dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
People could not afford to buy a Bible back then.
Welcome to the forum.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
People could not afford to buy a Bible back then.
People could not afford to buy a Bible back then.Don't the Muslims use the same argument with Arabic and the Quran? Why did the church object to people reading the Bible? Why were there people destroying printing presses and various English translations? Why did the scribes replace God's name in the Bible with the generic term LORD?
In a sense there is some degree of logic in that, though it's irrelevant. The modern Bible - English or any other language - is fallible. It wasn't written for us; it was written specifically for the people in the place and time of its writing. It's the uninspired, fallible translation of the inspired infallible word of God. To be used by us as an example. (Jude 7:1) Things change. Things were different to Adam than to Moses, Lot or Jude.
Well, then, the case is closed. If you say they've debunked it must be true and for good reason. And here I thought I had an argument. Maybe it's a question of tradition over truth. How do each measure up? In Hebrew, in English, in Swahili?
Septuagint?
Preferences?
And what of the Jews demonization of the Christians?
Aren't both complicit in the specific case of the immortal soul? (Ezekiel 18:4; Matthew 10:28)
Previous post? Mine was the OP.
Did I say otherwise? What does eye for eye, tooth for tooth, soul for soul mean in Hebrew?
The way I see it I offered a very brief and simple argument with some references and I'm not even sure of your position. You don't seem to have an argument but only an opinion. Maybe a scholarly supported one, I don't know, but that doesn't mean much to me.
Is this scripture post-Biblical?...."Only in the post-biblical period, did a clear and firm belief in the immortality of the soul take hold . . . and become one of the cornerstones of the Jewish and Christian faiths."
In 322 BCE Alexander the Great's conquest of the Middle East brought him eventually to Jerusalem, where he was welcomed by the Jews. Greek culture and philosophy began then to influence Jewish thinking, including the idea of the immortal soul. ...
The translation would be.Is this scripture post-Biblical?
And the dust returns to the earth as it was, And the spirit returns to God who gave it.
Eccl. 12:7
Is this scripture post-Biblical?
And the dust returns to the earth as it was, And the spirit returns to God who gave it.
Eccl. 12:7
Could they afford to buy a Bible, or at least the scrolls as they were made available prior to the completion of the collection as we now know it. What exactly is the time "back then" when they couldn't afford it and what difference would that make in their ability to read it? If you can't afford to buy William Shakespear, can you not go to the library and read it without cost?People could not afford to buy a Bible back then.
I conversed with many JWs while I was still a Christian evangelist and street preacher, so I also recognize the OP as proselytizing JW propaganda.
I've conversed with many apostate Christians from Christendom and I recognize the responses in the OP as proselytizing that propaganda. That's what we do. So, it doesn't matter - JW, me, the Pope, Spongebob Square Pants - it's either right or wrong. We weigh the testimony. Respond to the message instead of trying to demonize the messenger.
What does the word soul mean to you? We are talking about the pagan immortal soul, but also by contrast, the words unhappily translated as soul. From Hebrew word translated soul comes from a root word meaning breath. A breather.It is in all animate beings not just human and animals.
Message, Sgt. Not the messenger.Are you familiar with Rule 8 of this forum?
Message, Sgt. Not the messenger.
Is this scripture post-Biblical?
And the dust returns to the earth as it was, And the spirit returns to God who gave it.
Eccl. 12:7
They're right, Hugh. Do you actually think that reading an English translation is the same as reading and understanding it in the original language.
The Quran is poetry. Cadence. The melody that is applied to it brings out the poetry and the rhythm. And thank you for taking me off ignore. It's ridiculous to call oneself a researcher while ignoring knowledge which is being shared.
I can only speculate. It's probably a power grab. Relevance? What does that have to do with the simple fact. You're assuming there's only one word for soul in the Hebrew bible.
The Nephesh is NOT the immortal soul.
It's what vivifies the body. It's written in the Hebrew in the book you call Leviticus. So much of this would be cleared up if you were reading the text in the original language.
You have no idea.
It's the opposite of closed. Hugh??? ~sigh~ Brother, please? When a theory gets refuted, that puts the question back into agnostic territory. That's OPEN. Very very open. Not closed.
~shakes-my-head~
It's useful for deciphering the Greek scriptures. Nothing more.
The preference for any researcher should be the inclusion of facts and the understanding of the limits of their own capabilities. Agnosticism is your friend. However, there is a great deal that can be learned by understanding how and why a subject cannot be known. Understanding is always better than knowing. Always. Understanding is not limited in the same way as knowing.
Repugnant. Understandable, but, horrid and counter productive.
I'll need to read these citations before commenting on them. However, in the case of the immortal soul, the Jews who demonize Christianity are the irreligious rebels of Reform Judaism and their academic partners. Sadly, those academic partners are the ones whom you are assuming are credible. And the leaders of the Reform Movement will deny and hide their demonization of Christianity. They lie by omission. Sneaky-sneaky. They even lie to themselves.
