[*crickets*]Savonarola wrote:Oh really? Please, then, classify the following skulls as fully modern human or fully modern "ape."FSC wrote:All the evidence (fossil record) science has been able to pull up is that one day we humans, as we are physically today, showed up on the scene.
End of the Age, not the world as some might interpret it.Darrel wrote:DAR
And "the end" is "coming soon."
Darrel wrote:DAR
Really? How do you know that? Evidence please.
I don't have actual souls in jars but the scripture has plenty of Evidence.
The original language terms for soul are ne'phesh נפשׁ
in Hebrew and psykhe ψυχης in Greek. The scriptures show soul to be a person, an animal , or a life that a person enjoys.
The connotations that the English "soul" commonly carries in the minds of most persons are not in agreement with the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words. Man has truly distorted knowledge of the scriptures to his own destruction, in this way and many others.
Back in 1897 in the Journal of Biblical literature (Vol XVI, p. 30) Professor C.A. Briggs did a study of the word ne'phesh for a similar reason, as we are today. The result of his detailed study, in short, was "soul in English usage at the present time conveys usually a very different meaning from ne'phesh in Hebrew, and it is easy for the incautious reader to misinterpret it". More recently when The Jewish Publication Society of America issued a new translation of the Torah (first 5 books of OT) the editor and chief , H.M. Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College, stated that the word "soul had been virtually eliminated from the translation because, "the Hebrew word in questin here is 'Nefesh'". He added "Other translators have interpreted it to mean 'soul,' which is completely inaccurate. the Bible does not say we have a soul. 'Nefesh' is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his vains, his being."----New York Yimes, October 12, 1962.
The origin of the teaching that the human soul is invisible and immortal stem primarily , not from Hebrew or Christian Greek scriptures, but from ancient greek philosophy and myth, aka pagan religious thought. Plato for example quotes socrates as saying "the soul....if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body,....goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, the divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear......and all other human ills, and....lives in truth through all after time with the gods (plural)."----Phaedo, 80, D,E;81,A.
In direct contrast with the Greek philosophic teaching of the psykhe' (soul as being immaterial, intangible, invisible, and immortal the scriptures show that both psykhe and ne'phesh, as used with reference to earthly creatures, refer to that which is material, tangible, visible, mortal. I'm far from Catholic in my biblical interpretations but even the Catholic Encyclopedia says: "Nepes (ne'phesh) is a term of far greater extension than our 'soul,' signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn35.18; Job 41.13[21]) blood [Gen 9.4, Dt 12.23] etc..., desire (2Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2) . A Soul in the OT means not a part of man but the whole man---as a living being. Similarly in NT it signifies human life: the life of an individual conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37)"---1967 Vol XIII, p. 467.
The Roman Catholic translation , The New American Bible, in its "Glossary of Biblical Theology Terms" (pp. 27, 28) , says : "In the NT, to save ones soul (Mk 8:35) does not mean to save some 'spiritual' part of man, as opposed to his 'body' (in the platonic sense) but the whole person with emphasis on the fact that the person is living, desiring, loving and willing etc..., in addition to being concrete and physical."---Edition published by P.J. Kennedy and sons, New York, 1970.
Going back to OT ne'phesh evidently comes from the root meaning "breathe" From H5314; properly a breathing creature, that is, animal or (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental): - any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead (-ly), desire, X [dis-] contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart (-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortality, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-) self, them (your) -selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it. It could be rendered IMHO as breather.
Koehler and Baumgartners Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros
(Leiden, 1958, p. 627) defines it as: "The breathing substance, making man and animal living beings Gn 1, 20, the soul (strictly distinct from the Greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Gn 9, 4f Lv 17, 11 Dt 12, 23: (249 X).......soul = living being, individual, person."
Greek-English lexicons give such definitions as life but also include non-Biblical Greek works and terms including all meanings that the Greek philosophers gave to the word, including that of "departed spirit," the "Immaterial and immortal soul," "the spirit of the universe," and
"the immaterial principle of movement and life".
This evidently stems from the fact these pagan philosophers taught that the soul emerged from the body at death and thus the term psykhe was eventually applied to "butterfly or moth" which creatures go through a metamorphosis, changing from catapillar to winged creature..----Little and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon revised by H. Jones, 1968 , pp. 2026, 2027; Donnegens new Greek and English Lexicon, 1836, p. 1404.
With such great inconsistancy in non-Biblical writing it is essential to let the scriptures speak for themselves on this matter, showing what the inspired writers meant by their use of the term psykhe'. as well as ne'phesh. Ne'phesh occurs 754 times in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew scriptures, while psykhe appears by itself 102 time in the Westcott and Hort text of the Christian Greek, giving us a total of 856 occurences. This frequency of occurences makes possible a clear concept of the sense these terms conveyed to the minds of the inspired Bible writers and the the sense their writing should convey to our mind. An examination shows that, while the sense of these terms is broad, with different shades of meaning, among the Bible writers there was no inconsistancy, confusion or disharmonya s to mans nature, as existed among the Grecian philosophers of the so called Classical Period.
