Jump to content


Photo

Truel Agnostic


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
97 replies to this topic

#41 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 679 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 65
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 18 January 2011 - 09:19 AM

God's word also says that life is in the blood. Animals have blood, so the life they possess is because they have blood, and not a soul.

View Post


I'm glad you introduced this scripture into the debate.

Here is the entire verse:

Lev 17:11 -- For the life 5315 of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls 5315: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul 5315.

Again, 5315 = nephesh (soul)

life = soul
souls= soul
soul = soul

This is a great verse because it shows that it doesn't get much clearer that those with the breath of life in them are living souls -- animals included.

God is saying, in effect:

"The soul of the animal is in the blood ... and that the blood is an atonement for the soul of mankind."

Please notice that the Hebrew "nephesh" (soul) is used for both instances -- animal and man.

Personally, I believe that Lev. 17:11 is speaking of a different context than we are here. However, it is illustrative of the significance of understanding that "life" and "soul" is used interchangeably, and that animals are living souls.

Does it get any clearer than that?

Dave

#42 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 18 January 2011 - 11:32 AM

Ah, but  there is a hint from scripture, and it supports your argument that pets aren't heaven-bound. Hopefully this scripture won't dismay Performedge too much on the eternal status of his pets, it may put a whole new meaning to the phrase "dog gone".  :) This is a fun topic, and instead of giving the answer, I'm going to see who can spot the hint in scripture. Read the start of Job, and the end of Job. I probably just gave away too much.  :)

Fred

View Post


Dog Gonnit Fred :D Please go ahead an enlighten us all with your riddle!

#43 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 18 January 2011 - 11:42 AM

What I don't understand is why is the KJV the end all and be all of the English translations? What did the translators know then that we don't know now 400 years later?

I've stated before that most of the new translations are not right or have some sort of agenda, but not all of them are wrong. My first bible was the KJV and I still have it 22 years later. I picked up the NASB95 11 years ago when I was told it was easier to read because it is translated into modern American English, something I was taught in school. But some will say that I am using the "its easier to read" as an excuse to make out My own meaning to scripture. the bible is not meant to be hard to understand or hard to read where I have to seek Gods guidance to understand what is written.

Is the NASB95 perfect? No, but neither is the KJV and that would have to be discussed in another thread.

View Post


I don't understand it either, but I will say this. There are cults. And a clear sign of a cult is restrictive sources of information. I am making no accusations or implication here at all, but I will say that some cults require their members to only read their particular bible versions. I agree with you that there are no perfect versions. There are some that are worse than others. But I have software access to most of them along with the original languages and gobs of commentary. I read multiple opinions, and I make my decisions based on their logos. If that logos is consistent with God's logos, then I lean that direction. I have been wrong most of my life in my logos regarding several doctrinal issues. I have changed my mind many times. But I continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, an I think that is most important.

#44 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 January 2011 - 12:06 PM

What I don't understand is why is the KJV the end all and be all of the English translations? What did the translators know then that we don't know now 400 years later?

I've stated before that most of the new translations are not right or have some sort of agenda, but not all of them are wrong. My first bible was the KJV and I still have it 22 years later. I picked up the NASB95 11 years ago when I was told it was easier to read because it is translated into modern American English, something I was taught in school. But some will say that I am using the "its easier to read" as an excuse to make out My own meaning to scripture. the bible is not meant to be hard to understand or hard to read where I have to seek Gods guidance to understand what is written.

Is the NASB95 perfect? No, but neither is the KJV and that would have to be discussed in another thread.

View Post


I don't mind other old translations, it's just the newer ones. I just happen to like the old KJV. If someone gave me a websters Bible, I'd read it. Did you knw that webster memorized the whole Bible and could quote any chapter or verse?

#45 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 January 2011 - 12:28 PM

I don't understand it either, but I will say this.  There are cults.  And a clear sign of a cult is restrictive sources of information.  I am making no accusations or implication here at all, but I will say that some cults require their members to only read their particular bible versions.  I agree with you that there are no perfect versions.  There are some that are worse than others.  But I have software access to most of them along with the original languages and gobs of commentary.  I read multiple opinions, and I make my decisions based on their logos.  If that logos is consistent with God's logos, then I lean that direction.  I have been wrong most of my life in my logos regarding several doctrinal issues.  I have changed my mind many times.  But I continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, an I think that is most important.

