Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

Hi Deni,
I agree with Yigal here. Nephesh is used of both animals and people and can
live or die. There is no such concept of an immortal nephesh in the Tanakh
(Hebrew Bible). One thing you might like to point out to your opponent is
that the context of the speech he is quoting about David in Acts goes on to
make the point that David did not ascend to heaven and that that is the
whole point of pointing out that his body was dead and buried to that day.

Ecclesiastes is worth a read (even in translation). The author feels that
the spirit (breath from ruach) of both men and animals returns to god upon
the death of the body. The author further enlightens us about the condition
of the dead:

All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no
work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in She´ol, the place to which you
are going. (Ecclesisates 9:10)

Note that Hebrew She'ol is translated by Greek Hades the very word
incorrectly translated as Hell in the Psalm your opponent is quoting from.
She'ol is the common grave which we all go to when we die in the ideology
presented in the Tanakh. There is no such fiery place of torment described
in the Tanakh which would be worthy of the translation Hell.

James Christian

2009/9/27 Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>

> Dear Deni,
>
> First of all, let me remind you for a second and final time to sign your
> posts with your full name.
>
> Second, have a look at Lev. 17:14, in which the blood of a dead animal is
> called its "nephesh", which is why it is forbidden to eat blood.
> And look at Lev. 24:17-18, which I would translate: "And if a man kills
> (the
> root used here is NKH,"strike", which we've already agreed usually means
> "kill") the soul ("nephesh") of a man, he shall die. And he who kills the
> nephesh of a beast shall pay, nephesh for nephesh". The context makes it
> very clear that the "nephesh" of a beast refers to a dead beast.
>
>
> Yigal Levin
>
> Co-moderator,
> B-Hebrew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Dianne Burke
> Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 11:21 AM
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Judges 14:19 (Samson's life etc.)
>
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.113/2397 - Release Date: 09/26/09
> 17:51:00
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>