Would you like me to thouroughly go through this with you? I feel confident you will understand where i'm coming from when i say that Matthew 10:28 states that God "can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna," and that this shows psykhe does not refer to something immortal or indestructable. There is in fact not 1 case in the entire NT or OT scriptures, Hebrew or Greek in which the words ne'phesh and psykhe' are modified by terms such as immortal , indestructable, imperishable, deathless or the like.
FSC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
We know Christ knew there was no ascension for man to heaven or hell after he died.
Joh 3:12 If I have said the earthly things to you, and ye believe not, how, if I say the heavenly things to you, will ye believe?
Joh 3:13 And no one has gone up into heaven, save he who came down out of heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.
Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, thus must the Son of man be lifted up,
DOUGFSC wrote:Quote:
We know Christ knew there was no ascension for man to heaven or hell after he died.
Joh 3:12 If I have said the earthly things to you, and ye believe not, how, if I say the heavenly things to you, will ye believe?
Joh 3:13 And no one has gone up into heaven, save he who came down out of heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.
Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, thus must the Son of man be lifted up,
And St. Paul saying there is a heaven waiting for the believers, and that we have a soul:11 "I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Ephesians 2 has "heavenly realms":1 Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.
2Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, 3because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
But arguing whether there is a heaven or a hell is like arguing whether a leprechaun has a pot of gold. Show that there is a leprechaun, and only then does it make sense to discuss what it owns. Show that there is a god and we can then proceed to discuss his plans.6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.
Well answer me this, if Paul knew Abraham died almost 2000 years before he said this, how can people literally take places at a feast with him and his dead son Isaac, and his Jacob? If your interpreting this verse literally its impossible to make any sense out of it. If your familiar with the OT and NT then it makes complete sense assuming you understand the Creators arrangement for the coming of his Kingdom.11 "I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
DARFSC wrote:Darrel wrote:DAR
And "the end" is "coming soon."DARFSC
End of the Age, not the world as some might interpret it.
Well of course other mainstream interpretations that differ from yours would be wrong. But however you want to imagine it, as I thought, you think "the end" is "coming soon."
FSC
We know that Christ knew the body and soul were dependent on each other.Darrel wrote:DAR
Really? How do you know that? Evidence please.DARFSC
The original language terms for soul are ne'phesh נפשׁ
in Hebrew and psykhe ψυχης in Greek. The scriptures show soul to be a person, an animal , or a life that a person enjoys.
Yes, sometimes the word soul is used that way. It is the many times in the NT when it isn't used that way that is the problem for your position. I have given you several standard examples. Doug has given more (some I had forgotten about). Do try to address them.
DARThe connotations that the English "soul" commonly carries in the minds of most persons are not in agreement with the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words. Man has truly distorted knowledge of the scriptures to his own destruction, in this way and many others.
Yes, we know that is your opinion but this is nothing more than mere assertion. You will have to do better than that.
DARFSC
Back in 1897 in the Journal of...
Oh my, now we are treated to Bible scholarship from 1897. Doug you may be right. This person might be some variant of JW. They also often have to refer to outdated and extremely antique scholarship to support their extreme and eccentric minority doctrines.
DARBiblical literature (Vol XVI, p. 30) Professor C.A. Briggs did a study of the word ne'phesh for a similar reason, as we are today. The result of his detailed study, in short, was "soul in English usage at the present time conveys usually a very different meaning from ne'phesh in Hebrew, and it is easy for the incautious reader to misinterpret it".
Actually, I would agree with that. But that says nothing whatsoever in response to my claim regarding the greek NT. The OT, almost without exception does not have an afterlife or a soul. The NT clearly does. That' your problem.
DARMore recently when The Jewish Publication Society of America issued a new translation of the Torah...
Agreed. That's the Hebrew scriptures ("OT"). Focus.
Snip more OT references.... jeesh, is that all you have?
DARI'm far from Catholic in my biblical interpretations but...
You'll refer to them when it's convenient. I know. JW's do this a lot too. Pretty hypocritical really.
DARWould you like me to thouroughly go through this with you?
Well that would be better than completely ignoring the material I have posted as you are doing now. Your problem is not in the OT, it's in the NT.
DARI feel confident you will understand where i'm coming from when i say that Matthew 10:28 states that God "can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna,"
If body and soul are the same, then why even mention both? It is redundant. Please address the verses I have already provided and the new ones Doug has given.
I know a case can be made for you position, even in the NT, because I have examined it thoroughly. I just don't think it is a very good case. And neither do 99% of Christians, and even a greater percentage of Bible scholars. Why? Because of the clear text of the verses already provided above.
