Let's see...Storyteller wrote:Have loved reading this, one quick question? Whats the difference between soul and spirit?
Peter tells us the world at that time was destroyed by water so we know there was a world before Genesis 1:2 and we have evidence for it too with all of the evidence of death,exctinction and fossils,etc so we have Peter telling us a former world was destroyed by water and we have physical evidence also in the layers of strata in the earth.So we can say there was a former world "A Lost World" a "Lord of the Rings" type world that existed before Genesis 1:2 and since it has alot of exctinct life in it that does not live in this world we know a former world existed prior to Genesis 1:2.DBowling wrote:There is no flood mentioned in Genesis 1:2. There is no world that was destroyed by a flood mentioned in Genesis 1:2. It's just not there in Scripture.abelcainsbrother wrote: And since it mentions the earth being formed out of water through which the former world perished the only other flood we can find is Genesis 1:2 which you acknowledge the earth has water on it,yet reject a flood?
According to Scripture the earth was formed out of the waters after Genesis 1:2.
According to Scripture all plant life was created after Genesis 1:2
According to Scripture all animal life was created after Genesis 1:2
According to Scripture humans were created after Genesis 1:2.
There is no destruction of the world by a flood mentioned anywhere in Genesis 1:2. That assertion is an extraScriptural presupposition that has been invented to support a tradition.
We do know based on Genesis 1:2 (and Genesis 1:9) that the earth was formed out of water.So we know based on Genesis 1:2 in which we have water on it and the fact the earth was formed out of water there was a world before it that was destroyed.
We do not know from Genesis 1:2 (or anywhere else in Scripture) that there was a world before Genesis 1:2 that was destroyed. That is an extraScriptural presupposition.
There is one and only one flood that destroyed "the world at that time" mentioned in Genesis. That is Noah's Flood described in Genesis 6-9. That is the flood that Peter is referring to in 2 Peter 3:6.It matters not what translation we use 2nd Peter 3:3-9 is still pointing us to Genesis 1 and not Noah's flood or both.
In Christ
That is one of the more interesting theological questions and the answer depends on if you are viewing the bible from the OT perspective or the NT since we have different cultural perspectives in both.Storyteller wrote:Have loved reading this, one quick question? Whats the difference between soul and spirit?
Okay how`s this for an idea?PaulSacramento wrote:That is one of the more interesting theological questions and the answer depends on if you are viewing the bible from the OT perspective or the NT since we have different cultural perspectives in both.Storyteller wrote:Have loved reading this, one quick question? Whats the difference between soul and spirit?
In short, for HUMANS, you can't have one without the other, they are "intertwined".
Animals and plants have souls, all living beings have a soul BUT only humans have a soul and spirit.
While the soul is the essence of what we are, the spirit is the "life" of what we are.
OT wise, all living things have a soul.RickD wrote:Plants have souls?
What Gave you that idea?
A soul is the mind, will, and emotions of certain creatures.
You're saying that plants have minds, wills, and emotions?
A Venus flytrap thinks about how to attack a fly, wills itself to kill the fly, then enjoys its prey?
Can you show me where in the Old Testament that idea is?PaulSacramento wrote:OT wise, all living things have a soul.RickD wrote:Plants have souls?
What Gave you that idea?
A soul is the mind, will, and emotions of certain creatures.
You're saying that plants have minds, wills, and emotions?
A Venus flytrap thinks about how to attack a fly, wills itself to kill the fly, then enjoys its prey?
A soul was a living creature.
Second, the word soul can be used to describe the physical form of life that both men and animals possess and that ceases to exist at death. In their Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Brown, Driver, and Briggs noted that the word “soul” (Hebrew nephesh) often is employed to mean “life principle” (1907, p. 659). In Genesis 1:20,24,30, God spoke of the nephesh hayyah—literally “soul breathers” or “life breathers” (often translated as “living creatures” or “life”—cf. Leviticus 11:10). The writer of Proverbs observed in regard to animals: “A righteous man regardeth the life (nephesh) of his beast; but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel” (12:10). Hebrew scholar Hugo McCord therefore suggested:
Then the translators realized that the first meaning of nephesh is “breath,” and so Genesis 1:20,24,30 and Genesis 2:7 all fit together in understanding Moses as saying that all animals and man too are breathers. Breathers, coupled with hayyah, “living,” the translators thought, would be well translated, in the case of animals, as “living creatures,” and in the case of man as a “living being” (1995, 23[1]:87-88).
Paul,PaulSacramento wrote:Are plants alive Rick?
http://www.scripturessay.com/do-plants-have-souls/
Aquinas believed plants to have a soul, of course his understanding of soul was not the OT view.
Still, the OT view of soul meant life and if something was alive, it had a soul.
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcont ... rticle=582
Second, the word soul can be used to describe the physical form of life that both men and animals possess and that ceases to exist at death. In their Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Brown, Driver, and Briggs noted that the word “soul” (Hebrew nephesh) often is employed to mean “life principle” (1907, p. 659). In Genesis 1:20,24,30, God spoke of the nephesh hayyah—literally “soul breathers” or “life breathers” (often translated as “living creatures” or “life”—cf. Leviticus 11:10). The writer of Proverbs observed in regard to animals: “A righteous man regardeth the life (nephesh) of his beast; but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel” (12:10). Hebrew scholar Hugo McCord therefore suggested:
Then the translators realized that the first meaning of nephesh is “breath,” and so Genesis 1:20,24,30 and Genesis 2:7 all fit together in understanding Moses as saying that all animals and man too are breathers. Breathers, coupled with hayyah, “living,” the translators thought, would be well translated, in the case of animals, as “living creatures,” and in the case of man as a “living being” (1995, 23[1]:87-88).
Yes. But they aren't creatures. And they don't have souls.PaulSacramento wrote:Are plants and trees alive?
Maybe God still gave him one.... It just looks alien or robotic likeabelcainsbrother wrote:I think ya'll are both right. I believe Adam and Eve were not born in a womb but all other humans after them were.Adam did not have a belly button but all others do/did.
