When does God put souls into bodies?

[jasonc]

Please post a version of a Hebrew Bible that does not use the word nephesh for both the soul of man and the soul of animal. Chaya simply means life or living.
Strong's says both verses say "nephesh chay."
Jewish Publication Society - JPS and Mechon-Mamre.org - the Masoretic Text
Gen_1:30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, I have given every green herb for food.' And it was so.
ל וּלְכָל-חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ וּלְכָל-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְכֹל רוֹמֵשׂ עַל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר-בּוֹ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, אֶת-כָּל-יֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב, לְאָכְלָה; וַיְהִי-כֵן.
Gen_2:7 Then 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.
ז וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם, עָפָר מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו, נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים; וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה.

Have you learned Hebrew yet. I sure wish you'd get busy. I've figured these out before but it is really time consuming for me. I don't have time right now, maybe later.

since you went there about the mechon-memre which is from the orthodox jews that are into the Talmud. the Masoretic text is by way of oral and the name means oral tradition. its in Hebrew but has the idea of Aramaic words used to tell what is what there.

jewish thought.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3194/jewish/What-is-a-Soul.htm

notice they include the word Chaya as part. they also well say that the rocks and earth have a soul. which well paul would agree

" for the whole creation cries out for the redemption of man" cant cry out if there is no way or "soul" to do so.

so the word nephesh Chaya for man. then must include all that man is. yet if animal has that same thing then show me how you define the animal soul being different. my dog has a ruach. she has emotions. she cries., she has comforted me when I was down, done the same with my wife. how is that not possible if an animal doesn't have a ruach?

if you disagree with the idea of the animal soul and godly soul, what is paul talking about in romans 7?
A ROCK DOESNT have a Chaya.

 

[jasonc]

since you went there about the mechon-memre which is from the orthodox jews that are into the Talmud. the Masoretic text is by way of oral and the name means oral tradition. its in Hebrew but has the idea of Aramaic words used to tell what is what there.

jewish thought.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3194/jewish/What-is-a-Soul.htm

notice they include the word Chaya as part. they also well say that the rocks and earth have a soul. which well paul would agree

" for the whole creation cries out for the redemption of man" cant cry out if there is no way or "soul" to do so.

so the word nephesh Chaya for man. then must include all that man is. yet if animal has that same thing then show me how you define the animal soul being different. my dog has a ruach. she has emotions. she cries., she has comforted me when I was down, done the same with my wife. how is that not possible if an animal doesn't have a ruach?

if you disagree with the idea of the animal soul and godly soul, what is paul talking about in romans 7?
A ROCK DOESNT have a Chaya.

what im disagreeing with that you are saying that both animal and man have he same nephesh Chaya by the same wording. when adam was called a living soul.it must mean all the nature of the human soul at the time of his creation without the sin nature. an animal nephesh Chaya has a different nature.

 

[Gregg]

Where does the word say we Have a soul?

'And may the God of peace Himself fully sanctify you, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ' (1Thes 5:23 LITV).

 

[Gregg]

Are you not aware of the fact that there are medical conditions whereby carrying a child to term can and does kill the mother???? Yes, "sheesh" is right!

Yes I am aware. (Edited, ToS 2.4, trolling. Obadiah)

(Edited. Failure to follow a moderators instructions in this thread and A&T guideline: "Subsequent opposing responses should include references to supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation for the contrary understanding." Obadiah)

Your claim is false. I've also stated why abortion is wrong.

. . . with the justification of abortion if it might kill the mother for giving birth.

 

[Deborah13]

'And may the God of peace Himself fully sanctify you, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ' (1Thes 5:23 LITV).

I take that to mean we are rather than we have.
I make the difference between are and have because Genesis says man became a living soul. Not that he was given a soul. I believe we are a soul inside a vessel/body which is also part of us.
It's kind of a moot point when put in the perspective that God gave us body, soul, and spirit. But it is important when we discuss what a living being is, as far as how God defines life.
That by no means changes the fact that God can divide those parts of us.
Heb 4:12 for the reckoning of God is living, and working, and sharp above every two-edged sword, and piercing unto the dividing asunder both of soul and spirit, of joints also and marrow, and a discerner of thoughts and intents of the heart;

And that is what this OP is about really. When do we become a living soul/being/creature. Would God say, in the womb or outside the womb?

