Modern Skeptic's Bible (MSB) - Genesis Chapter 1

[dybmh]

Yahwism was essentially polytheistic and had a pantheon,

Then it's not Jewish thinking is it? It's completely irrelevant.

 

[dybmh]

Tanach / Torah confirm the Israelites of that time had gods and goddesses?

The people came from polytheists and struggled with polytheism all throughout the Tanach. The Torah is teaching how that is a bad idea and causes nothing but heartache and heartburn for the Jewish people who were once slaves in Egypt.

 

[dybmh]

The same with everything. There is no infallible source for anything on this earth. Not me, not you, not any tradition or theology.

If the question is: what is written in the Torah, the infallible source is the Torah itself.

If the question is, what do those words mean? The individual who can read the Torah has more credibility than the person who can't.

 

[dybmh]

Jewish thinking became something else and that is the tradition you see today

What Jewish traditions are you talking about? Belief in an immortal soul is not a tradition that is seen. And like you said, there's nothing contradictory about it, even if it's not spelled out in the Torah such that it will satisfy the harshest skeptic.

That's all for my replies for now.

 

[I Am Hugh]

That is JW doctrine.

I don't care if it's Gomer Pyle doctrine. Is it accurate.

I've debated it many times. First, the immortal soul is in the Hebrew Torah, very clearly in many places.

Then why don't you show it? And is it an interpretation or is it a fact? I think Ezekiel 18:4 is pretty clear. The soul dies. That isn't immortal.

The best example comes right at the end of Ecclesiastes. The reason you and the JWs don't know that is because you're assuming there is only one word for soul, nefesh. But that's not true.

Haven't we done this? There is no word for the soul in the Bible. Not nefesh or any other. Because the soul is a pagan concept not compatible with the Bible.

There's an entire book on the immortal soul with Torah references throughout which was written in responses to the Sadducees who denied it.

So? There's lots of books on lots of things. Lots of books on the Torah being myth and nonsense. That doesn't mean anything.

 

[dybmh]

Then why don't you show it?

Let's look at it tomorrow.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Introduction
As brief and painless as possible I would like to explain. I've translated Genesis chapter one before, with a slightly different modern perspective, an attempt to avoid iconic religious language, but with footnotes, formatting, annotations and reference scriptures I've only gotten to the first 3 verses as far as translation this time around:

[1:1] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

[1:2] At that time the earth was a dark and barren desolation; and God's dynamic energy was concentrated on the surface of the primeval ocean.

[1:3] And then God commanded that light should come to be and it began to appear.

Basically, in a sense, the rule of thumb has been that a Bible translation simply strives to strictly translate the text from word to word as much as possible, whereas a version allows for more creative license. That rule, I don't think, is etched in stone. Compare the King James Version and the Darby Translation. Still, this is a version, but it isn't me making stuff up, only putting it into a less iconic language. The meaning is still the same. Perhaps it's more of an explanation or annotation. Ideally, I can back it all up with the traditional Bible if challenged. This isn't a compromise designed to appeal but rather simply a modern translation.

This post by @F1fan bugged me, inspiring me to try this, because I see the admittedly aforementioned archaic iconic religious language and the sometimes-nonsensical primitive concepts that have become modern theology as being - well - off-putting to the modern rational skeptic. Frustrating to me because the off-putting is understandable due to having been misled. This version is an accurate but more modern take.

Each verse number appears in bold and is also linked to the corresponding verse comparison on Bible Hub.

Genesis Chapter 1
1 The beginning of earthling man began when a highly intelligent extraterrestrial being created the universe, including the earth. 2 The earth was at first dark and desolate, but his dynamic energy was concentrated on the surface of the waters. 3 Then he arranged it so that light could be utilized on the planet, and so light gradually began to appear.

4 He saw that the light was good but decided that there should be a division of light and dark. 5 The period of light he called "day" and the period of darkness he called "night." There was evening and morning, the first period of creation. 6 He then decided an expanse should occur in between two waters, the water on the surface below and a water canopy above. 7 So, he made the atmosphere in the middle of the divided waters. 8 He called the expanse "sky" and so was the second period of creation. 9 He decided the waters below the sky should be gathered together in one place, allowing dry land to appear. 10 He called the dry land "earth" and the waters he called "seas." He thought this was good.

11 He decided the earth should produce vegetation, with its seeds, and fruit trees should produce fruit specifically of their kind, including their seeds, and so it was. 12 The land produced vegetation, with seeds, and the trees bore fruit of their own kind, and he thought it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third creative period.

14 Next he decided to arrange the luminaries in the expanse so that they separated the day from the night and so that they would serve to mark time, days and years, 15 and so that they would provide light on earth. 16 He arranged the two primary luminaries - the greater to govern the day and the lesser to rule the night, and he arranged the stars as well. 17 He set them in the sky to give light upon the earth, 18 to dominate the day and night, and separate light from darkness. And he thought this was good. 19 This marked the evening, then the morning, the fourth creative period.

