Bible vs. Tradition (1853)
Download: PDF — Bible vs. Tradition (1853)
ARCHIVE
Digitized for Microsoft Corporation by the Internet Archive in 2007. From University of California Libraries. May be used for non-commercial, personal, research or educational purposes, or any fair use. May not be indexed in a commercial service.
BIBLE VS. TRADITION:
IN WHICH THE
TRUE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE IS MANIFESTED,
THE
CORRUPTIONS OF THEOLOGIANS DETECTED,
AND THE
TRADITIONS OF MEN EXPOSED.
BY AARON ELLIS.
LIBRARY
OF THE
UNIVERSITY
REVISED AND MUCH ENLARGED
BY THOMAS READ.
SECOND EDITION.
New-York :
PUBLISHED AT THE OFFICE OF BIBLE EXAMINER,
No.140 FULTON-STREET.
Univ Calif Digitized by Microsoft 1853.
28240
BY THOMAS READ Our Title would seem to indicate that we have exposed every case where the "Traditions of men have made void the word of God."
But not so: this would require volumes. But by attacking error in its strongest hold, we do much to overturn its whole foundation. And we venture to affirm that he who shall embrace the truths treated of in this book, will be desirous of pursuing the investigation still further. In these pages we have more particularly confined ourselves to the scriptural elucidation of The Mortality of Man, The Unconsciousness of the Dead, and the Destruction of the Wicked; but we have likewise investigated the Nature of Man, The Penalty of the Law, The nature of the Sacrifice of Christ, Endless Life obtainable only through Christ, The Resurrection of the Dead, The nature of Hell, The Gospel of the Kingdom and its Location, and various other matters that are not generally understood in these days of fables. The Immortality of the Soul, and the necessary departure from the sense of Scripture which this belief requires, are the basis of all sectarianism and of all creeds. These abandoned, and the way is opened to the introduction of a purer Christianity, based solely upon the Word of the Living God. If we can convince men that God means what he says, and says what he means, we shall have opened the door into the Temple of Truth; and may a merciful God induce many to enter therein, that they may be sanctified thereby.
As we have been obliged to have recourse to quotations from the Hebrew and the Greek, and our work is intended for popular reading; we desire our readers to remember, that we shall use the radical word, in most cases, without those inflections intended only to point out a different grammatical construction, which would only embarrass the reader, and cause him to suppose that two words were different in their radical meaning, because slightly different in spelling. For the same reason we shall often use the singular for the plural. In the Greek words we follow the spelling, not the pronunciation of the original; merely changing the Greek letters into English, and making no distinction between the long and short e and o, and introducing an h for the Greek asperate (˙), as ἀδης, we spell hades. As there is considerable variety in the mode of spelling Hebrew words in English letters, we shall adopt the mode used by Professor Pick, in his Bible Student's Concordance, excepting in the use of such words, as the readers of Commentaries have become familiar with; such words we shall spell in the most common manner. As Ruah instead of ruach, or rooakh, spirit; Adam for Odom, man, or man of earth, properly, a man made of vegetable mould. "There was not an Adam to till the adamah;" Enoush, for mortal man; Anosheem, plural of Enoush, mortal men; chayah, instead of khayoh, living; chay, for life; chayim, for khayeem, lives; sheol, for sheoul, the state of death; nesme, for breath; nophash, naphash, nishmath, or neshomoh, all mean to breathe, expire, and we may sometimes comprehend them under the single term, nesme. The plural, will generally be expressed by eem, or outh, added to the singular, and not im, as in cherub, cherubim. In our quotations, we have often reversed the position of the noun, and the adjective expressing its quality, making the adjective precede the noun.
BIBLE VS. TRADITION.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION
I have read the whole translation and the margin of the Old Testament eight times, and the New Testament seven times; and have carefully examined every text on the soul, the state of the dead, and the end of the wicked. From this examination I am thoroughly convinced that the whole man becomes unconscious in death. "In that very day his thoughts perish." Ps. 146:4. "Neither have they any more a reward" until the resurrection, (Eccl. 9:5-6; Luke 14:14,) and "All the wicked will God destroy;" yea, He will exterminate both soul and body in Gehenna. There is not a single text in the Old Testament that will not readily harmonize with these views, though there are a few texts in the New Testament from which inferences have been too hastily drawn, that would seem, to a superficial observer, to oppose these views. But where is the doctrine that an incorrect inference from some obscure text does not appear to contradict? But patience and diligence in searching the scriptures, and a comparison of scripture with scripture, allowing the Bible to be its own dictionary, and its own interpreter, (for vain is the help of the learned in this matter,) and by carefully observing the context and the design of the writer, asking wisdom of Him "who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not," we may discover the truth, and if we are willing to receive the truth in the love of it, and are obedient thereunto, we have the promise that we "shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."
THE ORIGINAL SCRIPTURES ARE THE ONLY CORRECT STANDARD.
I have found much error in our common translation; the margin, which generally contains the better reading, contradicting the text. Adam Clarke says, page 17 of his Commentary, that "The marginal readings are essential to the integrity of the text;" "and they are of so much importance as to be in several instances preferable to the textual readings themselves," and they "are to be preferred to those in the text in the proportion of at least eight to ten." It is but too obvious that sectarian prejudice has too long prevented the eradication of many manifest errors, and that a correct translation, while it would completely harmonize with itself, would effectually undermine every creed in christendom.
It is plain from history, that our first transcribers and translators were Romish priests, who were interested in sustaining the profitable corruptions of the separate existence of the soul in purgatory, and the endless misery of the wicked. Every English translation made prior to the 18th century, has but too clearly copied from the Vulgate, and the translators were not able, as Macknight has fully proved, to translate the whole Bible from the original tongues, and the various editions only profess to be compared with the original. King James, who died a Papist, gave strict orders to the translators of our common version, not to deviate widely from the Bishop's Bible. The following directions of the King are copied from p. 16 of the preface to Clarke's Commentary:
"The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishop's Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.
" When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the analogy of faith.
"These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishop's Bible, viz.:—Tyndal's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch, Geneva."
Dr. Macknight says, that "Tyndale and Coverdale's translation, of which the rest are copies, was not made from the originals, but from the Vulgate Latin." It is evident that our authorized version was not a new translation from the Hebrew and Greek; but only a revision of certain editions of the Papal Vulgate.
