by jimwalton » Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:29 pm
The first time the Bible mentions it is in Genesis 2.7: "and the humans became living souls." It doesn't say that humans were given souls, or that they began to have souls, but that they became souls. It's not trying to comment on monism (humans are a unity), bipartite (humans are bodies and souls), or tripartite (body, soul, spirit) theology. What it does imply is that "soul" became the characteristic of his being. Nephesh (נֶפֶשׁ) is used in a variety of ways, but often of the whole person, and occasionally the way that whole person connects to God (the soul). According to this line of thought, God didn't create souls in the past and injects them into bodies, nor is the soul "created" with the human body. It's what we are: if we are human, we are souls.
Some commentators warn that we're not to make more of this than what it says. Harris, Archer, & Waltke, in their lexicon, say: "the substantive must not be taken in the metaphysical, theological sense in which we tend to use the term 'soul' today. Man is here being associated with the other creatures as sharing the passionate experience of life and is not being defined as distinct from them. It is true, however, that the source of the nepesh of animals is the ground, whereas the source of the nepesh of Adam is God."
Still, this verse is the first mention and seems to indicate when humans became "soulish."
> your definition of 'soul'
The part of us that connects with God.
We're not told much about souls. All the discussions through the millennia about monism, bi-partitism, and tri-partitism are ultimately unresolvable, though interesting. We're just not given enough information. What we know is that there is a spiritual aspect to life and we are part of it; there is a divine being and we can connect with Him. All the mechanics of this are not well known.
The first time the Bible mentions it is in Genesis 2.7: "and the humans became living souls." It doesn't say that humans were given souls, or that they began to have souls, but that they became souls. It's not trying to comment on monism (humans are a unity), bipartite (humans are bodies and souls), or tripartite (body, soul, spirit) theology. What it does imply is that "soul" became the characteristic of his being. Nephesh (נֶפֶשׁ) is used in a variety of ways, but often of the whole person, and occasionally the way that whole person connects to God (the soul). According to this line of thought, God didn't create souls in the past and injects them into bodies, nor is the soul "created" with the human body. It's what we are: if we are human, we are souls.
Some commentators warn that we're not to make more of this than what it says. Harris, Archer, & Waltke, in their lexicon, say: "the substantive must not be taken in the metaphysical, theological sense in which we tend to use the term 'soul' today. Man is here being associated with the other creatures as sharing the passionate experience of life and is not being defined as distinct from them. It is true, however, that the source of the nepesh of animals is the ground, whereas the source of the nepesh of Adam is God."
Still, this verse is the first mention and seems to indicate when humans became "soulish."
> your definition of 'soul'
The part of us that connects with God.
We're not told much about souls. All the discussions through the millennia about monism, bi-partitism, and tri-partitism are ultimately unresolvable, though interesting. We're just not given enough information. What we know is that there is a spiritual aspect to life and we are part of it; there is a divine being and we can connect with Him. All the mechanics of this are not well known.