20 And then he decided that the water should fill with living creatures, and fly above the earth in the sky. 21 So, he created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that swim around in the waters according to their kinds as well as every flying creature according to its kind, and he thought it was good. 22 So he felicitated the creatures of the sea and sky, and adjured them to be fruitful and multiply. 23 And there was evening, and there was morning, the fifth creative period.

24 Then he established that the land should produce living creatures according to their kinds, for domesticating, to migrate and feral. And so, it was. 25 He proceeded to make the wild, domestic and migrating animals of their own kinds and he thought it was good.

26 Then he and his master worker decided to make man in their image, to be like them, giving mankind authority over the creatures of the land, sea and sky, the domestic, feral and migrating animals. 27 And so he went on to create mankind in his image, he created them male and female. 28 He also felicitated them, and said to them "Be fruitful and multiply, filling the earth as steward over the creatures of land, sea and sky."

29 Then he said "I am giving you all the vegetation and fruit bearing trees on the entire earth as food for you. 30 And to every wild animal, flying creature of the sky and migrating animal alive, I am giving all vegetation for food." And so, it was. 31 He looked over all that he had made, and it looked very good to him. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth creative period.

Skeptics use this Bible:

SAB Genesis 1

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

 

[I Am Hugh]

Skeptics use this Bible:

SAB Genesis 1

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

Yes, I know. Here are many responses I've made over the years to the SAB.

 

[dybmh]

@I Am Hugh ,

To answer and respond to your post yesterday regarding the immortal soul:

1) It's significant that you are bringing JW doctrine because, if they refused teaching you science ( and math too? ) it is highly likely they avoided teaching you anything which compromises their doctrine. Anything which is strictly JW doctrine and none others have adopted it should be, imo, considered with extreme skepticism because the JWs as an organization have demonstrated their willingness to forcefully omit any and all information which challenges their scriptural authority. They will shun a person for exploring prohibited subject matter, right?

​

2) I did not detail my position because, we've already been through this. Your assertion assumes there is one and only one Hebrew word for soul: "Nefesh". I already showed you this is wrong and incomplete. The entire JW position against the immortal soul is isolated on the one word "nefesh". Even if you don't trust me. Even if you think I'm deceptive, or perhaps possessed with a false us-vs-them mentality, I have shown you there is more than one word for soul in the the Hebrew Torah. You may call Hebrew baby-talk, and make googoo-gahgah noises ( which is something I've seen other so-called skeptics do in the past, literally, googoo-gahgah. Maybe you've seen that on some other forum somewhere? ), but, if you want to discuss Judaism and the Torah, attempting any sort of intelligent discussion or commentary, you'll need some respect for the Hebrew language.​

​

​

The point is:

If it is known that JWs forcefully omit data, and, it is known that nefesh is not the only word for soul in the Hebrew Torah, the smart choice is agnosticism not skepticism. They're not the same. Agnosticism = "I don't know, I can't know". Skepticism = "Whatever you say, I doubt it."

Now.

Question: Isn't true? You don't know and can't know anything about the immortal soul in the Hebrew Torah without some Hebrew language skills? If you disagree, please? How can you tell if the information you're reading online or watching on YouTube is true other than making it into a popularity contest?

 

[I Am Hugh]

@I Am Hugh ,

To answer and respond to your post yesterday regarding the immortal soul:

1) It's significant that you are bringing JW doctrine because, if they refused teaching you science ( and math too? ) it is highly likely they avoided teaching you anything which compromises their doctrine. Anything which is strictly JW doctrine and none others have adopted it should be, imo, considered with extreme skepticism because the JWs as an organization have demonstrated their willingness to forcefully omit any and all information which challenges their scriptural authority. They will shun a person for exploring prohibited subject matter, right?

​

2) I did not detail my position because, we've already been through this. Your assertion assumes there is one and only one Hebrew word for soul: "Nefesh". I already showed you this is wrong and incomplete. The entire JW position against the immortal soul is isolated on the one word "nefesh". Even if you don't trust me. Even if you think I'm deceptive, or perhaps possessed with a false us-vs-them mentality, I have shown you there is more than one word for soul in the the Hebrew Torah. You may call Hebrew baby-talk, and make googoo-gahgah noises ( which is something I've seen other so-called skeptics do in the past, literally, googoo-gahgah. Maybe you've seen that on some other forum somewhere? ), but, if you want to discuss Judaism and the Torah, attempting any sort of intelligent discussion or commentary, you'll need some respect for the Hebrew language.​

​

​

The point is:

If it is known that JWs forcefully omit data, and, it is known that nefesh is not the only word for soul in the Hebrew Torah, the smart choice is agnosticism not skepticism. They're not the same. Agnosticism = "I don't know, I can't know". Skepticism = "Whatever you say, I doubt it."