View Post


That works in reverse also. You have a problem with KJV because of what? Because you don't get to select the "translations" you want to use. You don't get to select which explanation sound more feasible. Basically, you don;t get to decide what the truth shall be. What if you used three translations. And on one subject all three were different. What do you use as your determining factor?

1) Your opinion of what should be true?
2) Your favorite translation always supersedes the others?
3) Whatever makes life easier?

So do you see the problem? When you use more than one translation you adding the human factor in making out what truth is or should be, You add human reasoning to the equation instead of allowing God to speak to you through the word.

Let's say 2 of the translations agree while one does not. Do you take the majority rule and say the single translation is wrong?

And if all three agree, how can you be sure it's the absolute truth? Does majority rule equal truth?

And when you choose one translations view over another, are you not in effect implying that one of them lies?

And are multiple translation the determining factor in determining truth, or is God? If God be your answer, then you seek truth through prayer not multiple translations of the word. God will show you the truth "if" you seek His counsel, and not the counsel of human reasoning through different translations.

Why don't you start another thread and show how you determine truth using all the translations that you do. And give an examples of how you have done this to determine what you currently believe.

In my opinion, using multiple translation are man's excuse for not wanting to wait on God's counsel. Now wanted to seek His wisdom. Not wanting to pray for His truth and guidance. You might say: I do all these things. But how much more would you be doing these things if you did not have multiple translations? The more you seek God, the more truth you will find.

#46 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 18 January 2011 - 12:45 PM

That works in reverse also. You have a problem with KJV because of what? Because you don't get to select the "translations" you want to use. You don't get to select which explanation sound more feasible. Basically, you don;t get to decide what the truth shall be. What if you used three translations. And on one subject all three were different. What do you use as your determining factor?

View Post

It seems quite clear that the problem performedge has with the KJV is that it renders one Hebrew or Greek word with several different English terms which makes it harder for us to see what the original Bible writers had in mind. The determining factor then is which translation sticks closest to the meaning in the original language.

#47 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 18 January 2011 - 12:54 PM

Douay-Rheims Bible-- Leviticus 17:11
Because the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you, that you may make atonement with it upon the altar for your souls, and the blood may be for an expiation of the soul.

Darby Bible Translation-- Leviticus 17:11
for the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul.

Young's Literal Translation-- Ecclesiastes 3:19
For an event is to the sons of man, and an event is to the beasts, even one event is to them; as the death of this, so is the death of that; and one spirit is to all, and the advantage of man above the beast is nothing, for the whole is vanity.

Young's Literal Translation-- Psalm 146:4
His spirit goeth forth, he returneth to his earth, In that day have his thoughts perished.

#48 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 January 2011 - 01:56 PM

Oh, mercy! Let me begin my reply to you here.  If I "rebuke" you  as a hypocrite and someone who contradicts themselves will that be OK?  But a little sarcastic humor to demonstrate the same truth is "belittling"?.


If you do it and prove it I have no problem with correction. You see I never "called" you a pagan by saying: You are pagan. I said what you are trying to push is pagan and here's the proof. And I talked about pagan history. At this point you took offense to correction and said:

So?....What's the truth, then? Is it the truth of these pagans. Or is it the truth of our God who created animals as living souls. And who has promised that....


At this point I knew that you had placed "pride" in your belief and would refuse correction and that the thread would go down hill from there. Now why did you take pride in your belief? It's because you worked out your own truth using multiple translations. So because "you did it", your flesh takes pride in what you have done. And therefore anyone whom comes up against it, you automatically take offense. Once offense is taken, pride swells up and there is nothing anyone can say to you.

Don't believe me? Let me give you an example of the difference between pride and being humble. If you could prove me wrong in what we are debating, I'd be happy. You might think that I'm saying that with sarcasm. Nope. The reason I would be happy is because be proven wrong takes me one more step to finding more truth and getting closer to God.

