtle nuance of each separate word. So, sometimes the word body is used to represent the whole being. Soul and spirit are also used that same way. This only makes us realize how different or unique they really individually are.

[Ruwach] spirit
[Bara'] created

[nephesh] soul/blood
[`asah] make

[Basar] body/flesh
[Yatsar] formed

0 Replies

How am I dancing around the issue? I have given you clear examples of how nefesh is used in other parts of the Torah? You have given me none. That is concrete data I gave you. I also gave a valid reason why a primitive people would associate blood with life, as well as air. And you have ignored both of these reasons because they disagree with you. I have shown you the biblical technique of parallelism, which explains why phrases are often repeated using different words, and you ignored this as well. Please systematically answer each of these questions without resorting to any text outside of the Torah as all of your other sources will be coming in a later time period:

1.Where does the text indicate that "breath of life" is spirit? How do you counter the possibility that it simply refers to the breathing which accompanies life, the meaning which the very name would suggest?

2. Where does the text indicate that "nefesh" is soul? How do you counter the occurances of nefesh in which it cannot mean soul? Please give examples.

3. Just to clarify things so there is no confusion, what do you mean when you say soul and what do you mean when you say spirit? Please be as specific as possible.

4. Why do you believe that B'tzelem Elohim meant anything other than man being created in God's image to the authors of the myth?

What you have given me does not refute my statement that there's no clear indication the authors of the Torah believed in a separate or eternal soul. Just like anyone else looking for meaning, you're using the ambiguity of the text to support yourself, but that is going beyond the plain meaning of the text. You want solidity? Respond to all of the material I alluded to in this post.

Dauer

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Comment:
I am not saying that the Greek has it right over the Hebrew... the Greek is even more confusing and then the Hebrew. The Greek only uses one word "pneuma" for both the soul and the spirit and you have to guess which one is meant. Nothing can be more confusing then that... but the Greek adds insight into the Hebrew concepts.

How does the Greek add insight? The septuagint is rarely more helpful than any other source. Even Origen complained it was corrupt. Why don't you look at the Targums? I'm not suggesting you do so. Just like the Greek, the Targums are later sources. Why not look at related languages? But still, the best way to know what a word means is to go to the actual text itself.

Quote:

Flesh is certainly not blood.

Where does it say that flesh is blood?

Quote:

I think that synonymous usages of words only clarify the readers need to understand fully the subtle nuance of each separate word.

"For example, in Psalm 2:10 "Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth" "

From the parallelism entry before. Do you think that there is an important difference between kings and rulers of the earth? As far as I can tell rulers of the earth is simply building on the concept "kings."

Quote:

So, sometimes the word body is used to represent the whole being. Soul and spirit are also used that same way. This only makes us realize how different or unique they really individually are.

There's a difference between a word having a unique meaning and it having the unique meaning you want it to mean.

Quote:

[Ruwach] spirit
[Bara'] created

Do you know what ruach is related to? The idea of breath or wind. You can't justifiably translate that as spirit with no other possibilities. And I see no mention of it in relation to man in Genesis, or in relation to the creation of man, or the creation of anything for that matter, but only in description of the nature of existence before God created light. So I don't know what connection you're making here. Maybe you can show me.

Quote:

[nephesh] soul/blood
[`asah] make

asah doesn't exactly mean make. It's ambiguous. It could also mean do, and depending on the conjugation of course will mean other things. And it's a very common word. I don't think nefesh is really soul or blood, but just life, in the sense of animating a doll. First it is limp and then it is wound up and moves. This does not imply a separate soul. That duality of the individual I do not see being applied here. But I do see you applying it. But like I said, I think nefesh is an ambiguous word with no English equivalent, which is how it can be used for a man as well. How do you link asah with nefesh? While I'm asking, can you show that for all three examples?

