Do animals go to heaven?

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
If stones might "cry out", wouldn't animals cry out first?

Maybe re-reading the 4th post to this topic may help in the scheme of "souls". The writer of Eccl. deems human and animal alike...human has no advantage.

Again, I'll have to make this point...Animals did nothing to deserve their placement in sin. They are here because man sinned not by any sin of their own.
.
.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why CS lewis is coming up so much to try and prove something especially about love and heaven. His views are after all an opinion, the fact is that The Great Divorce really can't be taken to face value at all. You can't claim that Love in Heaven is greater then that in earth and so on because thats claiming you've been to Heaven and frankly I don't know where any statement like that comes up in the Bible and if it does could you point it out. You also bring up the point on how we don't need animals to be happy in Heaven and all we need is God. Granted i agree with that statement but does God need humans at all? I would answer with a no, but God, i believe, created humans as companions who would love him unconditionally, God wants humans. So it is in this way that i believe humans are created in the image of God. Humans I believe like God want to be loved and thats what i believe separates animals from humans. If we assume animals don't have a soul then we are assuming they are robots who happen to feel pain. Also to not have a soul means you can't love and i just don't agree that animals can't love. When a dog sacrifices or risks its life to save its owner but perhaps not a stranger does that not show love toward the owner. I believe we can't explain Love because its a characteristic of God, but rather actions can show love. Also you said will a mother in heaven be happy if her son is in hell. Well you kinda answered that question on your own when you said we only need God to be happy.

So it just comes down to do you think animals have a soul and I just don't see any reason to why they don't. Animals in my opinion are like children, they are unaware of God yet have total reliance as you mentioned. So if children can automatically go to Heaven, why should animals be deprived of that and therefore i think they have a soul. As for how they get into heaven if they do have a soul, I'm kinda stuck between they all get into heaven like children do or get into heaven through the salvation of a human soul. I mean as Bav stated, animals did not commit the first sin.

[Anonymous]

Quite honestly, my dog was better, more pure and honest than any person I am aware of. If heaven doesn't include loved pets people, you should refer to it as hell. A pet was given to us by God to love, and to be loved without equivocation as God does. Why would that pet not meet us when we, hopefully, get there to. A pet may have been "born in sin", but get serious, not every interpretation is correct. God is inarguable love, as pets are. Maybe they are one and the same, and are actually another way God has contact with the depths of souls her on earth. In fact, I firmly that any animal is born as pure as a human being is, and stays that way for eternity. I honestly don't care what most so called experts thinkl who obviously have not had pets to love and be loved by. It's very easy to make an interpretation of God's Bible say whatever you want it to do.

[Anonymous]

I've decided to stick with my comparison of animals and children. I just can't help but look at a toddler and say a dog and their behaviors are just so similar. So im gonna propose the notion that animals go to heaven as children do and i would like to hear people's views to the comparison of animals to children, beside the fact that they think animals don't have a soul because both sides of that argument go nowhere.

[Anonymous]

Oh and doesn't Jesus say that God cares for all the living beings of earth, but that he cares even more so about humans. I'm not sure what the exact quote is and if necessary i'll look for it, but i would imagine this is pretty good biblical support of animals going to heaven, so if anyone has a response to this and my previous post I would greatly appreciate it because right now im just trying to shuffle through ideas and just get it all registered. I feel we will never know the answer until death, but still good to talk about it.

[Kurieuo]

I think it important that humans are said to be the only physical creature made in the image of God. God prohibits the murder of other humans because they are made in His image. Animals on the other hand, He allows for sacrifices and food. Therefore, animals are not made in God's image. Yet, I still think they have souls, just obviously not as complex as the human soul which is made in God's likeness.

Now, the Bible does make reference to animals as nephesh (soul) in Genesis 1:30 and ruach (spirit) in Ecclesiastes 3:21. In Revelation 8:9, psyche (soul) is used of animals in the sea. Jac, I'd like to respond to your numbered points.

1. You believe animals don't have a soul, but I would say it seems obvious that animals have souls. I think this may be part of the reaction some here have to your words, as they do believe animals have feelings and experience things, at least in some rudimentary sense we humans do. They are not merely unconscious machines. They appear to be conscious, able to interact with their environment, look as though they experience pain, emotions, and even have desires. They even appear dream dreams. If such mental states are properties associated with a soul, and animals seem to exhibit signs of having such properties, then doesn't the evidence weigh in favour of animals having a soul? If they do not, then how do you explain their consciousness and mental states?

