In the Bible, [i]nephesh[/i] is the Hebrew term usually translated "soul," or "self". It refers to the whole person. At death, according to the Bible, the [i]nephesh[/i], which is the person's identity, continues to exist in a bodiless condition. It is the nephesh which represents true life, not the body.

I'm in complete agreement that they would be a different person than their donor. Environment and circumstance play a huge part in who we are as people.

You have to concede that your view that the soul has no existence apart from the body throws out the afterlife entirely, though. If the body expires, and the spirit is not independent, it perishes as well.

We all have a ton of questions about soul theory. The Bible doesn't say, since it doesn't expound for us on soul theory. My guess (and it's only a guess) is that we're not souls until we are fully human, i.e., 46 chromosomes (though it is true that some humans have ± a few, which makes things even more interesting). It would be my opinion that eggs are not half a soul, nor sperm. Since the Bible indicates that humans [i]are[/i] souls, I would assume one would have to be human (a full set of chromosomes, regardless of the exact number) to be a soul. It's all guesswork, and not a hill to die on from my perspective. The point of the Bible is that we as humans are more than just physical entities.

If humans are souls... are eggs half a soul? a whole soul? what about sperm? is the soul added to the mixture of the egg and sperm to make a human? what about if we use a 3 parties DNA in a sperm of another and fertilize an egg? will it be the same soul as if the egg and shell sperm made the human?
i got a ton of questions about soul theory.

Of course it would, just as babies today fertilized in a petri dish and implanted in a uterus "have" souls. In the Christian worldview humans don't [i]have[/i] souls, we [i]are[/i] souls. Genesis 2.7: "And the human became a living soul." The *nephesh* has no existence apart from the body. Humans are a unity.

Even science tells us that a human clone, even as an identical copy of another human, would grow up to be a different person than the original prototype since his environment and circumstances would be different. That person would have a different consciousness than the original and be his own unique being, despite the identical DNA. This is not a huge wrench in the spokes for Christians.

I submit that in the atheist worldview, this is not a logical problem, and in the Christian worldview it is a huge wrench in the spokes. For example, that person would demonstrably have consciousness, and would likely have a belief system of some sort, even if it differed from the original person's. Thus arises the question of what happens if they become Christian and a genuine believer. (I don't see any reason why this can't be the case.)

I'm not meaning to discuss whether or not it is moral to clone a person (and my personal belief on this is that we should never, ever do it.)