Now if I had proved you wrong, and be honest, what would be you first emotion? Your first emotion is where your heart is with God. Regardless of what finally happens afterwords. What wells up first either brings you closer, or separates you from the truth and God. Being humble means that you listen even though you disagree. You control your emotions so that your pride does not well up and blind you to what truth "might" be in front of you.

In this thread you have committed to animals having souls, correct? If suddenly you had to change your mind, how hard would it be to post here saying: I was wrong? It would be hard would it not? Now why do you think that is? It's because you put pride where pride need not be.

Now I told you in the beginning that if you could prove it with more direct words, I would believe you. And I meant that. I even gave you the criteria to meet. Because you did not meet that, you have to accept 3 things.

1) That we agree to disagree.
2) That you might be wrong.
3) That I might be wrong.

Now when I said that you would have to show a verse that said directly that animals have souls, I was not saying that because I knew there was not. I said it because if there was I wanted to know. So it was not a challenge. But I knew there probably was not, but I was not sure. So if you could have shown me, I'd be more than happy that all my pets would be waiting for me. But what I want does not change what the Word says or means.

So this is not a I'm right and you are wrong debate. And until you understand that every theological debate is about searching for truth, every thread like this is going to end up like this. When a Christian takes pride in what they believe, you are going to take offense. And "anything" that makes you take pride is not the right way. Truth is supposed to humble you, not take offense that someone challenged it. Or that someone disagrees.

Let me put it in plainer words. Do you think this is a salvation issue? That if someone does not believe what is debated here, they would lose their salvation? Then why take offense? Nobodies going to Hell over this.

#49 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 January 2011 - 02:09 PM

Douay-Rheims Bible-- Leviticus 17:11
Because the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you, that you may make atonement with it upon the altar for your souls, and the blood may be for an expiation of the soul.

Darby Bible Translation-- Leviticus 17:11
for the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul.

Young's Literal Translation-- Ecclesiastes 3:19
For an event is to the sons of man, and an event is to the beasts, even one event is to them; as the death of this, so is the death of that; and one spirit is to all, and the advantage of man above the beast is nothing, for the whole is vanity.

Young's Literal Translation-- Psalm 146:4
His spirit goeth forth, he returneth to his earth, In that day have his thoughts perished.

View Post


That's the perfect example.
If I wanted my pets to go to Heaven, which translation would I choose over the others?

If I wanted truth, I would pray and seek God's counsel.

This is where using multiple translations can separate a person from God's counsel. They seek more of the translated truth, than seeking the truth from God.

Now if I ever chose multiple translations, regardless of what each one said in conflict I would still seek God's counsel. I mean how can God's word be the final word when you have several translations of the word to choose from?

Let's put it in a different prospective for a minute. Standing before God we are judged. Now for the truth we seek where did we seek it from if we used several translation? And when God points it out that we relied more on contradicting translations for our truth, and did not seek His counsel. What would be our excuse?

The Holy Spirit is not going to counsel someone whom is going to have the final say anyway, For he will not argue or debate it. Once the Holy Spirit counsel is rejected more than once, this counsel will go silent.

#50 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 18 January 2011 - 03:28 PM

That's the perfect example.
If I wanted my pets to go to Heaven, which translation would I choose over the others?

The Bible says that animals are nephesh, men are nephesh. Adam came to be a nephesh. Animals have ruach, men have ruach. If men have souls and animals don't then shouldn't the original writings use a different word to distinguish between the nephesh and ruach of animals and men? They don't.

Here is the thing. You are equating heaven with having a soul. Where do the scriptures say that?

worked out your own truth using multiple translations. So because "you did it", your flesh takes pride in what you have done. And therefore anyone whom comes up against it, you automatically take offense. Once offense is taken, pride swells up and there is nothing anyone can say to you.

View Post

What? Now not belonging to a denomination causes us to be prideful? Wow. That seems to contradict so much of what you have been saying to me.

That's the perfect example.
If I wanted my pets to go to Heaven, which translation would I choose over the others?

If I wanted truth, I would pray and seek God's counsel.

This is where using multiple translations can separate a person from God's counsel. They seek more of the translated truth, than seeking the truth from God.

Now if I ever chose multiple translations, regardless of what each one said in conflict I would still seek God's counsel. I mean how can God's word be the final word when you have several translations of the word to choose from?