 

[gr8grace3]

(Post removed, response to a removed section of another post. Obadiah)

 

[FreeGrace]

It's hardly a claim that I make. I gave you the scripture that says animals ARE, not have, living souls.

No, I did not say that animals are living souls. They have biological life, not soul life.

 

[FreeGrace]

(Edited. Failure to follow a moderators instructions in this thread and A&T guideline: "Subsequent opposing responses should include references to supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation for the contrary understanding." Obadiah)

 

[Deborah13]

what im disagreeing with that you are saying that both animal and man have he same nephesh Chaya by the same wording. when adam was called a living soul.it must mean all the nature of the human soul at the time of his creation without the sin nature. an animal nephesh Chaya has a different nature.

Maybe that is because you believe that man is just body and soul? I believe that Paul revealed that we are body, soul, and spirit. Where animals are never said to be spirit. They were not created in the image of God, in His likeness. So yes we are different, I agree.
Please give me a scripture, old or new, that says the definition of living soul, nephesh chaya, is different though. Was Hannah talking about spirit as a part of herself or an outside spirit?
1Sa_1:15 And Hannah answered and said: 'No, my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit; I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I poured out my soul before the LORD.
1Sa 1:15 And Hannah answereth and saith, `No, my lord, A woman sharply pained in spirit I am , and wine and strong drink I have not drunk, and I pour out my soul before Yehovah;
Does this scripture give us a shadow of what Paul revealed?

 

[FreeGrace]

(Edited, response to removed section of a previous post. Obadiah)

. . . with the justification of abortion if it might kill the mother for giving birth.

The point is that no one has yet shown from Scripture that God puts souls into unprepared bodies. Job considered life to begin at birth, not conception, per his comment in Job 3:11.

I'm looking for facts from Scripture to support the claim that a fertilized egg is a human being. It is rather on its way to becoming a prepared body.

Gen 2:7 clearly shows that God prepared a body before He breathed into that body. He didn't breathe into an unprepared body, then formed it into a human body.

And Jesus affirmed that order in Heb 10:5.

These are the facts. There are no facts to prove or support the claim that a fertilized egg is a human being. It is on its way to becoming a human being.

But, not until God joins the material body with the immaterial soul is there a living human being.

 

[jasonc]

Maybe that is because you believe that man is just body and soul? I believe that Paul revealed that we are body, soul, and spirit. Where animals are never said to be spirit. They were not created in the image of God, in His likeness. So yes we are different, I agree.
Please give me a scripture, old or new, that says the definition of living soul, nephesh chaya, is different though. Was Hannah talking about spirit as a part of herself or an outside spirit?
1Sa_1:15 And Hannah answered and said: 'No, my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit; I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I poured out my soul before the LORD.
1Sa 1:15 And Hannah answereth and saith, `No, my lord, A woman sharply pained in spirit I am , and wine and strong drink I have not drunk, and I pour out my soul before Yehovah;
Does this scripture give us a shadow of what Paul revealed?

uhm what is the greek word for pone? I never said we didn't have a spirit. the ruach in Hebrew is the seat of emotions. I think a good chat with soldier that I know that speaks, reads and writes koine greek will help. btw the jews do say that.

we are a soul. it has aspects to it, if you think that our bodies don't have anything to do with emotions then let me suggest a frontal lobotomy and see if you can express emotions. its not the seat but the means. the animals are also a bit more. where is the personality in the genes of my dog? see the problem? a gene makes not one you fully, nor an animal.

when I complete the four levels of Hebrew from beginner to advanced this will be interesting. im sure you will agree that a dictioniary of words doesn't make one a speaker of any language. if I took the word agapao and said it here. we would know, but to the ancient greek they would loathe that world as its in insult to love that way. that is for slaves. not freemen. Christianity redefines words. ie hades, agape, im sure also the idea of soul.