See below. I expect that you put me on ignore and didn't read what I wrote. Perhaps I'm wrong, there's many possible reasons why you are not remembering this:
View attachment 93984
You didn't say it explicitly, no. But the assumption is there. That's where 99% of miscomprehension originates: the hidden assumption. It's hiding in plain sight. You're doing it right now. If you did not assume there was only one word for soul, you would never have brought the example above.
What's the Hebrew word in the verse you've brought above?
אִם־כֹּ֖פֶר יוּשַׁ֣ת עָלָ֑יו וְנָתַן֙ פִּדְיֹ֣ן נַפְשׁ֔וֹ כְּכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־יוּשַׁ֖ת עָלָֽי
What's the immortal soul?
וַיִּ֩יצֶר֩ יְהֹוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֗ם עָפָר֙ מִן־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה וַיִּפַּ֥ח בְּאַפָּ֖יו נִשְׁמַ֣ת חַיִּ֑ים וַיְהִ֥י הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְנֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּֽה:
What does King Solomon write?
נֵ֣ר יְ֖הוָה נִשְׁמַ֣ת אָדָ֑ם חֹ֜פֵ֗שׂ כָּל־חַדְרֵי־בָֽטֶןThe punchline is: King Solomon disagrees with you. The book you call Genesis disagrees with you. Exodus disagrees with you. Leviticus too.
It is grossly incomplete.
There is an assumption being made which you are, at the very least, reluctant to acknowledge, and this ignores Christian demonization of the Jew in general, and JW demonization not only of Jews, but also of anything found in the Talmud.
I think you should at least be honest with yourself, even if you cannot or will not be honest in public. I understand the JW organization. I love you all, I think you do excellent work, and are making the world a better place in-spite of the gaps in knowledge.
Sincerely,
Seems hypocritical to me. Double standard.I asked you a question about whether you're familiar with a specific forum rule. It's a simple question.
And it's not up to you to decide how I respond to your OP or subsequent posts.
Rules said:8. Preaching/Proselytizing
Creating (or linking to) content intended to convert/recruit others to your religion, spirituality, sect/denomination, or lack thereof is not permitted. Similarly, attempting to convert others away from their religion, spiritual convictions, or sect/denomination will also be considered a form of preaching. Stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references) may be moderated as preaching.
In Celtic tradition the body is within the soul rather than the reverse and in a way seen as a field that permeates us but also extends beyond and relates with the world around. It is associated with the spirit which is the outward projection to the soul of another. Spirit relates to breath. Anima uses the Latin term which expresses these qualities with the essence of life. Metaphorically soul is associated with ocean where spirit is associated with sky.What does the word soul mean to you? We are talking about the pagan immortal soul, but also by contrast, the words unhappily translated as soul. From Hebrew word translated soul comes from a root word meaning breath. A breather.
So, you see the similarities and the differences there. Thanks.In Celtic tradition the body is within the soul rather than the reverse and in a way seen as a field that permeates us but also extends beyond and relates with the world around. It is associated with the spirit which is the outward projection to the soul of another. Spirit relates to breath. Anima uses the Latin term which expresses these qualities with the essence of life. Metaphorically soul is associated with ocean where spirit is associated with sky.
The soul is just the qualities and characteristics that compose one unified self being. Anything that is truly alive has a soul; animals and humans.
There is the heart or character, the mind, and the will of a self that comprise what a soul is. As souls we are units of being that are the experiencers of consciousness. We are not consciousness, we are the experiencers of it; the soul. Consciousness illuminates and enlightens the soul. The brain is that which gives consciousness to the soul self and environmental awareness to the soul. Self is not ego, it's the nature of identity; apart of being a soul.
It's been refuted. You are ignoring it. You probably have me on ignore right now, because you know that I have the ability to knock down your misconceptions and point out the massive gaps in what you're writing.
If only that were true. I can't read every response.
I agree, to an extent. In common parlance, the word "human" as a qualifier is implied. When someone says the word "Soul", they usually mean: "Human-Soul". However, I object to the implication that only humans have souls. These words on the screen have a soul. It's their inner meaning which is conveyed by the "body" of the text itself.
The example I always use is "Dog". The word "Dog" has a body and a soul. The body is the physical form of the word "Dog" as it is being articulated. "Dog" has a physical pronunciation which is formed by the 5 instruments of articulation: diaphragm, palette, tongue, lips, and jaw. That's its body. The soul, though, of the word "Dog" varies. It depends on what the speaker intends to communicate. The soul of the word is what we put into it.
In English: a "Dog" has four legs ( usually ) and says "woof-woof".
In Hebrew: a "Dog" .... is a Fish.