Sorry... I 'overposted' about 7 posts there :oops: ..... but I still do not see the "lie". :cry:
Chrissie
Prove "SOUL". Prove "SPIRIT". If you can with Scripture, I am the the liar. Until then, "soul" and "spirit" are the liar and OF the church.
I never said that you were wrong; I said that I didn't see the problem.
If nephesh mean a "breathing creature" and I understand that the word SOUL means, in essence, a "breathing creature"... what do I have to PROVE?
I can certainly prove that those are the words that are found in the english translation of the scriptures..... and in my opinion the meaning of the words are very similar in meaning/definition, even if not the 'best' translation.
How does changing "soul" to "breathing creature" change the meaning? What shall we use for "spirit"? Wind? Breath?
These are WORDS.
Do I need to go through my scriptures and cross out all the words "soul" and write in "breathing creature" so that my translation will be 'more accurate'? Even though I know/understand that the word SOUL refers to a BREATHING CREATURE?
If the beast is the flesh and the flesh is the carnal mind WHY is not the opposite simply non-carnal or ethereal? Why must one abide in Egypt.
We are talking about WORDS?? How is using the words that are actually found in the scriptures (as translated) abiding in Egypt??
For instance, if I used the word "trinity" as part of my vocabulary or in my definitions/explanations about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, even though that word is nowhere found in the scriptures, then I could see a much more serious problem.... but we are talking about words that are actually found in the scriptures - as english translations of Hebrew (or Greek) words.
We can look at the Hebrew/Greek words in scriptures and make determinations about what the words mean, how they are used, etc, without physically changing them or re-writing the scriptures that we have.
Is that not part of studying to show yourself approved?
If we start changing the 'terminology' that is known and understood by most Christians who are already familiar with the scriptures, what good does that do? then you simply distance yourself even further and much more time and effort is involved in 'explaining' yourself and your beliefs to others.
If you submit to "soul" and "spirit" you are a promoter of all the paganism that the blind church too supports. Where am I wrong?
I don't see how I am submitting to anything by using the words that are provided, as they are, in the scriptures..... there are many words that could be translated "better". But I don't see that as a requirement to go out and rewrite the scriptures to correct every erroneous word/translation. What and who would that benefit? Why isn't it enough to know and understand where the words come from and what they mean as a part of your study?
I can get "to the bottom of it" by studying the words that are there - to learn from where they are derived and what they mean; how they are used, etc, without actually 'changing' them.
They are the words that most are FAMILIAR with and I just don't see how changing my terminolgy from something that is familiar to something that is unfamiliar (but has the same or very similar meaning) in beneficial. Then I would have to go about changing the terminolgy of everyone else who reads and studies the scriptures if I want them to understand what I am saying or referring to.
I could see if the translated word was completely erroneous or just plain wrong.... like translating 'lâbân lâbên' (white) as "black" or "house" or something.... just not seeing the problem with words like "soul" and "spirit". Seems to me that there are bigger fish to fry??
Chrissie