To the common version, it is objected. 1. That it often differs from the Hebrew to follow the Septuagint, and the German translation of the Septuagint. 2. That the translators following the Latin Vulgate, have adopted many of the original words, without translating them, such as hallelujah, hosanna, mammon, anathema, &c. 3. That by keeping too close to the Hebrew and Greek idioms, they have rendered the version obscure. 4. That they were a little too complaisant to the king, in favoring his notions of predestination, election, witchcraft, familiar spirits, &c. These, it is probable, were likewise their own opinions. 5. That their translation is partial, speaking the language of, and giving authority to, one sect, (meaning, probably, the Episcopalians.) 6. That where the original words and phrases admitted of different translations, the worse translations, by plurality of voices, were put into the text, and the better were often thrown out, or put into the margin. 7. That notwithstanding all the pains taken in correcting this and the former editions of the English Bible, there still remain many passages mistranslated, either through negligence or want of knowledge; and to other passages, improper additions were made, which pervert the sense. See Preface to Macknight's translation of the Epistles, pages 21 to 25.
The high encomiums passed on the authorized version, may be due to the simplicity, elegance, pathos, and earnestness of its style; but certainly they do not belong to it for its fidelity to the original. On the immortality of the soul, the common version is not so faithful to the original as is the translation from the Latin Vulgate, sanctioned by Bishop Hughes. Drs. Clarke and Scott, who speak most highly of our translation, convict it of more errors than any other commentators. Be it always remembered, that all the transcribers of the manuscripts now in existence, and all the translators, previous to King James, with perhaps the only exceptions of Tyndal and Luther, were believers in the Popish doctrine of the immortality and separate conscious existence of the human soul.
There is only one manuscript, marked B., the Cod. Vaticanus, No. 1,209, in the library of the Vatican, at Rome, that dates back as early as the 4th, though probably transcribed in the 5th century. Consequently, all the ancient manuscripts were transcribed 200 years after the kindred doctrines of the immortality of the soul, invocation of dead saints, and purgatory, had become established in the Romish church, and the manuscripts being scarce, were completely under the control of the Popish clergy. The various readings of manuscripts, and differing opinions of commentators, prove them to have been fallible, and their creeds and traditions would naturally bias them in their interpretations of the original text. If therefore, we wish to obtain the truth, we are of necessity driven to the Hebrew and Greek originals, as the purest accessible fountains.
TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.
The following ascertained facts will show the necessity for a more thorough revision, or for an entirely new translation of the Scriptures, to supplant King James's version. The common version at present in use, was printed A.D. 1611. The only printed editions of the Greek Testament, which were in existence at that time were, Cardinal Ximenes, printed in A.D. 1514, Erasmus, 1516, Stephens, 1546, and Beza, 1563, and editions that were printed from these. Nearly the same may be said of the O. T. The authorized version was not made from any edition whatever, uniformly. It is a somewhat startling assertion, yet an unquestionable fact, that although we have by public authority, a Standard English Version of the Bible, yet there exists NO STANDARD HEBREW AND GREEK TEXT, for the Original of that version! What is called "The Received Text," is the text of Erasmus, who revised the Latin Vulgate and compared it with the Greek Text. This edition was corrected by Stephens, Beza, and Elzivir, LIBRAR
OF THE
UNIVERSI
and was published by Elzivir, at Leyden, in Holland, A.D. 1624—that is, NOT till thirteen years AFTER the publication of the Authorized Version! In the compilation of his Text, Erasmus was only able to consult eight recent manuscripts, which manuscripts are now considered as of comparatively slight authority. These manuscripts were those marked 1, 2, 3, 61, and 69; and the MSS. 4 and 7 were used in part of his text, and only one in Revelations, all of which were written later than the tenth century. The only manuscript from which he made up his Text for Revelations, had several chasms, and because the last leaf was wanting, he translated the Latin of the Vulgate into Greek! to supply these deficiencies. See March's Introduction, vol. ii. p. 846, and Penn's Annotations. Such is the origin of the Received Text. In these times the Reformation had not made sufficient progress to allow of the compilation of a correct text.
The Received Greek Text, though compiled from eight comparatively modern manuscripts, is unsupported by any one manuscript, ancient or modern, and from recent developments, is now acknowledged to be the very worst Greek Text extant, in a printed form. Since its publication, between 600 and 700 manuscripts have been discovered, some of which are very ancient, and very valuable. The best is marked B, the Cod. Vaticanus, of the fourth and fifth centuries. The second, marked A, the Cod. Alexandrinus, of the fifth century. The third, marked C,'Cod. Ephrem, about the fifth century, and the fourth, marked D, Cod. Cantabujiensis, of the seventh century. The Received Text has not received the benefits of these, nor of the editions and collations of Mill, Wetstein, Matthei, London Polyglott, Bengal, Griesbach, Bently, Birch, Knapp, Lachman, Scholz, and Hahn, for the N. T., nor of many of the most celebrated collaters of the O. T.
The first translation of the Bible into English, was made by Wickliffe, wholly from the Latin Vulgate, in A.D. 1380. This forms the basis of all the English editions. Tyndale published his first edition in 1525. Between this and the version of King James, in 1611, a period of only eighty-six years, four successive revisions were published by authority, as new stores of manuscripts were discovered; that is, one version was made on an average, every twenty-two years.
Although in the 241 years since King James's revision was made, a greater multitude of manuscripts, of greater value and authority than any before known, have been discovered and collated, yet no subsequent revision has been made by authority. Still many will fondly cling to the common version, with all its errors and corruptions, and thereby help to conceal the precious truths which the providence of God has brought to light, and placed within the reach of the learned; but which are shamefully withheld from the community.
