Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[Texas Conservative]

No, that's the problem.   You seem to be unclear on evolution, which is a directly observed phenomenon, and evolutionary theory, which explains it.  And I'm thinking you're probably confusing both of those with common descent, which is a consequence of evolution.

I don't think you are stupid.  It takes intelligence to ready through scientific journals in your field of study.  It also takes a keen sense of reading comprehension.  I think you know exactly what I meant, and common descent in this thread has commonly been referred to in an imprecise manner as "evolution." 

[AVZ]

Barbarian observes:
Guess how I know you don't know many scientists.    In fact,  slightly more than half of us are theists of some sort, mostly Christians, Jews, or Muslims.   But even the agnostics like Gould and atheists like Dawkins readily agreed that neither soul nor spirit could be made naturally.

Absolutely true.   For example, Gould considers the issue of a "soul" a purely religious issue, not a scientific one.     

Nope.   In fact, he admits that he can't be sure that God doesn't exist.   

Which, as you learned, is true.   About 99.7 percent of people with doctorates in biology accept the fact of evolution, (would you like to know how I know that?) and most of us are theists of some sort.

Actually, I don't say I'm an evolutionist.   I'm just a biologist, and of course, that means I'm aware that evolution is an observed fact.

You keep on confusing evolution and religion.
They are different things.

Example:
My statement "Dawkins is a materialist and claims the "soul" is a product of DNA."
Your response "Nope. In fact, he admits that he can't be sure that God doesn't exist."

Your response is irrelevant because not being sure about the existence of God is a theological issue, whilst saying the soul is a product of DNA is a biological issue.

Furthermore your claim that Dawkins is not sure that God does not exist is unintelligible. Dawkins is an Atheist.
The core meaning of atheism is that it rejects and denies the existence of a god.
People who are not sure are called Agnostics.
And people who are sure there is a God are called Deists.

But regardless of Dawkins being an Atheist or not, it is totally irrelevant to the question whether he believes the soul is a product of DNA or not.
One thing can be said however. Atheists by necessity must always seek for materialistic explanations.

Your claim that "Dawkins readily agreed that neither soul nor spirit could be made naturally" is a contradiction in terms.
Atheists cannot appeal to the supernatural.

[NorrinRadd]

In the language of the Genesis creation account, soul is simply living being.

Gen 1:20  And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures [Heb - nephesh], and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens."


nephesh
neh'-fesh
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.

Gen 1:24  And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures[agian HEB- nephesh] according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.

In 1:30, nephesh has a meaning more along the lines of our topic, the invisible, immaterial, live-giving aspect of living beings.

Gen 2:7  then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature [here also HEB - nephesh].
[/i][/b]

This is one of those peculiar and even annoying inconsistencies obscured by English translations.  The same English expression in 1:30 and here, but different underlying Hebrew.

And then in 6:17, another variant -- ruach instead of either nephesh or neshamah

We are living creatures; we are living beings; we are living souls.

You wondered about the metaphorical.  It says in verse 7 above that God breathed into his nostrils.  Does God breath?  Is that a literal statement or figurative, i.e., metaphorical. 

It also says there that God breath into him the breath of life.  What is the breath of life?  Some, me included, take that to be the spirit of man.  In Hebrew that breath is neshamah.

neshâmâh
nesh-aw-maw'
From H5395; a puff, that is, wind, angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect or (concretely) an animal: - blast, (that) breath (-eth), inspiration, soul, spirit.

In three consecutive occurrences of "breath of life," "breath" is three different Hebrew words, as shown above.

Also, just for trivia(?) -- The verb, "breathed" in 2:7 is "naphash," which some consider to be the root of "nephesh."


Because of the flexibility and overlap of these terms, I get a little twitchy when anyone tries to be dogmatic and precise about them.

[4WD]

Because of the flexibility and overlap of these terms, I get a little twitchy when anyone tries to be dogmatic and precise about them.

It was Wycliffes_Shillelagh, I believe, who presented what I believe is the best way to think of soul and spirit.  His explanation was, "I am a soul; I have a body and a spirit."  I believe that very succinctly lays out the best and most precise presentation.  I also believe, as I said, that when speaking of man, the Bible both in the OT and the NT use soul and spirit interchangeably.  Particularly in the NT you will be correct 99% of the time to treat soul and spirit as one and the same.

[NorrinRadd]

It was Wycliffes_Shillelagh, I believe, who presented what I believe is the best way to think of soul and spirit.  His explanation was, "I am a soul; I have a body and a spirit."  I believe that very succinctly lays out the best and most precise presentation.  I also believe, as I said, that when speaking of man, the Bible both in the OT and the NT use soul and spirit interchangeably.  Particularly in the NT you will be correct 99% of the time to treat soul and spirit as one and the same.