There's a good article at Stands to Reason which explains more and I'm sure others might want to read. It is entitled, "Do Animals Have Souls?"

2. I think animals can love. Self-sacrifice is a sign of love, and some animals have been known to have sacrificed themselves for their owners or risked their lives. So I think animals can love, some more willing and able than others, as much as their given soul allows them to. I don't think they can reflect upon their love, but I sense there is definitely some sort of bonding that can occur. Yet, I don't really see how animals, whether or not they can "love" in a "heavenly sense," really matters.

3. Assumably I'm also not needed to complete heaven, but does that mean I can't be there?

4. Whether an animals soul is "everlasting" ("eternal" generally implies beginningless as well as endless [yeah I'm a nitpick ]) is the only point remaining that is unsettled. Do animals survive death? I see no compelling reason against the idea, especially if they have a soul. However, there seems to be no clear biblical statements that favour animals being in heaven. I'd say it seems that we can't be sure either way.

Now there is a side issue here. Is it unfair if animals do not live after death? I don't think so, as I think it would only be unfair if animals were made to live forever, or that was apart of their purpose, or they had a desire for everlasting life within them. But such seems far from obvious, and I personally don't believe animals have the ability to reflect on issues such as what will happen to them when they die. But it is my personal belief that God will be able to resurrect my pet if I so wish.

Kurieuo.

[Jac3510]

I have to be honest and say that I am surprised that the majority view here is in favor of animal salvation . . . anyway, I guess I'll have to take this more seriously

So, let's start with K's responses to my numbered points:

1. You believe animals don't have a soul, but I would say it seems obvious that animals have souls. I think this may be part of the reaction some here have to your words, as they do believe animals have feelings and experience things, at least in some rudimentary sense we humans do. They are not merely unconscious machines. They appear to be conscious, able to interact with their environment, look as though they experience pain, emotions, and even have desires. They even appear dream dreams. If such mental states are properties associated with a soul, and animals seem to exhibit signs of having such properties, then doesn't the evidence weigh in favour of animals having a soul? If they do not, then how do you explain their consciousness and mental states?

OK, let me rephrase. Animals certainly have a "soul" if you want to use the word, but you cannot argue that it is of the same type or nature of that of the human soul. There is a strong difference. The very verse you pointed out, K, states this clearly. Eccl. 3:21 is not a reference of doubt, but a statement of belonging. The human soul belongs to God, but the animal "soul" belongs to the earth. It is most certainly not everlasting.

I put much less stock in the reference of Gen. 1:30. I absolutely agree that nepesh can refer to the soul, but, more simply, it refers to life in general. It is used very widely in many contexts, so it is putting far to much emphasis on the word to assume that it must refer to an everlasting soul. For one quick example, the word simply means "creature" in Gen. 9:10.

Further, this word is translated into psyche (actually, to be technical, it is psuche, G5590, which simply means "breath"). This word is, also, has a wide variety of uses. For instance, Matthew uses it to refer to the eternal soul in Matt. 10:28. However, the same word simply refers to this present life in other verses like Matt. 2:20, and 6:25.

So we have this question: is the "soul" that animals have immortal? You absolutely cannot say that some animals have immortal souls and others don't (i.e., I love my dog, my dog loves me, therefore, he gets to be resurrected and has an immortal soul). Either "soulish" animals have everlasting souls or they don't.

If they don't, theologically, you have to explain what happens to them at death. You have to explain why all animals don't end up in heaven if they haven't sinned. You have to explain why an animal would go to hell. You have to explain what the basis of an animal's "salvation" would be. You have to explain why that absolutely no where in the Scriptures is a resurrected animals, or even the possibility of it, ever mentioned.

Scripturally, you have to explain Eccl. 3:21. The animal's "soul" descends to the earth. Please note there that the word is NOT sheol.