We are aware that sectarianism would suffer considerably from a correct translation. But what of that? The gain to the cause of truth and righteousness would gloriously compensate. Indeed it may be set down as an axiom, that when the Scriptures are purposely corrupted to sustain any doctrine, that doctrine is presumptively false. No lover of truth tries to conceal her from himself. The "Bible Union" have convicted our translation of twenty thousand errors! some indeed of small consequence. But the Scriptures have been purposely corrupted, to sustain the doctrines of the "immortality of the soul," "the separate conscious existence of the spirit of man," "the eternal misery of the wicked," &c., as we shall make abundantly manifest in the forthcoming pages. Sometimes whole stories have been introduced, probably, in the opinion of the transcribers, to embellish. Such are,—The woman taken in adultery; The descent of the angel to trouble the waters of Bethesda; The bloody sweat of our Saviour, and the angel strengthening him; and The conversion of the dying thief upon the cross; all of which are supposed to be spurious. But, perhaps, the worst of all these corruptions, is the transposition and omission of clauses of the verses in Mat. chap. 27, to conceal the essential fact, that Christ was truly slain by his enemies. The reading of the best manuscripts is, 50 v.: "They offered him vinegar: but another going to him, pierced his side with a spear; and Jesus crying with a loud voice, expired." This passage of the piercing of Christ, prior to his death, was condemned, as late as the fourteenth century, by Popes Clement V., and his successor, John, because it conflicted with some of their notions respecting the Trinity. This shameful perversion is sufficient alone to condemn every edition in which it is contained.
Seemingly the best course now to be pursued, would be to adopt the principle of criticism recommended by Dr. Johnson, "For restoring the correct text of all ancient writings, whether profane or sacred." "Take the most ancient copy for the standard; to correct by authority, wherever it can be found; and to resort to conjecture, only where authority is absolutely and altogether wanting; observing always to hold a most rigid medium between presumption and timidity, by the former of which, we induce error upon truth, and by the latter, we consent to remain forever under the dominion of error, and in the power of chance, ignorance, or artifice."
This is the principle that has been adopted by Penn, in his revision of "The New Covenant." He has chosen the entire text of the most ancient surviving manuscript, and which is likewise the most free from those interlineations and alterations, that disfigure and render suspicious, other manuscripts: This one is the Codex Vaticanus, or celebrated Vatican MS. noted 1209 in the Vatican catalogue at Rome, and marked B. by Wetstein, making it the basis and substance of his revision.
This volume antedates Tischendorf's Codex MEANING OF THE ORIGINAL TERMS RENDERED SOUL AND SPIRIT.
Assisted by an honest and learned friend of the Independent Congregational Society, we have traced all the original terms translated soul, spirit, life, breath, hell, grave, and others, throughout the whole Bible, so that any person may readily perceive their Bible definitions.
The Hebrew word, nephesh, of the Old Testament, occurs about seven hundred times, and is rendered soul four hundred and seventy-one times; life and living, about one hundred and fifty times; and the same word is also rendered a man, a person, self, they, me, him, any one, breath, heart, mind, appetite, the body (dead or alive,) lust, creature, and even a beast; for it is twenty-eight times applied to beasts, and to every creeping thing.
The Greek word psuche, of the New Testament, corresponds with the word nephesh of the Old. It occurs one hundred and five times, and is rendered soul fifty-nine times, and life forty times.
The same word is also rendered mind, us, you, heart, heartily, and is twice applied to the beasts that perish. Psuchikos, an adjective derived from psuche, occurs six times, and is translated natural and sensual; it is properly translated animal in modern translations. 1 Cor. 15:44, will bear this translation. It is sown soma psuchikon, a soul-body, or an animal-body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is soma psuchikon, a soul-body, or animal-body, and there is a spiritual body. 45th ver. And so it is written, (Gen. 2.7,) The first man, Adam, was made into psuchen zosan, a living soul, the last Adam into a life-giving spirit. 46th ver. Howbeit the spiritual was not the first thing, but the psuchikon, animal, or soul-man, and afterwards the spiritual man. Thus we see that the adjective psuchikon always indicates mortality and corruption, and designates the animal nature, or soul nature of man, in contradistinction to the spiritual nature, or incorruptible nature, which the Christian will receive at the period of his resurrection from the dead.
The word ruah, in Hebrew, corresponds with pneuma in the Greek. These words are mostly rendered spirit; but are likewise rendered wind, air, breath, life, mind, disposition, &c., and are sometimes applied to the beasts. But it cannot be proved that either of the terms mean a ghost, or abstract conscious spirit, in either man or beast.
If any theologian, fearing that the craft is in danger, by which he obtains his wealth, should venture to deny the truth manifested in these pages, he must likewise deny the truth of the Bible. And to defeat this work by arguments drawn from the Bible, he would be required to produce as many pointed texts opposed to our views, as we have produced; and likewise to show that the thousands of texts here produced are to be interpreted as contrary to their plain and obvious import, as the dead body of man is contrary to the immortal soul or ghost of a man; for the words meth nephesh, dead soul, occur eleven times, and are four times translated dead body, although twice the word soul is put into the margin, (Numb. 19:11; 6:6,) but in the other places no intimation is given that the original words meth nephesh, dead souls, is improperly rendered. We give a few examples, Numb.
xix. 16. And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with the sword in the open field, or a meth nephesh, dead soul, or a bone of a nephesh, soul, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days. 2 Chron. 20:24. Behold, they were meth nephesh, dead souls, fallen to the earth. 25th ver. They found among them in abundance both riches, with the meth nephesh, dead souls, and precious jewels. Ps. 79:2. The meth nephesh, dead souls, of thy servants have they given to be meat unto the fowls of the heavens. See also, Ps. 110:6; Lev. 21:11; Numb. 6: 6; 9:10; 19:16; Hag. 2.13.
Thus, then, the fabled immortal souls have bones, and are slain with the sword. These plain texts must not be set aside by incorrect inferences drawn from a few texts which have been forced into the service of our opponents. Let us have scripture argument, for we shall treat human wisdom and invention as unworthy of notice. Although, in this discussion, we shall now and then be compelled to use plain and severe language to dishonest priests, who will neither acknowledge the truth, nor permit others to judge for themselves; yet we do not design to treat unkindly the honest and the liberal, and especially do we desire to avoid anything that has the slightest tendency to deter the sincere inquirers after truth.
In the forth-coming pages we shall unfold the truths of the Bible, relating to the nature and destiny of man, expose the pious frauds and forgeries of theologians, and manifest their numerous and glaring absurdities. And, First, we shall prove from the Bible, the corporeal being and mortality of the soul, and the nature of the spirit of man; which spirit, not being a living entity, is neither mortal nor immortal. And, Second, we shall prove that the hell of the Bible imports the utter extermination of the wicked cast therein, the deprivation of their life and being.
CHAPTER II.
PROOF FROM THE BIBLE OF THE CORPOREAL NATURE AND MORTALITY OF THE SOUL OF MAN, AND THE NATURE OF HIS SPIRIT.
