Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dianne Burke <biblestudy.burke AT gmail.com>]

Dear All,

Thank you for your responses, they have been very helpful.  I'm new with
taking a deeper look at Hebrew when studying biblical texts and such.   The
gentleman that I'm having discussions with has NO degree in Hebrew, no
knowledge of Hebrew or it's grammar and instead thinks his knowledge is
quite sufficient by simply using a concordance.

Dear Randall, et al,

I agree with what you said here about murder and as far as I'm concerned
that's settled.  Thanks for your help.

Randall you wrote:


> It is a strange argument because only a few verses earlier Samson was
> touching a dead lion. Samson is a flawed character, like so many in the
> book of Judges.
>

My opponent has a preconceived idea of Samson's life.  His argument is that
because God did not outright rebuke Samson for dallying with a harlot, or
touching the carcass of a lion then it's probably because Samson did neither
of these things and therefore never broke his Nazarite vow he's using his
"limited knowledge" of Hebrew (using the concordance) to support his theory.

He says in Samson's defense of touching a dead lion that this was not in
breaking with the Nazarite vow because:

<

As I have said unambiguously more than once, the word nephesh can refer
either to animals, or to men, in scriptural usage. Examples of both cases
are easy to find. But when we combine "soul" with other terms, the situation
changes.

- The phrase "living soul" is used with reference to animals, in Genesis 1
- The phrase "living soul" is used with reference to man; specifically, it
is what Adam became, in Genesis 2:7.
- The phrase "dead soul" is used of men who have died.
- But, the phrase "dead soul" is never used of animals that have died, so
far as I have found. There is a different Hebrew term that comes with
respect to those, but the phrase "dead soul" doesn't get used in that way.

You say that I am avoiding the real issue, but the above summary brings out
what is the real issue – the missing combination.

He then goes on to say:

You seem to believe that the phrase "dead soul" is obvious in its meaning;
that since both (unqualified) "soul", and (qualified) "living soul" are used
of both animals and men, the phrase "dead soul" must be equally applicable
to both. Here you add to that assumption the notion that the word soul can
be used in the same breath to include both at once. But neither of those
things has so far been demonstrated by you, from scripture (see below).

Scriptural usage shows examples of words that are used widely, and
qualifiers that can be attached to them in various cases, but without
allowing all combinations.

For example, the words "wicked" and "man" go together often enough; and the
word "immortal" is used in relation to that nature of existence we who are
men seek to obtain at the coming of Christ; but the combination of "wicked"
and "immortal" with reference to any man, never appears in scripture. It is
invalid.

The same principle we understand plainly with respect to the term "immortal
soul" – whilst the two individual words do appear frequently on their own or
in combination with other words, they are never put together with each
other.

That last point is an easy and obvious one, concerning not what a lexicon
might say about a topic (in some extra-biblical usage, souls are described
as immortal), but what actual scriptural usage proves. The absence of
"immortal soul" from scripture is fundamental, and critical: we can, and
rightly do, reason from the fact of its absence. This comes up not
infrequently when we dispute with many others who call themselves Christian,
but believe that we do not truly die when we appear to.

Whenever the phrase "dead soul" comes in scripture, the context shows that
it is talking about a man or woman who has died, not about an animal. Why
might that be?

I suggest for this reason: scripture never once indicates that any animal
has ever been raised from the dead. We have no grounds to believe that God
has any reason to bring such a thing about. By contrast, of course, we
ground our faith – as Abraham clearly did – on God's promises which both
from the beginning imply, and also later explicitly include, the future
resurrection of human beings.

Peter cites the prophet David in Psalm 16, speaking as God's own anointed
son would be able 1000 years later to say, "thou wilt not leave my soul in
hell". Peter contrasts the still-dead state of David's soul ("he is both
dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us to this day") with the fact of
the resurrection of Jesus. But even though David, like Job, long ago rotted
into dust, they will both again stand upon the earth and see God, following
the pattern of what God did for his son on the third day.

<

Therefore if the phrase "dead soul" is never used of animals, then Samson
didn't break his Nazarite vow when touching the dead carcass of the lion.

Your thoughts on "nephesh" is appreciated.


dwashbur wrote
To be honest, I find such an approach just silly.  Samson was flawed; that's
one of the

> things that makes him such a fascinating character.  But even more
> important, his life's work
> was killing Philistines.  As Randall pointed out, he had just been scooping
> honey out of a
> lion's carcass, so he touched a dead body there.  As for the NKH, it means
> "hit" or "strike,"
> and it's often used in the context of battle.  So it's most likely that
> Samson wasn't especially
> careful to make sure these guys weren't quite dead before he took their
> robes.  I wouldn't
> say "murdered;" NKH isn't quite that narrow in meaning.  "Struck," or
> "killed" is appropriate.
> In any case, your opponent doesn't have any real basis for his/her view.
>

I agree. I think his reasoning is flawed and silly, however because I have
no knowledge of Hebrew, it would be ignorant of me to argue against him.



Many thanks in advance for your help.


Blessings,

Deni