I think it serves us much better, scripturally and theologically speaking, to assert that animals have a "life force" that you can call the "soul" if you wish, but that life force is in no way of the same nature as the human being. It is not made in the image of God. This, of course, begs the question: what is "the image of God?" God doesn't have a body, so that can't have anything to do with it. There are some rational animals, so if animals aren't made in the image of God, then it becomes impossible to say that the image of God is the mind (which is also logical . . . the mind is part of the body and is dependant on the brain, so we go back to the body-problem). Therefore, we must conclude that the image of God has to do with the soul of man--that is, his pneuma or psyche or nephesh or ruach or whatever term you want to use. If both man and beast has this, but man's is in the image of God, then we know that man and beast must have a different type of soul. One is everlasting. The other isn't.

K, you ask how do I explain love and dreams and other such relational properties. I'm not sure that these should be attributed to the soul, anyway. I'd simply say these were a part of the mind's function, and animals most certainly have minds! Here's a more important question: explain the animal's lack of moral system. THAT comes from and through the soul, that is, from and through the soul made in the image of God.

I haven't checked out the article you posted yet . . . some of this may be dealt with there. For now, I have to finish this up so I can finish my sermon for tomorrow

2. I think animals can love. Self-sacrifice is a sign of love, and some animals have been known to have sacrificed themselves for their owners or risked their lives. So I think animals can love, some more willing and able than others, as much as their given soul allows them to. I don't think they can reflect upon their love, but I sense there is definitely some sort of bonding that can occur. Yet, I don't really see how animals, whether or not they can "love" in a "heavenly sense," really matters.

Again, this is going to depend on how you use the term "love." Animals are certainly attached to their owners. We can't doubt that. They want to see them. My dog proves that every day I come in. But, to get theological, let's look at the difference in a fallen man's love and Christian love. Christian love is not philo or eros love. It is agape love. Of course, a fallen person is capable of experiencing some sort of agape-love, but I have my severe doubts he can experience it anything like a saved person can, and even less than a resurrected person can. Let's not forget that we still have bodies, and our bodies are fleshly, and we still have hormones and memories and physical stimulation. Let's not forget that all human beings are selfish by nature. Love, though, is selfless, so it is something of a paradox to talk about anyone truly loving. I think we can experience a type of love as unsaved people, and to some degree we can experience a bit of the "true" love given from above as a saved person. Let me work through this a bit more:

Human beings were created with certain psychological needs. One of those needs is the need to be loved. No one is born saved. We are all born with a sinful (selfish) nature. Ultimately, only God can truly fill that need to be loved, but, as unregenerate people, we try to fill that need other ways: parents, spouses, recognition, etc. We learn as children certain methods of getting that "feeling" of being loved. So, all the "loving" we give or get is a very low, very base type of counterfeit love. It is all based on ourselves.

The Christian, on the other hand, can stop "walking in the flesh." He can stop trying to get his love needs met from anyone other than God. As a result, he has something the rest of the world doesn't have, and by having something, he can give it away.

Now, if the unsaved man doesn't have this type of love, how much less does an animal have it? If an unsaved man cannot GIVE this type of love, how much less can an animal give it?

My point here is that I'd argue that the "love" animals experience--or any emotion for that matter--is a self-centered love. It relates to more to biological (physical) or psychological (mental) functions than soulish (spiritual) functions. Therefore, I don't see the "love" of animals as evidence for the existence of an everlasting soul in them.

.3. Assumably I'm also not needed to complete heaven, but does that mean I can't be there?

You missed my point. I'm not saying that we are needed. I'm saying that we won't need anything else, and to say we need something else to be truly happy is to say that heaven isn't enough! Again, we can see this is true even with our loved ones. True or false: we will have people we love go to hell? Obviously, that is true. Is that going to make heaven any less heaven? Of course not, so it is silly to assume that not having our animals will make heaven any less heaven.

4. Whether an animals soul is "everlasting" ("eternal" generally implies beginningless as well as endless [yeah I'm a nitpick ]) is the only point remaining that is unsettled. Do animals survive death? I see no compelling reason against the idea, especially if they have a soul. However, there seems to be no clear biblical statements that favour animals being in heaven. I'd say it seems that we can't be sure either way.

This, of course, is my entire point. I see plenty of compelling reasons against it, some of which I've outlined in this too-long response. I simply see no reason to believe that they survive death. Again, if this is true, then ALL animals would have to survive death . . . not just our pets. This would even extend to bugs, since they are called by the same terminology in Genesis 9 and 1 as domesticated animals.