"I will not contend forever, neither will I be always wroth : for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made." Isa. 57:16.
In tracing the word soul through the authorized version of the Bible, we find it occurs five hundred and thirty two times—four hundred and seventy-six times in the Old Testament, and fifty-six times in the New. God is represented as having a soul sixteen times. "Your new moons and appointed feasts my soul hateth." Isa. 1: 14; Lev. 26: 11, 30; Judges 10: 16: Job 23: 13; Ps. 11:5; Isa. 42:1; Jer. 5:9, 29; 6:8; 9:9; 12:7; 14; 19; 32:41; Zech. 11:8; and Heb. 10:38.
The word soul occurs five times in King James's version of the Old Testament, where nephesh is not the original term; for the word nedivothee, which the margin calls darling, is rendered soul in Job 30:15: it probably means munificence; and in 2 Saml. 13:39, and Ps. 16:2, the word soul is added by the translators, there being no corresponding word in the Hebrew Text.
The word neshomoh, or nesme, is once rendered soul, in Isa. 57:16, the text we have chosen for our motto. Taylor, in his Hebrew Concordance, says, that "neshomoh, or nesme, signifies the chameleon, a kind of lizard, which has its mouth always open, gaping for the air, on which it was once supposed to live. Nesme is rendered breath, spirit, and life."
Univ Calif - Digitized by Microsoft @ It is rendered breath and spirit in the following texts, and expresses the idea of natural life, whether in man or beast.
Gen. 2:7; 7:22; Deut. 20:16; Jos. 11:11, 14; 1 Kings 15:23; 17:17; Ps. 150:6; Isa. 2:22; 42:5.
But nesme cannot ever mean an abstract intelligence, or soul, or spirit; for it would be absurd to translate Josh. 11:11, There was not any (nephesh) soul, left to (nesme, to soul, instead of to) breathe. Here nesme undoubtedly means breathe, and is so rendered. And in every other place where it occurs, it either means breath, or a breather, or life sustained by means of breathing the breath of lives; that is, it signifies the chameleon or any other creature that lives by breathing. Our motto, then, should be understood thus, "lest the (ruah) spirit, or living creature, should fail before me, and the nesme, breather, that I have made." And so in Ps. 150:6; "Let every nesme, breather, praise the Lord." We conclude, therefore, that nesme nowhere means soul independently of our bodily organization.
Nephesh is rendered soul four hundred and fifty-four times; and psuche is so rendered fifty-seven times, making five hundred and eleven times that nephesh and psuche are rendered soul, when applied to man; and seventeen times in the original we find these terms applied to beasts. There are more than three hundred other places where the same terms are rendered life, person, or body, &c.; for, had they been rendered soul in all such places, then the reader must have perceived that the word soul never could mean a something that could live separately from the man himself, neither as an "immortal soul," or "deathless spirit." Parkhurst says, that "nephesh, as a noun, hath been supposed to signify the spiritual part of man, or what we commonly call his soul. I must confess," says he, "that I can find no passage where it hath undoubtedly this meaning."
We say the true meaning of soul is, a creature that lives by breathing; and as the essential endowment of such a creature is life, so life will stand often as a correct meaning of soul. When soul is applied to man, it may be translated life, soul, man, you, yourself, person, myself, thyself, &c., according to the text.
But some of our translators, more honest than the rest, have ventured, in a number of these places, to insert the true word, soul, in the margin; but none of them were honest enough to give us the word soul in every place where nephesh and psuche occur.
We shall endeavor to supply their deficiency.
In pursuing this subject we shall give the Bible answer to the following questions :—
Is the soul as great as theologians assume it to be?
What is a soul?
Is the soul immortal so that it cannot fail, or cease to exist as a living being before God?
What is a spirit?
Is the spirit immortal, so that it cannot cease to animate the man?
We shall show that every text in the Bible will harmonize with our answers; even the very texts from which a contrary inference has been erroneously drawn.
Our motto most certainly implies, that if God were to contend forever, or to be always wroth, that the spirits and souls of men would fail, die, or cease to exist as living beings before him. But waiving this, we proceed to answer the first question :
Is THE SOUL AS GREAT AS THEOLOGIANS ASSUME IT TO BE?
To this question we give an unqualified negative. For, 1st. The word soul when applied to man, does not mean a ghost or independent entity. Because man and beast would in this respect be on a level with God. For if a man's soul is a ghost, or spirit, because the soul of God is a ghost or spirit, as Luther Lee argues, then we say that a beast's soul is a ghost also. Now, allowing beasts to possess souls, as Mr. Lee admits, then upon this reasoning, surely all are up to a level with God, as all have souls: "For in his hand is the soul of every living creature, and the breath of all mankind." Job 12:10.
Again, if a man's soul is a ghost, because it goes by the same name as the soul of God, then, not only beasts and every creeping thing being souls, are ghosts; and then, too, the soul of sheol (the grave, or death,) is likewise a ghost, because it goes by the same name, Isa. 5:14, "Therefore sheol, (the state of death, or grave,) hath enlarged her nephesh, (soul or being,) and opened her mouth without measure."
The same reasoning would show that man himself, as existing in this life, is a ghost, for God is called a man, Exo. 15:3, "The Lord is a man of war." The same principle of false reasoning would convert a man's heart and eyes, as well as the heart and eyes of beasts into so many ghosts, for they are called by the same name as the eyes and heart, hands, and feet of God. And a tree must have sense and feeling, because it is said to have life as well as men. But what sort of theology is this? Cannot God possess an attribute that may be entirely spiritual, yet called by the same name as one in man that may be entirely corporeal? If he cannot, then how shall he be able, out of these stones, to raise up children unto Abraham? Matt. 3:9. Surely the souls of these children would be corporeal, if made out of stones.
Again, God's soul cannot be separated from himself; for if it can, then is he two Gods. "But to us there is but one God." 1 Cor. 8:6. Allow God's soul to be himself, as nephesh when applied to God, is twice translated. Jer. 51:14, "The Lord of hosts hath sworn by his nephesh," (by himself). Also in Amos 6:8; or him, as in Pro. 6:16. "These six things doth the Lord hate, yea, seven are an abomination of his (nephesh,) of him;" and we obtain the correct idea. As nephesh, the soul, comprehends the whole being of God, so does the same term comprehend the whole being of man; and never means a principle that can live independently of the man or beast, to both of which the term nephesh is indiscriminately applied; and is twenty-five times correctly translated "themselves." Let two examples suffice for the present. "He teareth (his nephesh) himself in his anger." Job 18:4. Did Job tear his immaterial and immortal ghost? "Backsliding Israel hath justified herself, (her nephesh) more than treacherous Judah." Jer. 3:11. Has a nation a ghost?
