Board index ‹ Heaven and Hell

[SunShine]

I don’t believe we necessarily have souls, but I think it’s just a literary device, I believe somewhere in genesis a verse says that God formed man from the dust and breath into him his spirit and then man became a living soul, it didn’t say that there was a soul in man but that man became a living soul, which just tells me that a soul is a conscious being

Genesis 2:7 -

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

[jimwalton]

I don't see any literary, historical, or theological reason or credence to read Gen. 2.7 as a literary device. It's correct that Gn. 2.7 says man became a living soul. The text is saying that "soul" became a characteristic of his being. It is the equivalent to "self." It seems to reflect his whole self. Since nephesh does not exist apart from corporeal reality we do not possess our bodies; rather, our bodies are integral parts of our whole identities. This is said of no other creature or kind of creature in the rest of creation.

There is no reason to take it as expressing that he (humans) is now a conscious being. There were other conscious animals, but this is never said of them.

It's very possible that text is about how God ordered the cosmos to function, not about its material manufacture. It's a more literal reading of Genesis 1-2. A period of light functions to give us day, a period of darkness functions to give us night, day and night function in alternating sequence to give us evening and morning, or time. The earth functions to bring forth vegetation. The sun, moon, and star function to give us times and seasons. Humans are to function in ruling the Earth and subduing it. It's about function, not manufacture. On day 2, nothing was manufactured, either. There is only separation. On day 3, nothing was manufactured. The earth that was there brought forth vegetation.

And if the text is not about material manufacture, then this text is not about humans becoming conscious beings. "The dust of the ground" speaks to man's mortality (Gn. 3.19; Ps. 103.14; 1 Cor. 15.47-48), not to his material manufacture. Breathing "into his nostrils the breath of life" is a statement of relationship, not of bringing life. Man alone, not the animals, is the recipient of the divine breath. Humans are invested with a knowledge of God and are capable of a relationship with God. It implies intimacy and significance while stressing the unique relationship of human life to divine life.

[SunShine]

Well the Bible focuses on man and God, so it makes sense to not really talk to much about creatures

But I believe Genesis is really going to give you a lot of trouble here, as it’s quite clear that man became a living soul but never mentions man having a soul within him like one would have like a heart in them; so I think Genesis is really going to give you a hard time there if you believe we have like some kind of actual souls within us; and obviously I take the position that we don’t; that we may have spirit within us but a soul is just a living sentient being not an actual thing within us, and Genesis seems to mostly support that.

[jimwalton]

> the Bible focuses on man and God, so it makes sense to not really talk to much about creatures

We were talking about creatures because that was the question at hand: "What creatures go to the afterlife?" It was actually the cause behind the entire discussion.

The Bible is primarily about man and God, as you said, but it's also about the cosmos and about the creatures. The Bible states that the cosmos serves as God's Temple, and the creatures are part of our responsibility and good stewardship.

But I believe Genesis is really going to give you a lot of trouble here, as it’s quite clear that man became a living soul but never mentions man having a soul within him like one would have like a heart in them

That doesn't give me any trouble. If you read the first paragraph of my previous response to you, I affirmed that the Bible said exactly what you also are saying: "It's correct that Gn. 2.7 says man became a living soul. The text is saying that "soul" became a characteristic of his being." All three of us are saying the same thing. Where's the trouble?