Side note: if there is no sea in the new creation, what about fish? As noted, if any animals survive death, all animals must survive death . . .

OK, I think this is long enough. There is more I could say, but I'll stop here.

God bless

[Kurieuo]

OK, let me rephrase. Animals certainly have a "soul" if you want to use the word, but you cannot argue that it is of the same type or nature of that of the human soul.

Saying a "soul" belongs to God, or belongs to earth sounds really strange, and I'm not sure what this means. Ahh... reading further I see "explain Eccl. 3:21. The animal's "soul" descends to the earth." Yes, but who is to say God could not raise their soul from the earth if we so desire it, on account of their relationship with us, on account of our relationship to Christ, who has direct relationship to the Father? Although different from our soul, I believe animals have a soul, and all that soul entails. And more importantly I think this is evident when one considers what a soul really is. So I think perhaps the issue to be discussed should perhaps be what is a "soul"? Additionally the mind-body problem should perhaps be explored including questions such as is our physical body all that is required for consciousness, emotions, will, etc? What purpose does a "soul" serve if everything about us is explainable by our physical body?

To touch on a few other points:<ul>
<li>I don't see my position as favouring animal salvation, as such implies sin is involved. Animals do not need saving from sin as we do, as from observation their soul doesn't appear to include the capacity to really understand moral evils.</li>
<li>Soul does not mean a creature possessing one is everlasting or "eternal" (at least my understanding does not).</li>
<li>Soul does not necessarily mean an understanding of right and wrong (again, at least my understanding of soul).</li>
</ul>
To understand further my own understanding of "soul", I would recommend reading over one of my own writings on dualism. I think the article I referenced above in my last post would also be a good read.

I think it serves us much better, scripturally and theologically speaking, to assert that animals have a "life force" that you can call the "soul" if you wish, but that life force is in no way of the same nature as the human being. It is not made in the image of God. This, of course, begs the question: what is "the image of God?" God doesn't have a body, so that can't have anything to do with it. There are some rational animals, so if animals aren't made in the image of God, then it becomes impossible to say that the image of God is the mind (which is also logical . . . the mind is part of the body and is dependant on the brain, so we go back to the body-problem). Therefore, we must conclude that the image of God has to do with the soul of man--that is, his pneuma or psyche or nephesh or ruach or whatever term you want to use. If both man and beast has this, but man's is in the image of God, then we know that man and beast must have a different type of soul. One is everlasting. The other isn't.

What is this "life force"? An additional component in addition to our physical body and soul? Is there a reason why "soul" refers to the "life force" in Scripture? God's image within us is perhaps the ability to choose and think over decisions... a creative component to our soul, and an understanding of good, rather than just an understanding of pleasure and pain (as animals seemingly have). Is the mind really a part of the body... fully explainable by our brain? Can mental states be fully explained by our physical body? An affirmative response I believe would make skeptics of a soul right in concluding there is no reason to assume we have a soul if everything about us is explained by the physical. Indeed, our identity is lost at death if our soul contains nothing of "us". Why could God not simply raise up two of us? We are lead to absurdities.

I really think that rather than discuss whether animals have a soul, we should really be discussing the question of what a "soul" is? This is where we appear to be differing.

You missed my point. I'm not saying that we are needed. I'm saying that we won't need anything else, and to say we need something else to be truly happy is to say that heaven isn't enough! Again, we can see this is true even with our loved ones. True or false: we will have people we love go to hell? Obviously, that is true. Is that going to make heaven any less heaven? Of course not, so it is silly to assume that not having our animals will make heaven any less heaven.

On a slight tangent, this also brings up the questioning of whether some are rewarded more than others in heaven. Wouldn't we be completely and truly joyful in the presence of God? What profit then can really lay behind a reward if one is already completely satisfied? I'm not sure what your take is on rewards in heaven, but I was just thinking about this recently. I'm still undecided myself, but the thought of some who are saved being rewarded more than others also saved, just seems absurd given both would be fully completed in every way just by being with God.

To end, I can see where you're coming from with your understanding of a soul. So perhaps some time in the near future we should have a discussion on the soul?