Nay, but every nation has a being. Here, then, the arguments of Luther Lee, and those of like ("precious?") faith, are overthrown by the translators themselves, though they were believers in the immortal-soul theory. It is vain to endeavor to array the soul, which is the man himself, with the attributes of independent conscious existence, spirituality, immateriality, and immortality, against the plainest declarations of God's Word.
2dly. The soul of man is no part of God. Because if every soul is a part of God, or of the essence of Deity, as some theologians contend, then God is not one and indivisible, but is a multitude, and these multiplied millions of parts sin and die. "For the soul that sinneth it shall die." And if so many parts of God sin, then these sinning parts are opposed to the other parts of him; and thus this absurd theory divides God against himself; "How then shall his kingdom stand?"
Again, as the soul is sometimes unhappy, it would follow upon this theory, that God is sometimes unhappy. And if the dogma of the endless misery of the wicked were true, then millions of parts of God would be tormented for ever; and, as some theologians represent, these souls of the wicked, as parts of God, will be eternally cursing the other parts of God!!! unless these wicked shall cease to become parts of God. But if so many parts of God can be annihilated, or converted into that which is not a part of God, then when God swore by himself—"As I live," the stability of his oath is overturned, because if one part of God may die, all may die!! Into such absurdities does this vain philosophy lead its professors.
Again, it is presumed that all will admit, that God, and all that constitutes his being, is uncreated, for he did not create himself, and there was none before him to create. If any part of God was created, then that part had a beginning, and is not eternal. But man, soul and spirit, was created, "as the Lord liveth that made us this soul." Jer. 38:16. "Lo, he that formeth the mountains and createth the spirit" (ruah). Am. 4:13. "The Lord which formeth the spirit (ruah) of man that is in him." Zech. 12:1. The last two examples, refer to the ruah, as the principle of life. As soul and spirit were created and had a beginning, therefore they are not parts of an uncreated and eternal God.
Again, the soul is not only created, but created of the dust; for the same man that is called a living soul was made of the dust of the ground: "And God said, dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Gen. 3:19. And Paul says, that the same living soul is of the earth, earthy. 1 Cor. 15:47. Words cannot make it more plain than do these texts, that the whole man is a soul, and is corporeal.
But should any contend that the name "man," does not include the soul, and insist that the soul was a something added to man, by the breath that was breathed into his nostrils, then man is only a body, and his body became a living soul. And this is true, for the creature, man, or body, or soul, that was made of the dust of the earth, and was lifeless, by the simple inspiration of the breath of lives, that is, of all lives, became a living soul. For the lifeless soul made of dust, became a living soul or creature. See Job's account of this matter, 10:8-12, how God made him or his soul.
"Thy hands have bound me, (or my soul,) and formed me altogether, joining me together on every side, thou didst also finish me.
Remember, I beseech thee, as clay didst thou form me; and wilt thou return me to dust?
Was it not as milk thou pourest me out, and as a cheese concreted me together?
With skin and flesh thou didst clothe me, and interwoven me with bones and sinews.
Life and sensation thou didst produce in me, and thy superintending care hath preserved my breath."—Fry.
Here the same "me," that is clothed with flesh and skin, and platted together with bones and sinews, and receives life and the conscious faculty from the Lord, is the same "me," that was moulded as the clay, and must be brought into dust again. Life and sensation are here made to depend upon the preservation of his breath, and to preserve his breath is equivalent to the preservation of his life and consciousness. So Dan. 5:13, "God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways;" and Paul, Acts 17:28, "In him we live, and move, and have our being." For "No man hath power to retain the spirit" of the breath of lives. "Man does not live by bread alone;" and, if "God gather unto himself his spirit and his breath," then "man shall turn again unto dust;" and "his thoughts perish." Job 34:14, 15; and Psal. 146:4. So in Job 30:23. "For I know that thou wilt bring me to death, and to the house appointed for all the living." Job says that "me," (himself,) should be brought to the sepulchre. If the soul does not enter there, then the soul does not live, or the house is not appointed for all the living.
In the first version of the Scriptures, the Syriac, the sepulchre is called the "home of the dead." Theologians tell us that it is the soul that seeks God, and that follows after righteousness. Very well. Read then Isa. 51:1, 2. "Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord; look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you." The holiest part of the Christian then proceeds from the earth, and is born of earthly parents. Abraham sets his seal to this truth, for he says, Gen. 18:27, "I am but dust and ashes." If Abraham was an immortal soul, with the exception of a thin, outside shell—the body, how could he say that he was but dust and ashes; nay, he could not have said that he was an immortal ghost, while any part of him was dust. Ps. 78:39, (God) "remembered that they were but flesh; a wind that passeth away." But if a part of man was a ghost or spirit, would not God have remembered that they were but part flesh, and that the principal part of them was an immortal ghost? But all of man and of beast are of the dust, and all shall alike turn to dust again. The very highest nature that man has, irrespective of Christ and the resurrection, is flesh, an evanescent wind.
Again, theologians tell us, that the soul is the essential part of man. We say, it is the man himself. They say, it was created separately from the body. If so, why did not Moses, in recording the history of the creation of man, give us some account of this matter? And why did he exhaust his description, by giving us an account of the formation of the body? and why call this body the man, even before the living principle, which they term the great "immortal soul," was imparted? Why use a phraseology that precludes the idea that any such soul was given? Will our current teachers please inform us?
Again: If souls are a part of God, or if they are im- material spirits, then they are not begotten by their fathers, but are separately originated. But yet the Bible fourteen times expressly declares, that "souls came out of the loins of their fathers," and "that they were born of their fathers in the land;" not in heaven. Gen. 12:5, "And Abraham took Sarah his wife, and Lot, his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran, and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan."