Quote:

[Basar] body/flesh
[Yatsar] formed

I don't think we're in disagreement that God formed the body in the story. Let's look at this differently. The second creation story takes the idea of man's creation. God forms man, but at this point man is not actually animated, but is more like the earth itself, adam and adamah. It is when God blows into man's nostrils, filling his lungs and suscitating him with the "breath of life" that man becomes an actual living being. From this we learn why, without breath, man is no longer living. Breath is the mechanism that God gave which allows for life.

Myths are usually trying to explain something about the world.

Dauer

0 Replies

If God "created" [Bara'] man in his "image"...

God is [Ruwach] so humans are in the image of [Ruwach]. So we must have [Ruwach] or spirit in order to shine it.

[Ruwach] is both potential and kinetic energy.

[Ruwach] can refer to God or, the spirit upon humans, in the OT.

[Ruwach] is not [Nephesh] because animals have [Nephesh] but they do not have [Ruwach].

Priests, prophets, kings etc had [Ruwach] too in the OT.

0 Replies

...and
Not all rulers are kings and not all kings are rulers. Wink

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

If God "created" [Bara'] man in his "image"...

God is [Ruwach] so humans are in the image of [Ruwach]. So we must have [Ruwach] or spirit in order to shine it.

Where does it say that God is ruach? I don't see that anywhere. I see it mentioned the ruach of God but that's something different entirely. This is an example of smichut, like beit hamikdash which means "the house [of] holy/hallowed/sanctified/sacred-place/space"

See how hard a time I have settling on a translation into English from Hebrew? Laughing

ruach Elohim would best be translated as "ruach [of] Elohim."

And that time I didn't even bother. Although I suppose we could say wind of Elohim and it would be just as supported as your translation, or windlike-spirit of Elohim. There's nothing in the passage that suggests Elohim is identical to the ruach.

Quote:

[Ruwach] is both potential and kinetic energy.

Where does the text say that?

Quote:

[Ruwach] can refer to God or, the spirit upon humans, in the OT.

This one you can back up more easily using the text itself, right?

Quote:

[Ruwach] is not [Nephesh] because animals have [Nephesh] but they do not have [Ruwach].

Now you sound like a mekubal.

"22. They fell on their faces and said, "O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, if one man sins, shall You be angry with the whole congregation?""

Numbers 16:22. Says it's not just man so I'm nut sure your answer is definitive.

16. "Let the Lord, the God of spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation,

Num 27:16 does it again.

Quote:

Priests, prophets, kings etc had [Ruwach] too in the OT.

Well ruach does mean breath so I'd imagine they would.

Quote:

...and
Not all rulers are kings and not all kings are rulers.

Nor did I suggest that they are. Nor do they have to be for it to be a parallelism. If you review the definition, the terms are not identical, just similar, like with English synonyms as well. Although sometimes the Hebrew parallelisms do get quite creative.

Dauer

0 Replies

You wrote:

Well ruach does mean breath so I'd imagine they would.

Comment:
I don't mean any offence by this but I feel that you were taught that these words are synonymous and you have used them in your life synonymously without giving thought that the Bible has different meanings and they are to be used with more thought.

Now you say [Ruwach] means breath, but so does [Nephesh]... This is pure confusion in terminology.

Although I do not usually quote you scriptures of the new testament.

Here is one...

John4:24
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Is the spirit breath? Yes... Why? Because it is inspiration (in-spirit-action). Inspiration is breath. Is it physical breath? No... That is [Nephesh]...

I will not disagree that [Ruwach] is used in the Torah to mean breath. But that is not what it is intending to teach. Not only in Hebrew but in ancient China/India these words were used synonymously because the culture has it already engrained in their minds... body, soul and spirit.

Also how alive can the [nephesh] be in humans if the [Ruwach] is taken.

God said in the garden that "in the day" that Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge that they would surely die... The day they ate from the tree their bodies [Basar] did not shrivel up like prunes... they did not start coughing, drop to their knees and breathe their last breath [nephesh].

They lived on for many years after this time. So what died, or did God lie to them? It wasn't the [nephesh] soul it wasn't the body [Basar]... it was the image of God [Ruwach] that no longer was upon them. They died spiritually...