Let's put it in a different prospective for a minute. Standing before God we are judged. Now for the truth we seek where did we seek it from if we used several translation? And when God points it out that we relied more on contradicting translations for our truth, and did not seek His counsel. What would be our excuse?

The Holy Spirit is not going to counsel someone whom is going to have the final say anyway, For he will not argue or debate it. Once the Holy Spirit counsel is rejected more than once, this counsel will go silent.

View Post

Well, when we use the KJV we are deciding when nephesh means soul and when it doesn't. Shouldn't God decide that?

I prefer a literal translation because it is easier than looking every word up in a Lexicon or Greek Interlinear.

#51 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 January 2011 - 04:34 PM

The Bible says that animals have nephesh, men have nephesh. Animals have ruach, men have ruach. If men have souls and animals don't then shouldn't the original writings use a different word to distinguish between the nephesh and ruach of animals and men? They don't.

Here is the thing. You are equating heaven with having a soul. Where do the scriptures say that? What? Now not belonging to a denomination causes us to be prideful? Wow. That seems to contradict so much of what you have been saying to me.


You are reading more into it than what is said.

Well, when we use the KJV we are deciding when nephesh means soul and when it doesn't. Shouldn't God decide that?


Yes we should allow God to decide that.

I prefer a literal translation because it is easier than looking every word up in a Lexicon or Greek Interlinear.

View Post


gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

do trees have souls?

#52 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 18 January 2011 - 04:46 PM

gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

do trees have souls?

View Post


Strongs #02416 living, alive, life, sustenance

That scripture doesn't say that trees have nephesh or ruach. Neither does it say that trees are nephesh or ruach. If you found something that did, I would be surprised since nephesh and ruach tend to deal with blood and breath.

I need to edit my previous post:

The Bible says that animals have nephesh, men have nephesh This is incorrect.

The Bible says that animals are nephesh, men are nephesh. Adam came to be a nephesh.



#53 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 18 January 2011 - 04:48 PM

That works in reverse also. You have a problem with KJV because of what?

View Post


Ike a really have trouble understanding what you read into what I say. It makes me wonder if you do this with everything you read. I never said I have a problem with the KJV. I value it greatly. In fact in this thread, I have used only two versions of scripture, primarily KJV and ESV. My Bibles of choice are KJV, NASV, and ESV if you want to know. All have their own deficiencies in my opinion, but the most important to me is to be true to the original language.

Because you don't get to select the "translations" you want to use. You don't get to select which explanation sound more feasible. Basically, you don;t get to decide what the truth shall be. What if you used three translations. And on one subject all three were different. What do you use as your determining factor
1) Your opinion of what should be true?
2) Your favorite translation always supersedes the others?
3) Whatever makes life easier?


1) Nope
2) Nope
3) Nope

Answer, I go back to the original language and word studies.

So do you see the problem?


Not with my method, but I do with yours.

When you use more than one translation you adding the human factor in making out what truth is or should be, You add human reasoning to the equation instead of allowing God to speak to you through the word.


Which word? The human factor KJV word? The human factor NASB word? The human factor ESV word? Or the human factor Hebrew/Greek word? Please remember that the Holy Spirit is involved in all of these words.

Let's say 2 of the translations agree while one does not. Do you take the majority rule and say the single translation is wrong?


Nope, I seek God's guidance from the beginning through the Holy Sprirt in me an in others. The Spirit has taught me that men have twisted His word from the beginning. He has taught me to seek His original words first. That has led me to those three primary versions of scriptures. All of which have mistakes in them.

Then He taught me to meditate on the scriptures. Very few do this today.

Then He taught me about the logos. Its a sword that divides. That's what really makes the difference. If a version or a doctrine doesn't stand up to the logos, then I shy away from it. That's pretty much how I decide.

And when you choose one translations view over another, are you not in effect implying that one of them lies?


No, but it does imply error. The logos speaks of error.

And are multiple translation the determining factor in determining truth, or is God? If God be your answer, then you seek truth through prayer not multiple translations of the word. God will show you the truth "if" you seek His counsel, and not the counsel of human reasoning through different translations.