That "souls were born in their father's house." Exodus 12:19, and Numb. 15:30. In Gen. 46:18, "These are sons of Zilpah, and these she bare unto Jacob, even sixteen souls." Verse 26, "All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins." Exo. 1:5, "All the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob, were seventy souls." See also, Gen. 46:15, 22, 25, 27- Now I ask, did Abraham, Lot, and Jacob, beget these souls? or, if those seventy "immortal souls" came down from heaven, how came they in Jacob's loins? Say, rather, that Adam was created with a pro-creative faculty, and as God caused the "earth to bring forth grass and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit whose seed was in itself, after his kind," so man was made with the power to produce his like. Could these seventy souls that came out of the loins of mortal Jacob, be immortal ghosts? For how can flesh beget spirit? For "that which is born of the flesh is flesh," and not spirit, therefore to possess that spiritual, incorruptible, immortal nature, the peculiar privilege of the righteous; "Ye must be born again," of the Spirit, and by a resurrection from the dead, or ye cannot inherit an everlasting kingdom.
Again : the soul is not a spirit; for soul and spirit are separate things. 1 Thes. 5:23, "I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body, (or your whole person,) be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." This cannot mean that man has two ghosts. Perhaps it may mean your whole disposition, life, and person, the whole compound nature of man, for spirit sometimes means person. Heb. 4:12, "The Word of God, as a sharp two-edged sword, dividing asunder soul and spirit;" separating the soul-like or animal nature of man, from his higher intellectual and moral qualities. See also Isa. 57:16; Luke 1:46, 47. 1 Cor. 6:20, "Glorify God in your body." All the MSS. close the paragraph here. The clause, "and in your spirits which are his," is undoubtedly spurious. And 1 Thes. 5:23, may also have been a little amended by some officious copyist.
The word psuchikos, an adjective, derived from psuche, a soul, occurs six times. Strictly rendered, it would be soulical, or soul-like, or animal; and is kindred to what Paul designates the flesh, or animal nature of man, in opposition to the spiritual, or higher moral and intellectual nature; as in Rom. 8:5, "Now they who live according to the flesh, mind the things of the flesh, and they who live according to the spirit, attend to the things of the spirit. For the thinking of the flesh is (or produces) death, and the thinking of the spirit is (or produces) life and peace." Here are two thinking principles contrasted with each other—the animal or soul-like principle, called flesh, producing, if allowed to predominate, death; and the reasonable, intellectual, and moral principle, called spirit, producing, if controlling, life and peace.
In 1 Cor. 2:14, and 15:44, 46, psuchikos, soul-like, soulical, or animal, is translated natural; but in Jude 19, and in James 3:15, it is rendered sensual. In all these places the soulical nature is put in direct and strong opposition to the spiritual nature. And the spiritual nature, be it remembered, does not naturally belong to man, but is superinduced as a subsequent and peculiar development in the cases of those who have submitted themselves to Christ. Of those under the control of the soulical nature, Jude, verse 19, says, "These be they who separate themselves (psuchikos), soulical men, or animal men, not having the Spirit." And James 3:15, "This is not the wisdom which cometh from above, but is earthly, (psuchikos,) soulical, or animal, devilish." Paul says of such, 1 Cor. 2:14, "Now, (psuchikos,) a soulical, or animal man, receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are (pneumatikos) spiritually examined;" that is, they are intellectually and morally examined. So much for the soul-ghost invention! Theologians tell us that the soul is a spirit or ghost, that receives and transacts all spiritual matters. Yet Christ says, "If a man hate not his own (psuche,) soul, he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26. All agreeing with Paul's well-known expression, "To be carnally-minded is death."
The mere possession of a soul nature, then, so far from implying superiority, is conspicuously marked as the lowest animal nature, incapacitating those who possess nothing more, from receiving or appreciating the higher intellectual and moral communications and endowments.
Therefore, says Paul, 1 Cor.3:1, "Now I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual (men), but as to fleshly men, even as to babes in Christ." As unto men governed by your soulical or animal natures, and not by your intellectual and moral. Nearly the whole of Paul's reasoning, through 1 Cor.15, is to show that the soul nature which we now possess, even with the accompaniments of spiritual graces, altogether unfits us for inheriting an everlasting kingdom, and is likewise emphatically incompatible with the separate existence of either soul or spirit; for he affirms, 16 and 18, "If the dead are not raised . . . Certainly also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished." That their hope has ended with the life they have lost. They are utterly blotted out of existence for the present and all future time; for, he argues, "If there be no resurrection from the dead," the dead in Christ live not now, nor will they live in the future. If there be no resurrection, there is no future life, even for Christians, after this. He proceeds strongly to contrast the soulical nature of the first Adam and his descendants, with the spiritual nature which the second Adam possesses, subsequent to his resurrection, and the spiritual nature which his disciples will possess, who will live again through him, subsequent to their resurrection.
The whole nature derived from the first Adam, he affirms to be corruptible, mortal, (psuchikos,) soulical, or animal and earthy. But the nature to be possessed afterwards, by the righteous, at the resurrection, he contrasts with this, and affirms of that nature, that it will be incorruptible, immortal, (pneumatikon,) spirit-like, or spiritual and heavenly.
It seems there were some in Paul's days, who denied the resurrection of the dead, the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, which rendered the sufferings of Christ, his death and resurrection of no avail, and the sufferings of his followers were likewise useless; their faith was vain, their hope was vain. They had predicated all upon a resurrection from the dead, and the rewards and the glory to be then revealed, and these doubters denied that it would ever take place. But, alas! this same doctrine is practically and absolutely denied, by all who believe in the immortality of the soul!
For if the soul, or essential man, does not die, as modern theology affirms, how can it be raised again to life? Paul's language to one of these would be, 36th ver. "Foolish man! The seed which thou sowest, is not re-enlivened, unless it die." We will paraphrase his words from the 44th verse.