Clue: When asked a question, please answer it. You have skipped several direct questions I have given above. Again:
How does a person go about "wailing and gnashing their teeth" if they do not exist? How does one get tormented for ever and ever, if they don't exist?
DARThere is in fact not 1 case in the entire NT or OT scriptures, Hebrew or Greek in which the words ne'phesh and psykhe' are modified by terms such as immortal , indestructable, imperishable, deathless or the like.
That's nice. I don't see how that matters in the least. All that is needed to show some kind the existence of some kind of soul after death is examples of such an entity being referred to as experiencing some kind of existence. And as any Christian or Bible scholar knows, the NT is filled with examples. You need to start dealing with these.
D.
FSC
Joh 3:13 And no one has gone up into heaven, save he who came down out of heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.
And yet, not word one about the skulls...Obliged [aka FSC] wrote:I have never, and I mean never seen an anti-evolutionist tackle this, let alone tackle it with any semblance of reason.
More familiar than are you. Would you like me to link you to comparisons of carbon-14 dating and annual tree rings, or of carbon-14 and annual varves?FSC wrote:I get the feeling you aren't familiar with the intricacies of Radio Carbon dating, and its shortcomings. Man isn't as advanced as your [sic] led to believe.
But my question wasn't answered. You contrast cranial characteristics (and come to an erroneously conclusion) rather than discuss the existence of (admittedly) morphologically different hominids in ancient strata.FSC wrote:This was one of the first questions i asked myself too and it was answered for me by a retired biologist.
Humans are animals.FSC wrote:Animals are completely different from what we are today as humans.
My extraterrestrial theory? When have I subscribed to an extraterrestrial theory of life on earth?FSC wrote:If anything I agree more with your extraterrestial [sic] theory....
There is no basis for this conclusion. Your statement shows a complete ignorance of biology and ecology. Not only are there countless niches to be filled by a variety of life forms, there is competition for resources. To conclude that any one (or two, or few) organisms ought to outcompete virtually all other organisms in all niches and environments is ludicrous.FSC wrote:If we believe things evolve and become significantly more intelligent over time then cochroaches [sic] and horse shoe crabs should be ruling the earth.
Gravitational theory is "only a theory," so please jump off a cliff. (Of course, evolutionary theory has a lot more supporting evidence than current gravitational theory, but that shouldn't be a problem, right?)FSC wrote:The theory of evolution is its own worst enemy, and surely still only a theory, which they are making great attempts to prove.
You don't do much reading of scientific journals, do you? If all of this evidence was bunk, all it would take is one whistle-blowing paper to throw evolutionary thought out the window. Fame and fortune would await the groundbreaking author. Instead, there are literally countless studies that result in precisely what the modern synthesis predicts. There is no "proving" in science, but the modern synthesis is accepted by over 99% of biologists working in relevant fields. It is old news; there will be no Nobel Prize for amazing support of evolutionary theory unless it also contributes to, say, medicine. While it is true that we are still learning some of the more detailed intricacies of evolutionary processes, the basic framework is well-understood and doubted essentially only by evangelicals and non-professionals.FSC wrote:Whoever proves that one will win the Nobel prize for sure, along with all the other ones, and Darwin will be the new Jesus Christ.
Sounds like you've heard a bit about punctuated equilibria... but only a bit. This is not what has been "proven" at all. Since you have offered, I'll let you present your case.FSC wrote:Man has proved our evolution couldn't be a slow and gradual process but now they suspect that it occured [sic] in a great leap. Within a real short period of time we evolved from the apes almost instantaneosly [sic], within a few short generations and became what we are today. Thats [sic] todays [sic] evolutionary science at its best.
DARFSC
FSC wrote:
The theory of evolution is its own worst enemy, and surely still only a theory, which they are making great attempts to prove.[/url]
SAV
Seriously, though, you [FSC] need to make yourself aware of the distinction between "theory" as is bastardized by modern-day English speakers and the true definition of a scientific theory.
DOUGFSC wrote:DOUG
Explain Matthew 8:Well answer me this, if Paul knew Abraham died almost 2000 years before he said this, how can people literally take places at a feast with him and his dead son Isaac, and his Jacob? If your interpreting this verse literally its impossible to make any sense out of it. If your familiar with the OT and NT then it makes complete sense assuming you understand the Creators arrangement for the coming of his Kingdom.11 "I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Thy Kingdom Come Thy Will be Done!
If you can talk with them, I suppose you can have dinner with them too. So why are you puzzled? YOU are the one who believes that this stuff actually happened.1After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
4Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."
5While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"
6When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. 7But Jesus came and touched them. "Get up," he said. "Don't be afraid." 8When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.
DOUGFSC wrote:Well answer me this...