Well here we probably disagree. Every Morman will tell you they know their scripture and prohets are true by prayer. So at some point you have to discuss their scriptures as compared to the logos. I see ever Bible version the same way.

Why don't you start another thread and show how you determine truth using all the translations that you do. And give an examples of how you have done this to determine what you currently believe.


I might in the near future if others are interested.

In my opinion, using multiple translation are man's excuse for not wanting to wait on God's counsel.


In my opinion, using multiple translations is man getting God's counsel. Unless of course you believe those men did not have the Spirit of God living in them just like He does in you. They made some errors. Sure. Have you?



The more you seek God, the more truth you will find.


And your words are in complete agreement with God's word here. So with this we wholeheartedly agree! Praise Him!

#54 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 18 January 2011 - 11:13 PM

The reason why I like the NASB over the KJV is because, like I said, is easier to read.

Here's an example of what i mean

Matthew 1:19

NASB95
And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.

KJV
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

Now with most normal Americans, I doubt most people will know what privily means but most will know what secretly means. I remember I had to look up what privily meant but I didn't have to look up what secretly meant. Both of these versions have different words, yet they mean the same thing.

The NASB is a literal word for word translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts but unlike the KJV they changed the thees, thous and other old English words that are not even used in England anymore and replaced them with You, Your and other modern english words.

As with the KJV the NASB has some flaws but nothing that will take anything away from Gods word and that's the important thing IMO.

#55 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 19 January 2011 - 06:21 AM

If you do it and prove it I have no problem with correction.

View Post


I am going to take you at your word (logos) Ikester.

Here is a mathematical proof:

A=B
C=B
Therefore,
A=C

I think we all can agree on this.

Now here is a translational proof:
si (Spanish) = yes (English)
oui (French) = yes (English)
Therefore,
si (Spanish) = oui (French)

Again I think we all can agree on this.

Now let's look at God's logos and see what He says:

Gen 2:7 And the LORDH3068 GodH430 formedH3335 (H853) manH120 of the dustH6083 ofH4480 the ground,H127 and breathedH5301 into his nostrilsH639 the breathH5397 of life;H2416 and manH120 becameH1961 a livingH2416 soul.H5315

chay nephesh (Hebrew) = living soul (English)
chay nephesh (Hebrew) = living soul (KJV English translation)
Therefore:

living soul (KJV English translation) = living soul (English)

Likewise we should all agree.

Gen 1:24 And GodH430 said,H559 Let the earthH776 bring forthH3318 the livingH2416 creatureH5315 after his kind,H4327 cattle,H929 and creeping thing,H7431 and beastH2416 of the earthH776 after his kind:H4327 and it wasH1961 so.H3651

Now here is the direct logical word proof:

chay nephesh (Hebrew) = living soul (English)
chay nephesh (Hebrew) = living creature (KJV English translation)

Therefore:

living soul (English) = living creature (KJV English translation)

Now you cannot logically, and honestly say that proof has not been provided. This proof uses nothing but God's words logos. It is now encumbent on you to challenge the logic of this proof, or to provide direct scriptural evidence that contradicts this proof. I and others have shown you this proof many times already in different formats. You have said "that we haven't proven it". Well there it is in the most basic logical format. Now I ask you once again to address the proof before you.

#56 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 19 January 2011 - 07:38 AM

You see I never "called" you a pagan by saying: You are pagan. I said what you are trying to push is pagan and here's the proof. And I talked about pagan history.

View Post


You're playing semantics here. My ideas are me. It was ad hominen by definition. You say you take correction, but it doesn't appear so.


At this point you took offense to correction and said:
At this point I knew that you had placed "pride" in your belief and would refuse correction and that the thread would go down hill from there. Now why did you take pride in your belief? It's because you worked out your own truth using multiple translations. So because "you did it", your flesh takes pride in what you have done. And therefore anyone whom comes up against it, you automatically take offense. Once offense is taken, pride swells up and there is nothing anyone can say to you.

Don't believe me? Let me give you an example of the difference between pride and being humble. If you could prove me wrong in what we are debating, I'd be happy. You might think that I'm saying that with sarcasm. Nope. The reason I would be happy is because be proven wrong takes me one more step to finding more truth and getting closer to God.