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Comment:
What died in Adam and Eve on that day? Their [Ruwach] died...

God makes deals later to give a "portion" of [Ruwach] it back upon them.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

You wrote:

Well ruach does mean breath so I'd imagine they would.

Comment:
I don't mean any offence by this but I feel that you were taught that these words are synonymous and you have used them in your life synonymously without giving thought that the Bible has different meanings and they are to be used with more thought.

No, in my life I don't use them synonymously. In my life I will use them in the context of whatever paradigm I am speaking in. Right now we are talking about what the actual authors of the text believed. I never said the authors understood the words as being identical, but they still have overlapping meanings. It is possible they originate within different groups that came to form the Hebrews, or that they were used by different groups within the Hebrews.

Quote:

Now you say [Ruwach] means breath, but so does [Nephesh]... This is pure confusion in terminology.

Neither of them exclusively mean breath. I told you nefesh is ambiguous. So is ruach. They have no direct English translation. That's why I'm such a thorn when you translate one of them directly as "soul" or "spirit." Let the context speak to the meaning!

Quote:

Although I do not usually quote you scriptures of the new testament.

Here is one...

John4:24
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

What does that have to do with anything? The Greek Testament is mainly pagan texts garbed in Jewish language. I'm not going to accept that any more than I'll accept the Illiad. And I won't accept Talmud or Midrash on this matter either.

Quote:

I will not disagree that [Ruwach] is used in the Torah to mean breath. But that is not what it is intending to teach.

Prove it using the text.

Quote:

Not only in Hebrew but in ancient China/India these words were used synonymously because the culture has it already engrained in their minds... body, soul and spirit.

How can you say "not only in Hebrew" when you haven't established what it means in Hebrew? It seems like you've accepted the fact it's used as breath.

Quote:

Also how alive can the [nephesh] be in humans if the [Ruwach] is taken.

God said in the garden that "in the day" that Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge that they would surely die... The day they ate from the tree their bodies [Basar] did not shrivel up like prunes... they did not start coughing, drop to their knees and breathe their last breath [nephesh].

Where does it say anything about breathing their last breath? Unless I'm missing something, you're inserting things into the text. It never mentions nefesh or ruach. There is nothing that suggests only a part of them will die because there is nothing that suggests there is only a part of them to die.

Quote:

They lived on for many years after this time. So what died, or did God lie to them? It wasn't the [nephesh] soul

Why do you translate nefesh as soul as if that means something to me? It just shows that you have no interest in cooperating in a dialogue, which would consist of you leaving nefesh untranslated in its context until the context makes clear what nefesh means, at which point nefesh would still remain untranslated? If you really have a case, you can make it by leaving nefesh untranslated.

Quote:

it wasn't the body [Basar]...

The nefesh and basar are not separate physical things. And if one goes the other goes.

Quote:

it was the image of God [Ruwach] that no longer was upon them. They died spiritually...

Where do you get the idea that tzelem elohim means anything other than the image of God? Where does it say that tzelem elohim = ruach? Are you making this up as you go along?

Quote:

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Comment:
What died in Adam and Eve on that day?

Where does it say that they have to die right then, at that moment? All we know is that they are threatened with death on that day and will surely die. 3:22 says, emphasis mine, "...Now that man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!"

So now that man ate from the tree of knowledge of good and bad, he's like God and the hosts (I would guess this is the early pantheon but I'm not getting into that.) At this point he cannot be allowed to eat from the rest of the trees in the garden as he was, because eating from the tree of life would mean he'd be immortal and[/] have knowledge of good and evil, thus being like God and the hosts. This is what God warned about. Being immortal is okay, but not if he's thinking like a god. Adam ate from the tree and the garden is now closed to him. He is now mortal. No more ambrosia for him. This is just one interpretation, but as you see yours is not the only, nor does mine make any less sense than yours. I think it makes more sense since yours assumes tzelem elohim = ruach when tzelem elohim plainly means tzelem elohim.