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

I always thought that the soul and love are interchangeable. Meaning that where there is love, then there is a soul and where there exists a soul, then there will be love. Claiming that animal love is self-centered is wrong, rather it is human love which is self centered. A dog or bird, when it sees its owner just wants to be with them, regardless if they might provide food or not. Animals will also sacrifice their life for their owner and frankly ask nothing but love back in return. Humans on the other hand are selfish and how many people love their enemies as Jesus said to do?. Also I ask you how many people would follow Jesus if he didn't promise eternal life?. If animals have the relationship with humans, which is the same as the relationship we should have with God, then should they not be with us in Heaven?. Regarding the idea of an eternal soul, Rich states that we don't know if hell is eternal or if it will be where the soul dies. Therefore i believe the human soul isn't eternal and that through Christ our souls obtains this gift of eternal life. Jesus makes a big deal about love and frankly animals have the love with humans that christians are constantly trying to obtain with God. Jac you said how bugs would have to go to heaven but I don't think Bugs show any signs of love and therefore don't have a soul. Maybe all animals that have a soul go to heaven because they clearly don't need salvation and it doesn't seem like a barrier to aquatic life just cause new creation won't have any water. Aquatic animals need water to live but in new creation we will be eternal so perhaps they float on a different substance who knows, just doesn't seem like an issue at all.

On another note I think we can't take every single word in the bible and butcher it with analysis until we come up with something. Its better to get the big picture and not take things word by word because in the end you will lose all meaning.

[Jac3510]

Broadly, I do think that a discussion of the soul would be in order. Until that comes, let me just say that I don't specifically disagree with any particular point. It's just a matter of perspective, as you noted at the end of your post, K.

I should, though, address this question:

Yes, but who is to say God could not raise their soul from the earth if we so desire it, on account of their relationship with us, on account of our relationship to Christ, who has direct relationship to the Father?

This just strikes me as a what-if. I don't suppose there is anything keeping us from resurrecting our pets in heaven . . . the Bible doesn't say that we will or won't be able to do that. I, obviously, can't comment. What I can comment on is the motivation behind that desired resurrection. I simply don't think we would need it in heaven. In fact, I don't like the implications . . . suppose you have the power to resurrect your dog Sparky, but not your best friend who is in hell. Would not your ability to help one but inability to help another necessitate some sense of loss? And does that not defy the idea of a perfect heaven? I would argue that resurrection is in the hands, based on this concept, of Jesus Christ alone. He will resurrect His children . . . again, I just see no reason to argue that there will be any resurrected animals in the new creation. I don't even see the need.

Also, just for the record:

On a slight tangent, this also brings up the questioning of whether some are rewarded more than others in heaven. Wouldn't we be completely and truly joyful in the presence of God? What profit then can really lay behind a reward if one is already completely satisfied?

I absolutely think there will be greater rewards in heaven. Jesus said that "the last shall be first and the first shall be last." Well, if nothing else, this tells us that everyone won't be "equal" so to speak. Further, we are told that our works will be judged, and some will be saved "as by fire."

What would these rewards be? Glory . . . not in the luminous sense, obviously, but personal appreciation from God. Some will be held in higher esteem than others in the New Creation. That doesn't mean any will be loved any more or any less. All will be completely fulfilled, but some will have an extra measure of glory, for lack of better terminology. That, anyway, is the most logical answer I can come to regarding exactly what these rewards would be in heaven considering both reason and Scripture.

In any case, I guess a discussion of the soul is necessary. I'll have to admit that some of my ideas are simply assumptions that have never been challenged, so I'll have to do some reading. In the meantime, my basic thoughts would be that the soul is not responsible for carnal love. It would be responsible for morality, free will, the choices we make, etc. Let's just be careful not to overemphasize its role in the process, though. Emotions are physical . . . that doesn't mean the truth behind them recognize (or resemble, or point to . . . however you want to think about it) are.

God bless

[Anonymous]

I think you could be right Jac, but so could K, have both of you considered that maybe the human soul isn't eternal, I never thought it was and that it becomes eternal with Christ. So perhaps all animals go to heaven? Didn't animals exist in Eden?

Anyhow i think we are all right and wrong, I've learned a lot however, Thanks everyone, I will be making a new topic regarding what Jesus said about marriage and I would like to hear what you guys make of my analysis.