I also gave you three simple contradictions of the Bible:a. Do you really think snakes eat dust, as the myth says? If you had a pet snake, would you just feed it dust?
b. Do you think there is a tree now that if you eat its fruit, you become immortal, as stated in Genesis 3?
c. Do you really think there are cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life, as stated in the myth?
d. Do you believe snakes can talk? If so, what species was it? And why can't they talk now? Is it because of the dust?
DOUGFSC wrote:Before Wells others believed we originated over 100,000 years ago, then it was 100,000 Now Wells says 60,000...is anyone noticing a pattern here? As technolgy advances our time of origin gets shorter and shorter. What do you think science will say it is in ten years? I already know and so do you.
Yeesh...FSC wrote:I thought it would help you guys if you knew more about The First Evidence of anatomically “modern man“ that Wells proposes originated 60,000 years ago. He considers anything before that time shouldn't even be considered the same as what we are today.
Sure enough, I am noticing a pattern here. The pattern is that you can't back up what you spew, and every time you post new material, it's just as bad.FSC wrote:Before Wells others believed we originated over 100,000 years ago, then it was 100,000 Now Wells says 60,000...is anyone noticing a pattern here?
I think science, through repeated testing here on this forum, can say right now that you have no idea what you're talking about.FSC wrote:As technolgy advances our time of origin gets shorter and shorter. What do you think science will say it is in ten years?
DARSAV
It must be pretty bad to believe the world is less than 10,000 years old and be so hard up for evidence that you're citing someone because he talks about mankind's being over 60,000 years old.
Upon review, Darrel is correct. FSC has specified only that he/she believes that mankind emerged 6000 years ago. Fortunately for me, my point still stands: his citation refers to an expert who argues that H. sapiens' Y-MRCA is at least ten times older than FSC claims the entire species is.Darrel wrote:DARSAV
It must be pretty bad to believe the world is less than 10,000 years old and be so hard up for evidence that you're citing someone because he talks about mankind's being over 60,000 years old.
Hang on now, while not giving many clues to his/her true beliefs, I don't think FSC has specified that he/she is a young earth creationist.
Which is why -- with a mere wave of the hand -- you blindly deny the accuracy of any technology capable of producing such dates. Why 4026? Is there some profound scientific reason for this number to be the boundary? Of course not; in an amazing, incredible coincidence, however, 4026 B.C. is the JW's (revised) date for Adam's creation. Funny that.FSC wrote:In all honesty i think that if we ever found writing that dated pre 4026 BC it would be a great blow to the the accuracy of the scriptures.
There are dozens of other isotopes used in radiometric dating. 'Tis a shame you're not familiar with a single one.FSC wrote:Any form of radio carbon [sic] dating despite its advances can't be considered higly accurate.
Says the person coming here and telling us how it is. Good show, bucko.FSC wrote:Anyone who actually thinks they're intelligent is surely a greater fool than the rest.
I don't think I can sway you; I just enjoy roasting your tripe. Perhaps you think that makes me a bad person, but I prefer to speak to the facts and to be able to back them up. You see, intellectual honesty and integrity mean something to me. The fact that I'm educated enough about the topic to be able to use words you don't understand is neither somehow damning to my position nor -- frankly -- the least bit surprising.FSC wrote:And those that think they can sway the crowds to believe them by using complex vocabulary is only trying to cover the fact that he or she doesn't know as well.
I asked you to pick your best points, and you couldn't elaborate on a single one. This aimless rambling and blanket belittling of mankind is all you can come up with. When it comes to saying that people don't know, speak only for yourself.FSC wrote:The only thing i surely know is that none of us truly know.
DARSavonarola wrote:...in an amazing, incredible coincidence, however, 4026 B.C. is the JW's (revised) date for Adam's creation. Funny that.
DARFSC
to this day the fact still remains that there is no record of ancient man, his writing, agriculture, and other pursuits extending into the past before 4026 BC. It just isn't there.
DARFSC
Any form of radio carbon dating despite its advances can't be considered higly accurate.
DAROur greatest tried and true method of actually gauging time and confirming radio carbon dating is based on the studies of tree rings...its ridiculous.
DARThe only thing i surely know is that none of us truly know.
It's true that we've used annual tree rings to check the accuracy of carbon dating, but we've also used annual varves and -- if I recall correctly -- annual ice layers. Why any of these well-understood annual processes (or any of the numerous radioisotopic dating methods that agree with each other -- see Brent Dalrymple's Age of the Earth) are "ridiculous" indicators is something FSC won't be able to explain.Darrel wrote:DAROur greatest tried and true method of actually gauging time and confirming radio carbon dating is based on the studies of tree rings...its ridiculous.
I think you are making this up as you go, but while you are at it, why is it "ridiculous." You should try to give reasons for your claims.