Now.

Question: Isn't true? You don't know and can't know anything about the immortal soul in the Hebrew Torah without some Hebrew language skills? If you disagree, please? How can you tell if the information you're reading online or watching on YouTube is true other than making it into a popularity contest?

Only with your help, but first you have to listen to me and not project JW doctrine or any other upon me, thereby responding to that instead of what I actually say myself. As I've told you already, there is no Hebrew word for soul in the Bible because the Jews who wrote the Hebrew/Aramaic/Christian/Greek scriptures didn't believe in the soul. The word soul is an unhappy translation of nefesh or any other Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew word translated as such.

So, show me in English where the words nefesh or any other Hebrew words are, as you allege, translated as such. Soul, so that I can contextually gauge whether or not the verses you give do in fact mean immortal soul.

 

[dybmh]

Only with your help, but first you have to listen to me and not project JW doctrine or any other upon me, thereby responding to that instead of what I actually say myself.

Fair. I apologize. You're 100% correct, I did project that on you. And I am sorry. I was wrong. I will try not to do that again, but, if I do, your correction will be appreciated.

As I've told you already, there is no Hebrew word for soul in the Bible because the Jews who wrote the Hebrew/Aramaic/Christian/Greek scriptures didn't believe in the soul. The word soul is an unhappy translation of nefesh or any other Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew word translated as such.

I apologize I missed it.

What sort of scriptural evidence would open the door to the possibility that the Jews who wrote the Hebrew scriptures believed in a soul? IOW, what sort of counter-example would you accept?

 

[I Am Hugh]

What sort of scriptural evidence would open the door to the possibility that the Jews who wrote the Hebrew scriptures believed in a soul? IOW, what sort of counter-example would you accept?

Where we seem to disagree is whether or not nephesh is immortal. Wikipedia, which we agree is fallible, says the word appears 754 times in the Hebrew scripture, but all I need from you is the two cases you think are the strongest indication contextually which indicates it is immortal.

As an aside you also state that other Hebrew words are translated soul. I disagree that any word in the Bible, Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek can accurately be translated as soul because the word and concept of the soul is pagan (outside of) the thinking of the Jews who wrote the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek scriptures and who translated the Septuagint. I'm not entirely sure about those who translated the Septuagint because the influence of Greek philosophy and their concept of the immortal soul (from Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, etc.) may have influenced them by the time the Greek language had become so common so as to necessitate the translation by then.

I know you had brought it up but I don't remember if I had responded to the other word(s) you suggest are translated as soul.

Also, just out of curiosity I wouldn't mind if you at least briefly commented on whether or not you think animals have or are "souls."

So, in conclusion I need from you 1. two instances where the word nefesh means immortal soul contextually, 2. What other words do you allege should be translated as "soul" and two instances where they can be demonstrated as implying immortality, and 3. whether or not any of those words indicate animals have or are "souls."

 

[dybmh]

Where we seem to disagree is whether or not nephesh is immortal.

Stop. Please. No. Neshamah is certainly eternal. Ruach is probably eternal to a degree. Nefesh is NOT eternal at all; it's material.

 

[dybmh]

I disagree that any word in the Bible, Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek can accurately be translated as soul because the word and concept of the soul is pagan (outside of) the thinking of the Jews who wrote the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek scriptures and who translated the Septuagint.

Aha. You've shifted the goal-posts. I notice the qualifier. Please correct me? You have now limited your dataset to the ones who translated the LXX?

 

[dybmh]

I know you had brought it up but I don't remember if I had responded to the other word(s) you suggest are translated as soul.

There are 5 aspects to the soul: nefesh, ruach, neshama, chaya, yechida.

 

[dybmh]

Also, just out of curiosity I wouldn't mind if you at least briefly commented on whether or not you think animals have or are "souls."

Animals have nefesh and ruach.

 

[I Am Hugh]

Animals have nefesh and ruach.

Agreed.

 

[I Am Hugh]

There are 5 aspects to the soul: nefesh, ruach, neshama, chaya, yechida.

For starters, could you please define soul?

 

[dybmh]

. two instances where the word nefesh means immortal soul contextually

Straw-man.

What other words do you allege should be translated as "soul" and two instances where they can be demonstrated as implying immortality,

Nishamat-Chayyim. With 2 yuds. Gen 2:7. Which corresponds to Zachar-V-N'kaievah, the pair, in Gen 1:27

 

[dybmh]

. two instances where the word nefesh means immortal soul contextually

Straw-man.

What other words do you allege should be translated as "soul" and two instances where they can be demonstrated as implying immortality,

Nishamat-Chayyim. With 2 yuds. Gen 2:7. Which corresponds to Zachar-V-N'kaievah, the pair, in Gen 1:27

whether or not any of those words indicate animals have or are "souls."

The animals have something which is similar to a human soul, but, not the same at all.