http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/soul-and-spirit.htm
read that and be confused. notice what I said about nephesh alone

 

[Deborah13]

since you went there about the mechon-memre which is from the orthodox jews that are into the Talmud. the Masoretic text is by way of oral and the name means oral tradition. its in Hebrew but has the idea of Aramaic words used to tell what is what there.

jewish thought.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3194/jewish/What-is-a-Soul.htm

notice they include the word Chaya as part. they also well say that the rocks and earth have a soul. which well paul would agree

" for the whole creation cries out for the redemption of man" cant cry out if there is no way or "soul" to do so.

so the word nephesh Chaya for man. then must include all that man is. yet if animal has that same thing then show me how you define the animal soul being different. my dog has a ruach. she has emotions. she cries., she has comforted me when I was down, done the same with my wife. how is that not possible if an animal doesn't have a ruach?

if you disagree with the idea of the animal soul and godly soul, what is paul talking about in romans 7?
A ROCK DOESNT have a Chaya.

And the scripture never says a rock is chaya. But the scripture does say that animals are chaya and man is chaya. So when are animals and man chaya? This OP is not about the differences between animals and man but about when they become chaya. When do we receive the breathe of life? What do you believe about that?
Gen 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh wherein is the breath of life.
This is ruach, in context only referring to actual breath/breathing.

 

[Deborah13]

(Edited, response to deleted post. Obadiah)

No, I did not say that animals are living souls. They have biological life, not soul life.

No you didn't. I DID. With scripture to prove it. (A&T Guidelines: "Subsequent opposing responses should include references to supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation for the contrary understanding." Obadiah) Where is yours to disprove it?
Do you believe that the scriptures that we have are the correct words from the original scriptures in at least a 95% accuracy? The scripture says animals are living souls and man is a living soul, using the exact same Hebrew words. But that is really not here or there, the point is what is a living soul? When does anyone become a living soul? I believe that is the point of your OP.

The point is that no one has yet shown from Scripture that God puts souls into unprepared bodies. Job considered life to begin at birth, not conception, per his comment in Job 3:11.

What Job thought wasn't always true, was it, he knew in part.

I'm looking for facts from Scripture to support the claim that a fertilized egg is a human being. It is rather on its way to becoming a prepared body.
Gen 2:7 clearly shows that God prepared a body before He breathed into that body. He didn't breathe into an unprepared body, then formed it into a human body.

And we are not made from dirt, which has no life in it. The fertilized egg does.

And Jesus affirmed that order in Heb 10:5.

It does not such thing. It never mentions the soul at all.

These are the facts. There are no facts to prove or support the claim that a fertilized egg is a human being. It is on its way to becoming a human being.

Is the fertilized egg living? According to science, it is. Go take your argument to a scientist and he will set you straight.

But, not until God joins the material body with the immaterial soul is there a living human being.

What you have shown is that Adam was made from a non-living substance and God caused it to live. Now if you could show where God breathed the life into Eve you might have a better argument. But it doesn't. Eve was not prepared from a non-living substance. Adam's rib is bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh. We are the bone and flesh of our parents, too. Eve was not created the same way Adam was and neither are we. Do some investigation into the properties of the bone marrow in a rib, it may surprise you. I love it when science supports God's word.
I can guarantee you that the 4 fetuses that I carried in my womb were not brain dead, dead bodies. As you tried to prove by your life support post.
Are they rational thinking beings? I believe there is enough evidence to prove they are. So when it comes to facts, they have brain waves, that we know, what we don't know is what they are thinking.
How this relates to your OP is that the fetus does not become a living soul after it leaves the womb but before.
Frankly, I believe you disproved your own OP. Your life support theory was excellent, I will remember that.

 

[FreeGrace]

And the scripture never says a rock is chaya. But the scripture does say that animals are chaya and man is chaya. So when are animals and man chaya?

It isn't a "when" issue. Chaya refers to physiological or biological life. Which both humans and animals have.