The soma psuchikon, soulical body, or present animal, or soul nature of the Christian is consigned to the grave; but he will be raised again, soma pneumatikon, a spiritual body, a real, tangible, yet heavenly nature, of which Jesus Christ is the first-fruits, being the first who has manifested this life, and incorruptibility promised in the Gospel, by rising again from the dead, with a nature that cannot now be subject to corruption. This is the pattern after which we shall be fashioned. Thus hath Christ made death ineffectual to his followers, and hath illustrated that life and incorruptibility that he requires us to seek for. (2 Tim. 1:10; Rom. 2:7.) For there is not only a soma psuchikon, a soulical nature, which we at present possess, but there will likewise be a soma pneumatikon, a spiritual nature, with which Christians shall be invested at the resurrection. And so also it is written in Genesis 2:7, The first man Adam was only made a psuchen zosan, a living animal, or a living soul, or a living creature, for the terms are synonimous, and therefore had nothing about him but what was mortal and corruptible; but the second Adam was made into a pneuma zoopoioun, a life-giving spirit, who will again impart life unto his followers, by a resurrection from the dead, connected with an incorruptible or spiritual nature, not subject to death. 46th verse. But we do not possess this pneumatikon, spiritual nature, "AT FIRST," or in this present state, but only that which is psuchikon, soulical, or animal, and "AFTERWARDS," when Christians are raised from the dead, we shall put on for the first time, our pneumatikon, spiritual nature. The first man was wholly made of the dust of the earth, and must, therefore, be of an earthly nature, unfitted for eternal life, and hence the necessity for the tree of lives being placed within his reach, that if he maintained his innocence, he might have eaten of it and lived for ever; but the second man, the pattern of the nature we Christians are to possess, is the Lord from heaven. 48th verse. As the first man from whom we have descended, was made of dust, so we possess no other nature from the first Adam, but an earthly nature, and those that do not believe and obey Christ, will possess no other nature, and even if they should be raised from the dead, not having the germ of the spirit of Christ, they would not possess this spiritual or incorruptible nature, and would therefore naturally die again, without any positive infliction of the judgments of God; as did the widow's son, the nobleman's daughter, and Lazarus, who were only restored to Adamic, or mortal life.
But as the second Adam, or the second great head of all who will continue to live, was from heaven, we Christians, who possess his likeness, a heavenly, incorruptible, and therefore an immortal nature at the resurrection, when Christ, who is our life, shall appear. Verse 49. And, as Christians have borne the likeness of the earthly and mortal Adam, so, at the resurrection, shall Christians bear the lilies of the heavenly man, Christ Jesus. Verse 53. For this corruptible, decaying nature, which we now possess, and which necessarily unfits us for an everlasting inheritance, must put on a something we do not at present possess; that is, an incorruptible body—we must put on immortality. Verse 54. When this mortal nature shall have put on immortality, then, and not till then, will death be swallowed up in victory. The dominion of Death over the whole being of the righteous is complete; they sleep in unconsciousness till the resurrection. But the "gates of hades," the power of death and the grave, will not continue to prevail over the church. For when Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then also will his followers appear with him in glory, and the dominion of death over the righteous will then cease forever. See also ver. 17, 18, 19, 29, 30, and 32.
We have merely amplified the arguments of the Apostle. The immortal nature to be derived from Christ, is strongly contrasted with the mortal nature derived from Adam. But if all men possessed this immortal nature through natural birth, then there is no contrast, and the Apostle's strong argument is converted into nonsense! The Apostle's argument is plain enough as it stands, without our paraphrase, to convince all candid persons that man, in his present state, is not immortal; nay, that there is no principle of immortality, or perpetual conscious existence naturally, inherent in him.
Can a soul that is now immortal put on, for the first time, at a future period, immortality? Paul says, 1 Tim. 6:16, "God only hath immortality," and, consequently, no other being but God is naturally immortal.
The word apsuchos, without a soul, that is something not intended to live by breathing, occurs once, in 1 Cor. 14:7, translated without life, "things without life, giving sound." The word soul is likewise applied thirty times to beasts, creeping things, and fish.
We therefore conclude, that the soul and spirit are not identical, but two things—as much so as body and breath are two things; and that the soul of man is not what modern philosophy assumes it to be, but is the man himself, a mere mortal creature.
THE SOUL IS NOT A LIVING THING INDEPENDENTLY OF THE BODY.
We now quote a few Scriptures to prove that the man, or his body, actuates the soul, which could never occur if the soul were an independent ghost, and the body only one of many modes by which the soul could manifest life. Deut. 4:9, "Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently. Deut. 24:15, "For he is poor, and lifteth his (nephesh) soul unto it." Jer. 44:14, "That they should return into the land of Judah, to which they lift up their (nephesh) soul." Ez. 24:25, "The desire of their eyes, the lifting up of their (nephesh) soul." Hosea,4:8, "They lift up their (nephesh) soul to their iniquity." In these places, nephesh is rendered heart, desire, or mind. It is the man that lifts up or controls the nephesh, or soul, and the soul does not control the man. In Ps. 24:4; 25:1; 86:4; 143:8, David lifts up his soul to God. But he presented not his ghost, but himself, to God, to be protected and blessed. In Daniel 5:23, "But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven." Ezek. 31:10, "Because thou hast lifted up thyself in height." Here, and in many other places, thyself is used, instead of thy soul. Then soul and self mean the same thing. When Ahithophel and Judas hung themselves, we suspect something more than ghosts were hung.
Luke 12:4, "Be not afraid of them that kill the body." Then the body itself lives. And thus we read of living, dead, or mortal bodies. How can the body be said to die, if it never lives? To affirm that the soul is the essential man, and never dies, and yet to use the phrase a dead man, is a glaring absurdity. Deceived man argues that the soul, considered as an independent, ever living thing, is the life of the flesh; but God has eight times said, the "blood" is the life of the flesh; and once, that a "sound heart" is the life of the flesh. Prov. 14:30.
Life, in the abstract, cannot be called the soul, or a ghost. Let the word life be substituted for soul in the following texts—Job 3:20, Wherefore is light given to him that is in misery, and soul unto the bitter in soul. Ch. 7:15, My soul chooseth strangling, and death rather than my soul. Ps. 66:9, Which holdeth our soul in soul. Prov. 3:22, So shall they be soul unto thy soul. Jer. 52:33, He did continually eat bread before him all the days of his soul. Those who choose to follow this further may try the following texts—Job 10:1; 24:22; Ps. 66:9; 1sa. 38:12; Lam. 3:53; Rom. 11:15; 1 John 5:12; Gen. 23:1; Judges 16:30: Luke 21:31: John 6:53; Ps. 21:4.
But the terms indicating life, such as alive, living, liveth, &c., occur 950 times; and yet forty places cannot be found among them, where it would not be manifestly absurd to call them either soul or ghost. The word heart occurs 970 times, which sometimes indicate life.