[quote]God makes deals later to give a "portion" of [Ruwach] it back upon them.[/quote]

Where?

If you want to make smaller quotes of something you just go (quote) at the begining and then (/quote) at the end but use these guys [[[]]]][][][][][[[[]]. You can choose not to, but that way you can respond directly to my questions. It looks very organized.

Dauer

0 Replies

Daur wrote:
The nefesh and basar are not separate physical things. And if one goes the other goes.

Comment:
Nephesh is passed on. The basar (body) may be buried and gone but the nephesh lives in the children of the person. They pass nephesh on and on...

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Daur wrote:
The nefesh and basar are not separate physical things. And if one goes the other goes.

Comment:
Nephesh is passed on. The basar (body) may be buried and gone but the nephesh lives in the children of the person. They pass nephesh on and on...

Where does it say the nefesh is passed on and on? You keep saying things, but you're not tying it to the text. I tie what I say to the text and you have been unable to prove that I am incorrect. If you're not going to tie what you say to the text, don't bother. We're discussing what the authors of the Torah believed based on the text itself. If you want to present wild theories based on modern and later concepts, there is no reason for us to be talking about this issue.

Dauer

0 Replies

Job 33:4

The Spirit [Ruwach] of God hath made [`asah] me, and the breath [Nashamah] of the Almighty hath given me life [Chayah].

Comment
I can only show you these so many times and you just refuse to see the obvious pattern.

You have given verses only to confuse the issue and bring about that ever so infamous rhetoric that is common in rabbinic circles.

God doesn't want rhetoric God wants clarity.

I have given verses. You dance around what I have shown and the settle back into your confusion.

Here is Job saying that God made ['asah] life... I have also heard it said that Job was written before Genesis...

Here Job is using formed, made and created too... Again I think I will believe Job, Jeremiah, Isaiah... over you...

I don't even know what you are trying to say anymore...

The most foolish thing you have said is: "nephesh cannot be translated"... that is ridiculous. You cannot translate nephesh because you are so confused as to what it is...

I might also mention that the new testament was written in Aramaic(Modern Hebrew) first before it was written into Greek... Yes, many scholars believe the Greek was written first but not all scholars agree, I am one of them who believe it was written in Aramaic first... So it is not universally agreed that it was first written in "Greek" like the "Iliad" or any other Greek book.

There is nothing in the pentateuch that says God is no longer going to reveal 'new' things after Moses...

Also I can see the "context" of where these words are being used just as you can... I have shown you many more scriptures than you have shown me.

All you have done is to "try" and knock down what I have said and interject confusion of terms.

So your God is confused and meaningless... mine has a purpose for his words... where, when and how he uses them. They are not synonymous when ever it suites me... They do overlap in meaning but the essence of the words have rock solid meanings.

I clearly see what Isaiah, Jeremiah and Job are saying about body, soul and spirit. formed, made and created

I think you could take a lesson from them... You are going out of you way to keep the terms confused. I do not think you are right.

0 Replies

Another thing...

Question:
Why did God breathe life into Adams nostrils instead of just "creating" life in his blood?

Answer: To demonstrate that life "Nephesh" is passed on...

Comment:
Then we get back to the chicken and egg thing. An egg will NEVER grow on it's own. It needs the life from the male... life [Nephesh] is passed on... now prove to me an egg [body] can grow on it's own without soul life [nephesh].. this does not need a scripture to be understood... just consider the millions of eggs that are laid daily by hens... Not one EVER grows to a chicken without the life [nephesh] from the rooster... This is an obvious law of life and nature not just a scripture.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Job 33:4

The Spirit [Ruwach] of God hath made [`asah] me, and the breath [Nashamah] of the Almighty hath given me life [Chayah].

Comment
I can only show you these so many times and you just refuse to see the obvious pattern.

It's a parallelism. I've shown you what a parallelism is but you refuse to recognize it. The ruach "breath" of El made me. The neshamah "breath" of Shaddai sustains me. And why are you using such an extremely late text? Do you think it helps make your case?