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
As most of you already know, I am an Adventist.

As a part of Adventist belief (there are a few I find no biblical backing...but some are more "traditional" and not really part of "Adventism"...I digress) as most of you know, is the belief in soul sleep. This belief would then render the question of what happens to the soul of an animal as really no problem at all as it received the same "breath of life" received by Adam.

When a person dies...s/he is dead. (John 11:14) they know nothing. (Eccl. 9:5) Death is like sleep. One moment you fall asleep and the next thing you know, it's morning.

Anyway...without getting to involved into soul sleep, you understand there is no problem here. The human that dies and the dog that dies...both are dead and know nothing. (this in reference to Jac3510's point above about having to explain what happens to their soul.

I think Eccl. 3:19 is clear that both are the same. One has no advantage over the other...I brought this up on the first page...

Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?

Scripturally, you have to explain Eccl. 3:21. The animal's "soul" descends to the earth. Please note there that the word is NOT sheol.

The verse seems to be a question and not a statement.
.
.

[Jac3510]

As a part of Adventist belief (there are a few I find no biblical backing...but some are more "traditional" and not really part of "Adventism"...I digress) as most of you know, is the belief in soul sleep. This belief would then render the question of what happens to the soul of an animal as really no problem at all as it received the same "breath of life" received by Adam.

I thought I had commented on soul sleep . . . I guess I deleted it in one of my edits.

In any case, it really doesn't help your case either for or against it, Bav, because you still have to assert that animals have an everlasting soul that survives death. In order for animals to get to heaven, that MUST be true. But, as I noted before, and no one has yet commented on, this means that ALL animals have this everlasting soul, not just pets. This includes insects and other "crawling things." (See Gen. 9). Therefore, if ALL animals have an everlasting soul, then ALL animals survive death. If you reject the notion of animal sin, then, by definition, ALL animals are resurrected and get to go to Heaven. However, it seems to me that this is contradicted by Eccl. 3:21, besides the simple silliness the idea seems to have in it . . .

The verse seems to be a question and not a statement.

This is the problem, of course, with English translations. According to all of the commentaries I've read on this (many can be found at E-sword's website), this is NOT a statement expressing doubt, but something more like a rhetorical question. Solomon is saying that the fate of man is just like the fate of animals in that both die, but he is drawing a distinction between the type of soul that they have.

Again, note that they return to the dust, NOT to Sheol. Sheol is the place for souls. This would imply that they do NOT have a soul that survives death, whereas humans do. No where have I found in Scripture a reference to the human soul going down into the dust. The closest is the reference to Adam returning to the dust, but that, of course, is a reference to physical death--not his ultimate spiritual condition. You'll note that in that verse (3:19 there is no reference to the soul of Adam at all . . . only "you." That is, the collective person. He will die.

So, AGAIN, I simply see absolutely no foundation whatsoever for asserting that animals will be resurrected. Against this, I've cited more than a couple of reasons as to why I think Scripture argues against the position.

[BavarianWheels]

As a part of Adventist belief (there are a few I find no biblical backing...but some are more "traditional" and not really part of "Adventism"...I digress) as most of you know, is the belief in soul sleep. This belief would then render the question of what happens to the soul of an animal as really no problem at all as it received the same "breath of life" received by Adam.

I thought I had commented on soul sleep . . . I guess I deleted it in one of my edits.

In any case, it really doesn't help your case either for or against it, Bav, because you still have to assert that animals have an everlasting soul that survives death. In order for animals to get to heaven, that MUST be true. But, as I noted before, and no one has yet commented on, this means that ALL animals have this everlasting soul, not just pets. This includes insects and other "crawling things." (See Gen. 9). Therefore, if ALL animals have an everlasting soul, then ALL animals survive death. If you reject the notion of animal sin, then, by definition, ALL animals are resurrected and get to go to Heaven. However, it seems to me that this is contradicted by Eccl. 3:21, besides the simple silliness the idea seems to have in it . . .

Whew...I thought it did. If I hold (Biblically) that the soul, whether of man or beast, is not immortal, then this answers the question. Both man and beast at death are in the grave...dead...knowing nothing. If the "soul" (as you interpret it) of a man survives death and is truly in heaven, then logically Lazarus' "conscious soul" must've been pretty upset to be raised again to only die two human deaths...If it is true...Lazarus had to have been raised a perfected being having paid the penalty of his sin all by himself!!!