Now if I had proved you wrong, and be honest, what would be you first emotion? Your first emotion is where your heart is with God. Regardless of what finally happens afterwords. What wells up first either brings you closer, or separates you from the truth and God. Being humble means that you listen even though you disagree. You control your emotions so that your pride does not well up and blind you to what truth "might" be in front of you.

In this thread you have committed to animals having souls, correct? If suddenly you had to change your mind, how hard would it be to post here saying: I was wrong? It would be hard would it not? Now why do you think that is? It's because you put pride where pride need not be.

Now I told you in the beginning that if you could prove it with more direct words, I would believe you. And I meant that. I even gave you the criteria to meet. Because you did not meet that, you have to accept 3 things.

1) That we agree to disagree.
2) That you might be wrong.
3) That I might be wrong.

Now when I said that you would have to show a verse that said directly that animals have souls, I was not saying that because I knew there was not. I said it because if there was I wanted to know. So it was not a challenge. But I knew there probably was not, but I was not sure. So if you could have shown me, I'd be more than happy that all my pets would be waiting for me. But what I want does not change what the Word says or means.

So this is not a I'm right and you are wrong debate. And until you understand that every theological debate is about searching for truth, every thread like this is going to end up like this. When a Christian takes pride in what they believe, you are going to take offense. And "anything" that makes you take pride is not the right way. Truth is supposed to humble you, not take offense that someone challenged it. Or that someone disagrees.

Let me put it in plainer words. Do you think this is a salvation issue? That if someone does not believe what is debated here, they would lose their salvation? Then why take offense? Nobodies going to Hell over this.


I bolded your last statement to once again challenge you on your hypocrisy. It was you who began the attack of discourse in post #16. You began your attack by accusing me of "adding to God's word". Now that is a salvation issue Ikester!

These are your words!

All I see is you adding to scripture what is clearly not there.


With me you would have to provide exact scripture to what you want to be true before it becomes true. Let me give you a little warning from scripture itself.

James 5:19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Brethren = believer.
If any of you = believer.
Err from the truth = The truth of God's word.
And one convert him = How far the brethren can fall, that they need to be converted back.
Etc...
Save a soul from death? "Soul death" is also known as the "second death". The second death is eternal damnation by being cast into the lake of fire. I would say that you are on the verge of erring from truth. Not only have you implied what you cannot support through exact meaning in scripture. But are going as far as to try and teach it as fact and truth.


Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


Subsequently, it was you who mentioned "Three Raptures" which is doing the very thing that the Lord condemns! This hypocrisy demanded a response from me which I firmly gave. Jesus did not tollerate the hypocricy of the Pharisees and Sadducees. He pointed it out! Those men were far more knowlegeable in the scriptures than you or I will ever be. And Jesus said to them "you know not the scriptures".

I know I have spoken firmly to you Ike. But you in your pride made this a salvation issue, not me. I could care less if every Christian or you believe that animals are souls. I haven't accused you of taking away from the scriptures have I?

Ike there's a big difference between having a biblical discussion on a subject in humility as you falsely espouse and having a discussion where your disagreement becomes "adding to God's word" or "Pagan" and now "prideful". Maybe no one has ever challenged you on this before, but In Christ Jesus's Name I ask that you humbly go back and look at your posts.

Yes, you and I can disagree about whether an animal is a soul or not or whether they end up in heaven. It is meaningless to anyone's salvation. But adding or taking away from God's word is a very serious matter with serious consequences especially when you haven't shown any additions or subtractions, you have just made the accusation.

That's what I have taken offense to Ike. Not our disagreement.

#57 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 19 January 2011 - 07:45 AM

The reason why I like the NASB over the KJV is because, like I said, is easier to read.

Here's an example of what i mean

Matthew 1:19

NASB95
And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.

KJV
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

Now with most normal Americans, I doubt most people will know what privily means but most will know what secretly means. I remember I had to look up what privily meant but I didn't have to look up what secretly meant. Both of these versions have different words, yet they mean the same thing.

The NASB is a literal word for word translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts but unlike the KJV they changed the thees, thous and other old English words that are not even used in England anymore and replaced them with You, Your and other modern english words.

As with the KJV the NASB has some flaws but nothing that will take anything away from Gods word and that's the important thing IMO.

