Posted on 10/18/2008 12:03:58 PM PDT by Truth Defender
A Preliminary Study on The Biblical Meaning of “Soul”. In the Old Testament the word for soul is “nephesh” and in the New the word is “psuche” — with both terms having the same meaning. “Whoever touches the dead body of anyone and fails to purify himself defiles the LORD's tabernacle. That person must be cut off from Israel” (Numbers 19:13). The bold words in the above verse is the Hebrew word “nephesh”, commonly translated as “soul” in numerous places in the OT Scriptures. Is it valid to question WHY the translators didn’t use the word “soul” in these two places in this verse? We judge that it is very valid to ask that question, for that is the only way we can find out the WHY. We will address that in this article as a part of our study.
(Excerpt) Read more at kenfortier.com ...
Big whoop.
None of my stuff is there, I don't get my truck inspected there.
My bank isn't there, my ISP isn't based there.
I need Israel for what, exactly?
A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 7: Human Beings and the Purpose of Life
A hot campaign issue?
That’s FINE!
Darn! you beat me to it.
University of Minnesota and Minnesota Bible College. I majored in Biblical History.
I think every translation makes a tertium quid. I'd even suggest that translations of the Bible into English have altered English, affecting diction and rhythms.
"To choose the best word" is no small thing in any event. Hebrews 11:1, to take an extreme example, is tough. Finding the best English word for hypostasis?
I would add that many translations of the Bible have confounded the meanings of many passages, and even the overall harmonizing of the Scriptures. This is why I stick to etymology and exegesis according to established rules of hermeneutics. Hypostasis is not all that hard to define...depending whether you are speaking philosophically or religiously - philosophically, the underlying nature of a thing, or religiously, the underlying nature of the unity of Diety.
***Would you say that is philosophical thinking, or just seeking the best word to use?***
I guess I can't see picking the best word as unphilosophical.
We will have do agree to disagree here. The best word to use in translating from another language, other than via etymology, is its definition in both languages, controlled by exegesis of the context spoken in. Sometimes one word in one language cannot be expressed with one word in another language - it sometimes requires more than one word to express the meaning of the other language. Am I making sense?
Keep chewing on it, but don't get indigestion. :-)
In the meantime I'll do a little chewing on your other post.
My mate Petersen once brought a pair of shoes with artificial intelligence. Smart Shoes, they were called. It was a neat idea. No matter how blind drunk you were, they would always get you home. Then he got ratted one night in Oslo, and woke up the next morning in Burma. See, the shoes got bored just going from his local to the flat. They wanted to see the world, man, y’know? He had a helluva job getting rid of them. No matter who he sold them to, they’d show up again the next day! He tried to shut them out, but they just kicked the door down, y’know?
Last thing he heard, they’d sort of, erm, robbed a car and drove it into a canal. They couldn’t steer, y’see.
Petersen was really, really blown away by it. He went to see a priest. The priest told him, he said, it was alright, and all that, and the shoes were happy, and they’d gone to heaven. Y’see, it turns out shoes have soles.
I looked up Ken Fortier’s website, as you (or someone else?) on another thread recommended him as an ex-Roman Catholic Christian thinker. I have to say though, I was singularly unimpressed.
I read several of his essays...and they all had lots of assertions (like the claim that Hell is merely a pagan/medeival construct), with however, zero proof, either from scripture, or scholarship. When someone says, “why the great majority of scholars today say....” without citing who, or, on what basis (even generally) they supposedly say that, my skeptical ears go up...
He had lots of his own high sounding opinions about the supposed extra-scriptural idea of Hell—without ever dealing with the evidence (from scripture, and, mostly, from the very lips of Christ) defenders of orthodox conservative theology (both Roman AND classical Protestant) rely on for their ancient understandings.
Yes, he rejected Rome, only unfortunately to embrace his own brand of liberal Protestantism (or is he an Adventist?)....
From what I read, to my mind, he went from the frying pan to the fire.
This reminds me of my argument that computers have souls: nothing without a soul could be so perverse.