This OP is not about the differences between animals and man but about when they become chaya. When do we receive the breathe of life? What do you believe about that?

In Gen 2:7, the last 2 words are "chaya nephesh". Or living being. Since the context is man, it refers specifically and only to human beings, not animals.

Gen 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh wherein is the breath of life.
This is ruach, in context only referring to actual breath/breathing.

This is a great verse to show physiological life, which both humans and animals have.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"I believe the Bible is clear about the difference between animal life, which is biological or physiological and human life which is oul life."

Please show me the scripture for that. I have given you scripture that says otherwise. Please refute it with scripture.

Seriously? Everything one believes must be proven from Scripture? How about the obvious facts of nature. We know animals are alive. They breathe, breed and die. So do humans. But we know from Scripture that humans are different from animals. How do we know that? Paul said so, and quite clearly.

1 Cor 15:39 - All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

He differentiates between humans and various kinds of other creatures; beasts, fish and birds. The point is that humanity is different from all animals, whether beasts, fish, birds, or insects. Does one need Scripture for "proof" of that?

I said:
"No, I did not say that animals are living souls. They have biological life, not soul life."

No you didn't. I DID. With scripture to prove it. Where is yours to disprove it?

Your verse only demonstrates biological life, NOT soul life, which is different. If animals have a soul like humans do, then they should be at the same level as humans. Do they reason with an intellect? No. They have instinct only. They do as they were created to do. Man, otoh, doesn't do as he was created, because he has an intellect and the freedom to rebel or respond.

Do you believe that the scriptures that we have are the correct words from the original scriptures in at least a 95% accuracy? The scripture says animals are living souls and man is a living soul, using the exact same Hebrew words

Once again, this speaks only of biological life. Does the Bible say anything about God breathing into any animal? No. That's the difference. The same difference as between intellect and instinct. One involves choice and the other involves programmed reflex action.

But that is really not here or there, the point is what is a living soul? When does anyone become a living soul? I believe that is the point of your OP.

Yes, which I have supported from Scripture, and no one has yet refuted. Remember, disagreement isn't refutation.

God prepared a material body and THEN breathed into the material body an immaterial soul, and THEN man "became a living being" (human being).

A human being has both a material body, which is biological/physiological life, and an immaterial soul, which is soul life. When the soul leaves the body, the person is pronounced "dead".

What Job thought wasn't always true, was it, he knew in part.

We all know in part. But this is just a deflection. Why would he consider human life to begin at birth rather than conception? What would lead him to that view? Recall how God described him in Job 1:1 and 8. He wasn't stupid, or ignorant. Cetainly Job didn't know why he was under great suffering, but that has nothing to do with his overall Godly orientation to life.

And we are not made from dirt, which has no life in it. The fertilized egg does.

Hold on a moment. The "dirt" merely refers to the chemicals that make up a human body, as well as animals, etc. Again, a reference to biological life. And biological life can be sustained even after the soul leaves the body. It's done for organ donation; to keep the organ alive long enough to transplant into another person.

I said:
"And Jesus affirmed that order in Heb 10:5."

It does not such thing. It never mentions the soul at all.

I doesn't need to mention the soul. Jesus already existed. Are you suggesting Jesus didn't have a soul before becoming a human being? Jesus DID note the same order as Gen 2:7. I'm just totally amazed at the resistance to this fact by so many. I guess, just because it challenges their view.

Is the fertilized egg living? According to science, it is. Go take your argument to a scientist and he will set you straight.

I agree the egg is alive. Even before it is fertilized. But that is just biological life, not soul life, and no one has yet shown otherwise. If true, why isn't there any evidence for that in Scripture? All that's been presented are verses where unborn babies have been named. That doesn't prove a soul is in there. People name their cars, boats, etc, as well.

What you have shown is that Adam was made from a non-living substance and God caused it to live.

Yep. God formed man from dust. That is biological life. Same as animals. Not yet soul life, which was breathed IN after the body was formed or prepared. Only then did man "become a living being". Not before. No one has shown otherwise. Though I'm open to any verse that would show it.