Quote:

You have given verses only to confuse the issue and bring about that ever so infamous rhetoric that is common in rabbinic circles.

I find your statement extremely offensive and extremely typical. You have no way of refuting what I have found in the text and so you resort to insults. You cannot show with the text itself that you are correct. The text itself supports me. Otherwise, you would have already used the text to support yourself.

Quote:

God doesn't want rhetoric God wants clarity.

The reason that my rhetoric upsets you is because the text supports it. The reason your rhetoric upsets you is because it is not based in the text and has no validity against mine.

Quote:

I have given verses. You dance around what I have shown and the settle back into your confusion.

You have not given verses. You have shown that when you translated the words the way you want them to mean, the verses mean what you want them to mean. But it is only by inserting ideas into the text that you find what you want to find. It is not the plain meaning of the text.

Quote:

Here is Job saying that God made ['asah] life... I have also heard it said that Job was written before Genesis...

It is quite possible Job was written after the Babylonian exile. Just go to the end of the links on this page and there are a number of excerpts that deal with the issues, if very briefly:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/job.html

If you're looking for more complete answers, this is the book for you:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385008945/ref=ase_peterkirby/104-9765640-9863150?v=glance&s=books

Quote:

Here Job is using formed, made and created too... Again I think I will believe Job, Jeremiah, Isaiah... over you...

It's not about you believing them over me. It's about you believing your interpretation of them over me. You're welcome to do that, but it in no way changes the fact that the text supports my view without the need to translate the words.

Quote:

I don't even know what you are trying to say anymore...

I am saying that there is no strong evidence for a duality of body and soul, but only that there is a body, the body is given life, and then life is taken away. Life is connected both with breath and blood, which to the Israelite society would have easily been connected with the life and death of a thing.

Quote:

The most foolish thing you have said is: "nephesh cannot be translated"... that is ridiculous. You cannot translate nephesh because you are so confused as to what it is...

The most foolish thing you have done is believe there will be a direct translation from an ancient semtic language into a modern language that's Germanic and Romantic. You can't expect all concepts to automatically match up. There are many words that can't translate because we don't have the concepts in English or, if we do have the concept, the concept is tied to another concept. Like tzedakah and charity. Tzedakah is tied to the idea of justice, tzedek. It is a just thing to do, an obligation. Charity comes from caritas. It comes from the heart. It's something we're moved from the heart. While the two words are similar, they mean very different things and to translate one with the other would generally be dishonest. The same is true with many other Hebrew words. I believe in precision. There is nothing precise about translating nefesh as soul. The clearest way to understand it is to see it in context.

Quote:

I might also mention that the new testament was written in Aramaic(Modern Hebrew) first before it was written into Greek...

I really don't know what kind of education you've had. aramaic and modern hebrew are two completely different languages. Aramaic is the language that was spoken in the Babylonian Empire. It is generally the language of the Gemara, the later part of the Talmud that followed the Mishna. The languages, aramaic and hebrew, are written in the same script, but they are very very different. Like spanish and french. I will show you some transliterated aramaic and if you actually read Hebrew you should be able to hear/see the differences.

http://www.jewfaq.org/prayer/kaddish.htm

Modern Hebrew is related to rabbinic/classical hebrew which is used in the mishna, as it has "normal" grammar for past present and future. It also incorporates words from other languages. Biblical Hebrew's greatest difference is in grammar, where the past, present, and future are dealt with differently. But the differences aren't extreme enough that they are like different languages; just different stages of the same language.

Quote:

Yes, many scholars believe the Greek was written first but not all scholars agree, I am one of them who believe it was written in Aramaic first... So it is not universally agreed that it was first written in "Greek" like the "Iliad" or any other Greek book.

I never said they were written in Greek. I said they're a pagan work using Jewish vocabulary, or something like that. I'd imagine some of them were written in Greek, and some in Aramaicc, whichever was the vernacular for the particular community.

Quote:

There is nothing in the pentateuch that says God is no longer going to reveal 'new' things after Moses...