THE SOUL IS NOT THE MIND.
There are but few places where it would not be absurd to call the mind the soul, and more absurd to call it a ghost. Deut. 30:1, The blessing and the curse which I have set before thee, thou shalt call them to soul. Gen. 23:8, If it be your soul that I should bury my dead out of my sight. Isa. 46:8, Bring it again to soul, O ye transgressors. Ps. 31:12, I am forgotten as a dead man out of soul. Jer. 51:50, Let Jerusalem come into your soul. Acts 28:6, They changed their souls, and said that he was a god. Col. 2:18, Vainly puffed up by his fleshy soul. Tit. 3:1, Put them in soul to be subject to magistrates.
James 1:8, A double souled man is unstable in all his ways. Ch.4:8,Purify your hearts, ye double souled.
These are selected from seventy places where it would be absurd to call the mind, the soul. If a few places occur where soul and mind can be used interchangably, so mind and person may be so used; but if mind and soul were synonymous expressions, they could with propriety be always interchanged.
Now substitute the word mind for soul.
Gen. 2:7, And man became a living mind. 1 Sam. 24:11, I have not sinned against thee, yet thou huntest my mind to take it. Ch. 25:29, Yet a man is risen to pursue thee, and to seek thy mind; but the mind of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of life; but the mind of thine enemies shall be slung out. Ps. 40:14, Let them be ashamed and confounded together, that seek after my mind to destroy it. Ps. 17:13, Deliver my mind from the wicked, which are thy sword. Ps. 22:20, Deliver my mind from the sword, my mind from the hand of the dog. Ps. 54:3, Oppressors seek after my mind. Josh. 11:11, He took Hazor, and smote all the minds that were therein, with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them, there was not any minds left to breathe. Isa. 38:17, Thou hast in love to my mind, delivered it from the pit of corruption. Isa. 53:10, When thou shalt make his mind an offering for sin. 12 v., Because he hath poured out his mind unto death. Jer. 2:34, In thy skirts is found the blood of the minds of the poor innocents. Rev. 16:3, And every living mind died in the sea.
But enough. There are more than 300 places where it would be absurd to call the soul the mind. And if a few places can be found where the words are interchangeable, so the eyes may be used to signify the mind or person, in 190 cases. Gen. 6:8, But Noah found grace in the (eyes) mind of the Lord. Job 22:29, He shall save him that hath low eyes, or the humble person. Prov. 26:5, Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes, or mind. Deut. 7:16, Thy eye or mind shall have no pity on them. Ch. 28:26, Her eye, or mind shall be evil towards the husband of her bosom.
a figure for the mind, nor is the mind the soul, nor the soul the mind, because in a figure the one may be sometimes used for the other.
The neck is used for the mind, or heart, or person. Exo. 33:5, Ye are a stiff-necked, or stiff-minded people. Deut. 31:27, I know . . . thy stiff-neck, or mind. Prov. 29: 1, He that being often reproved, hardeneth his neck, mind, heart, or himself, shall suddenly be destroyed. Twenty times the neck is used for the mind. The head can ten times be called the mind. Psa. 83:2, They that hate thee have lifted up the head, mind, or person.
The face is thirty-eight times used for the mind. Prov. 21:29, A wicked man hardeneth his face, or mind, or heart, or himself. Ez. 14:6, Turn away your faces from all your abominations; that is, your minds, or selves.
The hands are forty-eight times used for the mind or person. Jud. 7:11, Thou shalt hear what they say, and afterwards shall thy hand be strengthened.
The ear can be seventeen times called the mind or person : the mouth six times : the tongue five times : and the feet four times. There are 320 passages of Scripture where the members of the man can consistently be used for the man himself; and therefore it ought not to be thought surprising that the soul, though it means the man, may sometimes be called the mind.
In seventy-six places flesh can be called the soul, or a ghost, with as much propriety as the mind. Gen. 6:12, "For all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." Ecc. 5:6, "Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin." Isa. 49:26, "All flesh shall know that I am thy Saviour." Rom. 12:1, "Present your bodies (that is, yourselves) a living sacrifice." Gal. 2:16, "For by the works of the law shall no flesh (or souls) be justified." Eph. 5:28, "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies," (or souls). 1 Sam. 18:1, "For Jonathan loved David as his own soul." Mat. 19:19, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." These last places make the body, the soul, and self, one thing.
The word heart occurs 970 times in the Bible; yet in four places, only is the fleshly organ meant; and in almost all the other places, 955, it truly means the mind. Now it would be just as logical to call the heart an independent living thing, because the functions of mind and action are ascribed to it, and miscall it the "immortal heart," "the deathless heart" as to call the soul, or mind, or spirit, the "immortal soul," the "immortal mind," "the deathless spirit," because sometimes, in accordance with the Hebrew idiom, life and action are ascribed to them.
CHAPTER III.
WHAT IS A SOUL?
A soul, in Scripture phraseology, means an animal, or creature, or life; a breathing creature, originally designed to live by breathing; whether such creature be living or dead.
FIRST:—Nephesh and psuche, the Hebrew and Greek words for soul, are translated both life and creature when applied to beasts. Moses uses nephesh, chay, chayiah, and chayim, to express animal life and creature; and these words are generally translated soul, life, living, lives, and creature. The very first time that the word nephesh, or soul, occurs, is in Gen. 1:20; it reads, literally, "And the Elohim said, the waters shall produce abundantly the creeping living soul," (or creature,—sheretz chayiah nephesh.) In the 21st verse, we find, "kal nephesh chayiah eramshat," every living soul or creature creeping. The 24th verse reads, "Let the earth bring forth the (nephesh chayiah,) living soul, or living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping (chay) creature, and beast of the earth." In the 25th verse, "And every chay," every creature. Again, in the 30th verse, "And to every thing creeping upon the earth, which (has) in it a living soul; (ulekel rumesh ol earetz asher bu nephesh chayiah." In Gen. 2:19, these living souls are brought before Adam, "and whatsoever he named, every living soul, (nephesh chayiah) that was the name of it."
We now appeal to the candid :—If nephesh chayiah, in the quotations we have given, must necessarily mean a living creature ; and if, in the very first place of its occurrence, Moses applies it to the very lowest order of animal existence, to the sheretz, which must mean some reptile produced by the waters, having a creeping motion; and, as appears from Lev.
…