I hold that the simple math equation given us in Genesis stands true. Math is logic...and God is logic.

the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

This is simple:

Dust + Breath of life = living being (soul)

A soul never existed prior to this with God and so a "soul" is not immortal. God alone is immortal. (1 Titus 6: 15, 16)

If we look at this forumla for a human, we can see the simplicity.

Let's look at it like this. 1+2=3

Now...if we remove 2, 1+0=3 is wrong. Dust + Nothing does not = a soul.

So what returns to God when a death occurs? It is the Breath of life...that which gives life. There are no disembodied souls floating around heaven. All the dead are in their graves, minus the Breath of life. That will be returned to them at Christ's coming.

Do we honestly believe that God has a bank of souls awaiting bodies?

Why is it more Christians aren't committing suicide? If in fact at death we go "home" (heaven), why not end it at the moment of confessing Christ and receiving the HS? Seems logical...but we find no real confident takers to this theory.

The verse seems to be a question and not a statement.

This is the problem, of course, with English translations. According to all of the commentaries I've read on this (many can be found at E-sword's website), this is NOT a statement expressing doubt, but something more like a rhetorical question. Solomon is saying that the fate of man is just like the fate of animals in that both die, but he is drawing a distinction between the type of soul that they have.

Again, note that they return to the dust, NOT to Sheol. Sheol is the place for souls. This would imply that they do NOT have a soul that survives death, whereas humans do. No where have I found in Scripture a reference to the human soul going down into the dust. The closest is the reference to Adam returning to the dust, but that, of course, is a reference to physical death--not his ultimate spiritual condition. You'll note that in that verse (3:19 there is no reference to the soul of Adam at all . . . only "you." That is, the collective person. He will die.

This is an interesting theory to say the least. Are you now trying to tell me God was speaking to Adam's body and not to Adam? Is Adam the body? Is not Adam that which God made wholly?

So now we have to separate that which God spoke to the body and that which God spoke to the soul?

This theory certainly doesn't sit well with your interpretation of the Thief on the Cross...Christ's words were:

Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

Hmmm...no mention of the soul. To what was Christ referring to? The soul or the body? If it was the soul...he makes no mention of it!

How about any other time Christ speaks to a person or disciple?

And while they were eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me."

So who would betray Jesus...Judas' body or soul? If it was his body, his soul is innocent of betrayal.

One would think that interpretation would be consistent...no?

So, AGAIN, I simply see absolutely no foundation whatsoever for asserting that animals will be resurrected. Against this, I've cited more than a couple of reasons as to why I think Scripture argues against the position.

No foundation is seen because there are preconceived ideas that don't allow for this to be so.

Immortality belongs to God and God alone. (1 Timothy 6: 15, 16) The scriptures never utter the words, "the soul is immortal" yet millions and millions are deceived by this "immortality" within themselves.

This is also interesting. This is the NIV Bible Commentary's note on the Titus text:

God alone is "immortal" (cf. 1Co 15:53-54), i.e., not subject to death. The idea of immortality is not clearly expressed in the OT. But the NT teaches that God alone has inherent immortality; ours is derived from him. It is in the resurrection that the true believer receives an immortal body (1Co 15:53), so that the whole person, body and soul, becomes immortal. [my own emphasis]

This is hardly an "Adventist" only view...I'm not aware of any Adventists that were among those that put together the NIVBC.
.
.

Edit: I mistakenly put Titus thinking Timothy...sorry.

[RGeeB]

God formed man out of the dust and gave him the 'breath of life' - Then man became a living soul. Then what is a dead soul? - A soul without a physical body? So, the conclusion is that God creates soul at birth, Also, to be noted is that humans do not enter the world the same way anymore.

Also, souls in the Bible which need clarification of their existence - The ghost of Samuel at Endor and the souls under the altar of the martyrs in heaven (in revelation).

It appears that the created soul sleeps upon physical death, while some exceptional souls go to be in heaven temporarily (Stephen the martyr). Then, upon the waking of souls (the resurrection), both types get the glorified bodies to be with Christ in the millenium. Do we have the same glorified body in the new creation?