Spirituality
29 Oct 12
31 Oct 12
1 edit
SOUL
The original-language terms (Heb., nephesh Gr.,( psy·khe) as used in the Scriptures show “soul” to be a person, an animal, or the life that a person or an animal 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 as used by the inspired Bible writers. This fact has steadily gained wider acknowledgment. Back in 1897, in the Journal of Biblical Literature (Vol. XVI, p. 30), Professor C. A. Briggs, as a result of detailed analysis of the use of nephesh, observed: “Soul in English usage at the present time conveys usually a very different meaning from [nephesh] in Hebrew, and it is easy for the incautious reader to misinterpret.”
More recently, when The Jewish Publication Society of America issued a new translation of the Torah, or first five books of the Bible, the editor-in-chief, H. M. Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College, stated that the word “soul” had been virtually eliminated from this translation because, “the Hebrew word in question 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 veins, his being.”—The New York Times, October 12, 1962.
31 Oct 12
Originally posted by galveston75What do you mean? I have been following what robbie has been saying very carefully and all my questions and points have been totally on-topic and closely interwoven with the arguments that have been arising in the discussion. What more would you want from a discussion?
Nope but we also are told not to waist our time on ones that are not wanting to learn. So far he hasn't displayed that idea. If he does I'd be more then glad to discuss many things with him.
31 Oct 12
Originally posted by FMFI'm glad you are. I'm only speaking of our conversations so far....
What do you mean? I have been following what robbie has been saying very carefully and all my questions and points have been totally on-topic and closely interwoven with the arguments that have been arising in the discussion. What more would you want from a discussion?
31 Oct 12
Originally posted by galveston75* TWO BUMPs * for galveston75.
Forgiving someone is different then accepting the punishment that is due to them.
So your forgiveness is just a subjective thing, keeping you all square with your own God and your perception of His requirements, for your own private purposes? [As in when you said "Yes Christians are required to forgive"]. But it doesn't have any objective impact on the guilty party or affect his fate in any way, or affect anything external to you?
Originally posted by galveston75
God is the one who desides in the end what punishment a murderer recieves. He has allowed the governments to stand at this time and we are to follow those rules as Christians as long as it does not cross the lines of rules and laws he has given us. So if a government does execute murderers then that is what is done. God has not told these govermental agencies not to execute such ones. So personally I detest what he did and if Jehovah allows an execution to happen then it must be deserving.
So, according to you, God decides not to execute people in European Union countries, but does decide to execute them in the U.S. and China? Why would God have different policies for different continents?
So personally I detest what he did and if Jehovah allows an execution to happen then it must be deserving.
If Jehovah allows an execution to happen in Zimbabwe or China, must it also be be deserving, or are you only talking about the U.S.?
31 Oct 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe point being, why is robbie being so evasive? - the furtive one
Which post(s) in this thread do you feel are directed at 'attacking' you 'personally'?
this is a defamatory and slanderous personal attack, it insinuates that I, me, robbie
carrobie , is deliberately withholding information for some kind of nefarious reason. It
calls into question my honesty and my integrity. It has no basis in reality and is simply a
slanderous slur, slime, of the type which typifies FMF's posts.
31 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo a poster thinking you are being evasive is a 'personal attack'? And yet you finish off your post accusing the same of poster of 'slime'?! Talk about irony.
The point being, why is robbie being so evasive? - the furtive one
this is a defamatory and slanderous personal attack, it insinuates that I, me, robbie
carrobie , is deliberately withholding information for some kind of nefarious reason. It
calls into question my honesty and my integrity. It has no basis in reality and is simply a
slanderous slur, slime, of the type which typifies FMF's posts.
31 Oct 12
4 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobI have provided reasons why its slime, it calls into question both my honesty and my
So a poster thinking you are being evasive is a 'personal attack'? And yet you finish off your post accusing the same of poster of 'slime'?! Talk about irony.
integrity are you denying the fact? Its a slanderous insinuation which typifies FMF's
posts. Yes sir, slanderous and had this been 1868, he would be choosing his weapons,
pistols or French foils, for this slight upon my noble and virtuous character!
31 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut you didn't answer the question. If you ask me a question and i don't answer it, surely you have every reason to ask why am i being evasive?
I have provided reasons why its slime, it calls into question both my honesty and my
integrity are you denying the fact? Its a slanderous insinuation which typifies FMF's
posts. Yes sir, slanderous and had this been 1868, he would be choosing his weapons,
pistols or French foils, for this slight upon my noble and virtuous character!
31 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere has been no slander, robbie. I have been examining your professed beliefs with regard to the death penalty and remained unconvinced by your answers [hence the word 'evasive' - I couldjust as well have used the words 'incoherent' or 'inconsistent']. This was why we were involved in a discussion, although you seem to have baled out now and settled for some ad hominem personal remarks instead.
I have provided reasons why its slime, it calls into question both my honesty and my
integrity are you denying the fact? Its a slanderous insinuation which typifies FMF's
posts.
31 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobno i would not think that you were being evasive, not after having been told by you that
But you didn't answer the question. If you ask me a question and i don't answer it, surely you have every reason to ask why am i being evasive?
you cannot think of any instances in particular and not after having asked you, what
particular evidences were looking for, I would simply conclude that you cannot think
of any or you are unaware of any, not that you were being evasive. For to do so would
be to insinuate that you were in some capacity being devious.