Now if you could show where God breathed the life into Eve you might have a better argument.

Interesting. Argument from silence. Well, we know the order God used for Adam. Why would one want to assume He changed that order for the woman? We know He took flesh from Adam's side to banal (build) the woman. I don't see this as any different than Gen 2:7 a where God formed man from dust.

But it doesn't.

Doesn't have to. As just explained.

Eve was not prepared from a non-living substance.

Neither was Adam. You've assumed that what God formed was non living. Prior to Adam, God created the animals, which all have life. But not soul life as humans do.

Adam's rib is bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh. We are the bone and flesh of our parents, too. Eve was not created the same way Adam was and neither are we.

I don't see any relevancy in this. It's not HOW Adam, Eve, or we are created. It's the ORDER that I've been pointing out, and others seem to want to ignore totally. God first porepares a material body, then breathes in an immaterial soul, and THEN man "became a living being". That was never said about any animal.

Do some investigation into the properties of the bone marrow in a rib, it may surprise you. I love it when science supports God's word.

Having a doctorate in the medical sciences, I've already done a thorough investigation of it. And I too, love how science always supports God's Word. But I'm surprised at your statement since you've been quite resistant to the obvious order of creating a human being. And your lack of knowledge of the existence and difference between biological and soul life.

I can guarantee you that the 4 fetuses that I carried in my womb were not brain dead, dead bodies. As you tried to prove by your life support post.

No, of course they weren't dead. They all had biological life. And WHEN God breathed into each one a soul, they became human beings. You've not shown otherwise.

Are they rational thinking beings? I believe there is enough evidence to prove they are.

Anyone is free to believe what they want to believe, but there is NO evidence of that.

So when it comes to facts, they have brain waves, that we know, what we don't know is what they are thinking.

Biological life only. Only when God breathes in the soul is there a human being. Not before.

How this relates to your OP is that the fetus does not become a living soul after it leaves the womb but before.
Frankly, I believe you disproved your own OP. Your life support theory was excellent, I will remember that.

lol. It would be the height of confusion to think that I've disproven my own OP. No one has refuted it, and I certainly didn't disprove it.

When people refuse to accept the existence of biological life as different than soul life, the discussion cannot proceed.

To create the first 2 human beings, God miraculously and immediately formed or prepared the body and then breathed into it the soul, and then man became a living human being.

The 9 month gestation period is God's plan for preparing biological life for soul life, and THEN there is a human being.

Did some woman come up with the idea that fertilizing one of her eggs would result in a human being? No. God alone put that plan into place. All physiology and biology belongs to God. And so many people have been dissing His plan. How sad.

 

[elijah23]

Most of Christianity believes that the moment of conception is when a human being is created, body and soul.

However, from Gen 2:7, we see that God FIRST prepared a body "from the dust of the ground", BEFORE He breathed into the nostrils the "breath of life", or soul. Only then did "man become a living being". So, for the first Adam, the order was prepare a body, and then put the soul into the body, creating a living being.

Also, we know from Heb 10:5 that God prepared a body for the Son of God. So, for the Last Adam, the order was prepare a body for His Son. Obviously God didn't create a soul for His Son, since His Son has always existed. But Heb 10:5 does indicate that a body was prepared for Him.

So it would appear that God's order is to prepare a body before the soul is placed into the body.

Can anyone show from Scripture that God's order is REVERSED for everyone else, if in fact the soul is created at conception?

I don't think anybody knows when the soul is born. That is why I am generally against abortion. I would make exceptions, though, such as when the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy or when she is pregnant because she had been raped.

 

[Obadiah]

Despite numerous warnings, this thread continues off topic and continues to have numerous ToS and A&T Guideline violations. If after more than 300 posts here (as well as decades of this subject being argued in other venues with no conclusions reached) this will obviously just lead to more arguing, resulting in more and more infractions and more suspensions. It's just not worth it.

This thread is permanently closed. Please do not start another thread in this forum on this topic or on a similar topic that will lead to another fight over abortion.