Nothing amazing here. I don't doubt your opinion, nor would I doubt the opinion of others who find it very worthy in showing the "the other side of the story", as the expression goes.
I read several of his essays...and they all had lots of assertions (like the claim that Hell is merely a pagan/medeival construct), with however, zero proof, either from scripture, or scholarship. When someone says, “why the great majority of scholars today say....” without citing who, or, on what basis (even generally) they supposedly say that, my skeptical ears go up...
While I'm not Ken's apologist, I respect him for bringing to the forefront his findings on the words "sheol/hades" translated as "hell" in the scriptures. What you say is not very valuable because you don't bring up the context he spoke in. I guess that would make me "skeptical" of what you just said.
He had lots of his own high sounding opinions about the supposed extra-scriptural idea of Hell—without ever dealing with the evidence (from scripture, and, mostly, from the very lips of Christ) defenders of orthodox conservative theology (both Roman AND classical Protestant) rely on for their ancient understandings.
On this I would disagree. His exegesis of Scripture and conclusions are not just his, but are the same as a great number of scholars. Ken (and I) both have studied what ancient writers, Roman and Protestant, have asserted as their understanding of religious and secular beliefs on that topic. Personally, I have had to throw out most of the teachings that were taught me after examining the topic in depth.
Yes, he rejected Rome, only unfortunately to embrace his own brand of liberal Protestantism (or is he an Adventist?)....
From my knowledge of Ken, which is great, he does not accept either Catholic or Protestant beliefs on the topic you seem to have different opinions on. He is also in no way connected with Adventists denominations. He does not accept being a hypenated Christian, preferring to say he is simply a Christian growing in the knowledge of God and His Christ, Jesus.
From what I read, to my mind, he went from the frying pan to the fire.
That's your opinion, and you are welcomed to it. Others have different opinions.
[Dwarfers ping to post #47]
While RIMMER is thinking about this, LISTER makes his getaway.
RIMMER: Well, what a sad, sad story.
He thinks about it, then a look of puzzlement spreads across his face.
RIMMER: Wait a minute! How did they open the car door?
Posted strictly to inflame:
mohammad declared that dogs are unclean animals, on par with pigs and rats.
The problem being that given an All-powerful God, EVERYTHING is a moot point.
Scientologists are also tricodimus. They are a soul (Thetan) with a body and a mind.
(Assuming tricodimus means what I think it means - made of three parts - I can't find it in any available dictionary, Grady)
>>In all, a moot point in the face of an All-powerful God.
>The problem being that given an All-powerful God, EVERYTHING is a moot point.
No, not everything. You see, God valued us humans, even though we are horribly selfish, immature, unkind and unloving (read sinners) that He was willing to DIE to change that!
When you view the world that way, there are very valid points.
It also makes the world an unpredictable place.
To see what everything is God’s will does to a society, see the middle east.
Compare to the west.
“Posted strictly to inflame:”
Next year, under the wise leadership of The One, after restoration of the Fairness Doctrine with a new and “enhanced” set of regulations, posts such as Vicki’s, when permitted at all, will be balanced by a fatwa of some sort from Washington.
Careful, citizen!
>It also makes the world an unpredictable place.
>To see what everything is God’s will does to a society, see the middle east.
>Compare to the west.
What do you mean? I could take what you’re saying as childishly foolhardy, in one possible interpretation; as somewhat nonsensical (in need of clarification in another), or as hopelessly un-thought-through.
See the theological explanations of the phrase “an evil spirit from the Lord”; read Job as well. To take that as meaning God CAUSED, or is the source, of that evil [spirit] is ridiculous; also what of free-will?
Lol. Me too, FRiend, me too.
Tatt
An all-powerful god rules islam. Therefore the islamic world has produced nothing of value since its inception. Their all-powerful god created the world, and any attempt to improve it would be blasphemy.
Every Persian rug ever made has deliberate flaws, because only allah can create perfection.
The difference between India and Pakistan, as explained by a friend who spent substantial time in both: In Pakistan if a brick falls out of a wall they shrug, and say it's god's will. In India if a brick falls out of a wall they shrug, and say it's the gods' will. But they put the brick back!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.