Read my signature quote below. I don't believe in any finite revelation. And you really don't want to start a conversation with me on why Jesus can't be hamoshiach or what happens to dreamers of dreams. Of course this all depends on what you think the GT is talking about because you seem like you think for yourself.

Quote:

Also I can see the "context" of where these words are being used just as you can... I have shown you many more scriptures than you have shown me.

You've shown me nothing concrete. I have shown you unambiguously how the words are used. You have given me situations that require interpretation and have no answered questions like how you know God = ruach or that ruach = tzelem elohim or a number of other things.

Quote:

All you have done is to "try" and knock down what I have said and interject confusion of terms.

This whole conversation has been about confusion of terms. You have not proven your translation of the terms is correct. If your translation is incorrect, you have no case. I have proven my case that these words don't automatically mean soul without translation.

Quote:

So your God is confused and meaningless... mine has a purpose for his words...

We're not talking about my God or your God. We're talking about what the ancient Hebrews believed. It has no bearing whatsoever on my beliefs.

Quote:

where, when and how he uses them.

Isn't it a little anthropomorphic to say God uses words? What do you believe is the nature of God? How does God use words?

Quote:

They are not synonymous when ever it suites me...

How are they synonymous when it suits me? I am not talking about God's text. I am talking about the text of my ancestors. I want to know what they believed. I don't believe in finite revelation. I don't believe the Torah is uniquely divine. I've said that repeatedly. I'm saying it again. You don't seem like you've heard me at all.

Quote:

They do overlap in meaning but the essence of the words have rock solid meanings.

Prove it. Using the text.

Quote:

I clearly see what Isaiah, Jeremiah and Job are saying about body, soul and spirit. formed, made and created

No, you clearly see what you read into Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Job. You find what you want to find.

Quote:

I think you could take a lesson from them... You are going out of you way to keep the terms confused.

How do you know that nefesh and ruach aren't mostly synonymous terms that developed within two different sectors of the population, or within two different populations before Israel became a nation?

Quote:

I do not think you are right.

Well, you're stating your feelings well. But your feelings don't hold water against my case. You realize I'm not presenting a traditional Jewish argument, right? Judaism believes that there is a soul traditionally, and in mysticism there are at least three levels to the soul, sometimes more. That's why I called you a mekubal. I'm just going by the text. I probably won't respond til after Shabbos. If you say something that gets away from Genesis, that should probably go in a new thread.

Dauer

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Another thing...

Question:
Why did God breathe life into Adams nostrils instead of just "creating" life in his blood?

Answer: To demonstrate that life "Nephesh" is passed on...

Comment:
Then we get back to the chicken and egg thing. An egg will NEVER grow on it's own. It needs the life from the male... life [Nephesh] is passed on... now prove to me an egg [body] can grow on it's own without soul life [nephesh].. this does not need a scripture to be understood... just consider the millions of eggs that are laid daily by hens... Not one EVER grows to a chicken without the life [nephesh] from the rooster... This is an obvious law of life and nature not just a scripture.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Are you saying that the basar must be passed on as well? The basar isn't passed on. The child gets a new basar. If it meant the nefesh is passed on, it would say so explicitly. Can you show me a place where the text actually says it's passed on?

God breathed life into Adam's nostrils because this is the visible sign of life. Blood is a sign of death, with blood loss. But it is the sign of breathing that lets us know someone is alive. For an ancient people, there would be no need to talk about blood right now. Blood doesn't come until somebody dies. And that's when it makes its first appearance:

...What have you done!
a sound--your brother's blood cries out to me from the soil!
And now,
damned be you from the soil,
which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from
your hand.
Gen 4:10-11

Dauer

0 Replies

I meant Aramaic was "more" modern than ancient Hebrew... It is you that assumed that I was implying it was widely in use today... I know Aramaic is not that modern... But again your discussion manages to cloud what I was saying. I was saying the new testament was written in Aramaic before it was translated (by the apostles themselves) into Greek... near two thousand years ago.

0 Replies

Genesis in detail

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know