View Post


I think the NASB is an excellent translation also. The NASB does a much better job dealing with Sheol and Hades and Hell, where the KJV just uses Hell. Likewise the thees and thous in KJV do add legitimate information that we loose in the NASB.

There are pros and cons to both. You will do just fine with the NASB IMO.

#58 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 19 January 2011 - 11:17 PM

Dog Gonnit Fred  ;) Please go ahead an enlighten us all with your riddle!

View Post


Well, I was hoping I could entice some serious Bible reading of those passages. :) I'll narrow it down, which I think should give it away. Read Job 1:3, then Job 42:12-13.

This is the only place in scripture I know of where God hints at the fate of our own personal animals (pets), and it doesn't bode well for the notion that they'll be with us in heaven for eternity. Sorry. :) :)

Fred

#59 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 20 January 2011 - 05:03 AM

Well, I was hoping I could entice some serious Bible reading of those passages. :) I'll narrow it down, which I think should give it away. Read Job 1:3, then Job 42:12-13.

This is the only place in scripture I know of where God hints at the fate of our own personal animals (pets), and it doesn't bode well for the notion that they'll be with us in heaven for eternity. Sorry.  :) :)

Fred

View Post


;) Ok, well that's ALOT of animals to own and I see what you're getting at. But Fred, he may have "owned" alot of animals, but there may not have been any extra special bond to most of them (if any). I believe that some people have a very extra special bond with some of their pets and though I can't prove it, i would not consider it impossible for God to allow a person to see their pets again.

Again, I have had personal answers to sincere prayer to our Lord regarding the death of my own pet and I cannot put the answers down to 'hallucination' or "desperate grief", because this happened a number of years AFTER this pet had died. I had decided to put my questions to prayer, because I really felt that was the best way to treat my "curiosity" and "questions". I prayed to God about this dead pet and asked him has she simply become "nothing"/'non existent" or was she "still around" as such. Had she returned to her maker? I had more than one answer for this. I won't go into too much detail, but I can tell you after the third request for more clarification, I will not be hounding God again about it! I was very taken aback at the answer. And this was a surprise to me, because I've hounded God many a time over other things and not had answers (or at least not that I've been aware of or satisifed with lol. But He knows best).

I cannot hand wave away the answers I got. This would be insulting Him. Not only that, but is it coincidence that after these conversations we've had on here, I kept coming across amazing things regarding animals (pets) and their owners when I was not even searching for them. Now this is both on a website I visit daily and on television. E.g. dog doesn't leave the grave site of his owner whom had died. Dog on TV tries to get help for his owner who is dying. There are many incredible animal stories that show there is indeed much more to them than meets the eye. Saving human beings lives etc.

Wishful thinking on my part? Of course I would wish to see my pets again, that's only human. But what I do know is, my joy in Heaven, if I were to get there, would be complete because I would be finally in the total presence of our Lord and that would completely absorb us all! Total joy, total peace. So pets or not pets, salvation is not dependent upon it, nor is the joy and peace in Heaven. That we all can agree on I'm sure.

But the answers to my prayers are not so easily deniable to me. All I know is this - nothing is impossible for God and He's a loving Father who knows how to give what is good to His children. There is no reason why an unlimited God cannot reunite people with their pets if He so chooses to do so.

The bible may not specifically mention this, but the bible may not specifically go into detail on every single thing. WE have enough in scripture to understand the love and mercy and justice of God. More than enough to know what we need to do. But as we know, there is always more to know with a God that is eternal and unlimited.

#60 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 20 January 2011 - 05:16 AM

Well, I was hoping I could entice some serious Bible reading of those passages. ;) I'll narrow it down, which I think should give it away. Read Job 1:3, then Job 42:12-13.

This is the only place in scripture I know of where God hints at the fate of our own personal animals (pets), and it doesn't bode well for the notion that they'll be with us in heaven for eternity. Sorry.  :) :)

Fred

View Post


Well I certainly am confused. If this is enlightenment on the subject, then I still am in the dark. Next time 100 watts may help! :) Please help me with your explanation of your claim. Thanks

Could you provide your understanding of Romans 8:18-23 also.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users