I came out of Word-Faith teaching in the mid-'90s, after about ten years in it.  In there, it's common to hear, "I am a spirit, I have a soul, I live in a body."  They further define soul rather precisely as "mind, will, and emotions."  It can be important to them to make that division between spirit and soul, because to them, "getting the revelation" in one's spirit about what Scripture is teaching is much more important than analyzing it with the intellect.  I'm Pentecostal, so I do believe in being led by the Spirit, and that the Spirit "speaks" to us in ways that do not necessarily directly involve the mind, but the Faith people press those things way too far.

Long ago, around the time I was leaving my Faith church, I did a study on "soul" and "spirit," and found that they are probably not used completely interchangeably, but there is so much overlap that it's silly to make a dogma out of their being totally distinct.

[4WD]

I haven't heard of Word-faith teaching before.

I did a study on "soul" and "spirit," and found that they are probably not used completely interchangeably, but there is so much overlap that it's silly to make a dogma out of their being totally distinct.

I agree; particularly when man and mankind are the objects of the discussion.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

It was Wycliffes_Shillelagh, I believe, who presented what I believe is the best way to think of soul and spirit.  His explanation was, "I am a soul; I have a body and a spirit."  I believe that very succinctly lays out the best and most precise presentation.

I still hold that view, and it is correct for the entire OT, and most of the NT except for a few passages where Paul borrows from Greek philosophy to make a contrast.  The two words aren't quite synonyms in either Testament, but in Hebrew they are used as parallelisms anyway.

Think of it in terms of coffee.  There's a mug (body).  There's hot bean juice (spirit).  But if I say "bring me my coffee" I want both the coffee and the mug, and it isn't necessary to make a differentiation.  That's how soul is used right up until...

350BC.  The Greek philosophers spent a bunch of time on the ideas of soul and spirit.  They added nuance and meaning to both words - soul and spirit - which simply didn't exist before that time.

The OT authors lived and died before that time.  Most NT writers show awareness of Greek ideas about the body and how it is animated, but they follow the OT authors in usage, taking the simpler view.

Paul, however, uses the two words in contrast to each other in 1Cor (probably elsewhere too) in their philosophic sense.  In other epistles, he uses them in the same way the other Biblical authors do.

Trying to build a doctrine (the tri-partate man) based on it is foolishness.  This is Greek philosophy; not a Biblical doctrine.  The Bible mentions it, yes, in passing... to make a point.  That doesn't mean Paul was a philosopher or that the Bible endorses the view.

Jarrod

[Ginger Rella]

I still hold that view, and it is correct for the entire OT, and most of the NT except for a few passages where Paul borrows from Greek philosophy to make a contrast.  The two words aren't quite synonyms in either Testament, but in Hebrew they are used as parallelisms anyway.

Think of it in terms of coffee.  There's a mug (body).  There's hot bean juice (spirit).  But if I say "bring me my coffee" I want both the coffee and the mug, and it isn't necessary to make a differentiation.  That's how soul is used right up until...

350BC.  The Greek philosophers spent a bunch of time on the ideas of soul and spirit.  They added nuance and meaning to both words - soul and spirit - which simply didn't exist before that time.

The OT authors lived and died before that time.  Most NT writers show awareness of Greek ideas about the body and how it is animated, but they follow the OT authors in usage, taking the simpler view.

Paul, however, uses the two words in contrast to each other in 1Cor (probably elsewhere too) in their philosophic sense.  In other epistles, he uses them in the same way the other Biblical authors do.

Trying to build a doctrine (the tri-partate man) based on it is foolishness.  This is Greek philosophy; not a Biblical doctrine.  The Bible mentions it, yes, in passing... to make a point.  That doesn't mean Paul was a philosopher or that the Bible endorses the view.

Jarrod

I was taught we are spirits, we live is a body and we have a soul.  We need the body to keep us together........... but the body can and does war against us .

And that Paul, himself, had issues with his body himself. No one is exempt.

1 Corinthians 9:27  (NKJV)
27 But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.

[The Barbarian]

I don't think you are stupid.  It takes intelligence to ready through scientific journals in your field of study.  It also takes a keen sense of reading comprehension.  I think you know exactly what I meant, and common descent in this thread has commonly been referred to in an imprecise manner as "evolution."

Thanks, I don't think you're stupid, either.   The problem is that calling these three very different things "evolution" obfuscates the difference between them.   Which is a problem for those who aren't aware of the differences.


 

[The Barbarian]

I was taught we are spirits, we live is a body and we have a soul.  We need the body to keep us together........... but the body can and does war against us .

It seems to become a more formidable opponent after six or seven decades of experience.

[Ginger Rella]

It seems to become a more formidable opponent after six or seven decades of experience.

+1 for that.......... truer words have never been spoken.