According to Clement of Alexandria, an early church father, Jesus was born on November 17, 3 B.C.
Theories concerning the exact month when Jesus was born have been and still are a topic of scholarly debate.
Here are some theories:
Dr. Colin Nicholl believes that Jesus was born on October 20, 6 B.C.,, based on the idea that the star that led the magi to Bethlehem was a comet.
Dr. Michael Heiser believes that Jesus was born on September 11, 3 B.C., based on astronomical software and his calculation of King Herod's death in 1 B.C.
"The month of Jesus' birth has...been a point of debate, with one theory suggesting that the Star of Bethlehem may have been Venus and Jupiter coming together to form a bright light in the sky, a rare event that occured in June of 2 B.C. Another possibility is a similar conjunction between Saturn and Jupiter, which occurred in October of 7 B.C." Live Science
"The Qur'an, which is the source of Islamic tradition tells the story of Mary and the birth of Jesus (known in Islam as Messenger of God) most prominently in Chapter 19. According to verse 19:25, during labor Mary was told to shake a palm tree so that ripe dates would fall off. This description, combined with the ripening period of dates places the birth of Jesus somewhere between June and October, with later times being more likely due to dates falling off easily. In the hadith compilation Tuhaf al-Uqul, the sixth imam, Jafar As Sadiq says the following when approached about the birth of Jesus during Christmas: "They have lied. Rather, it was in the middle of June. The day and night become even [equal] in the middle of March". This statement of his does not literally mean it was on 15 June but it is in reference to a day near the spring equinox." Wikipedia
Google's AI gives this response: "The exact month of Jesus' birth is unknown, but there are several theories:
September
One calculation suggests that Jesus was born in Tishri, which is around mid to late September. This calculation is based on the conception of John the Baptist in Sivan (June), and then counting forward nine months for Mary's pregnancy.
December 25
Some historians believe that Jesus was born on December 25 because they thought that righteous men died on their birthdates. However, the Bible does not mention December 25 as the date of Jesus' birth.
Between 6 B.C. and 4 B.C.
Some scholars believe that Jesus was born between these years based on the biblical story of King Herod the Great.
Other theories include:
November 18, based on the oldest written records
Some other month, as no one knows for sure
The celebration of Christmas on December 25 is not based on the historical date of Jesus' birth.
Some say that Jesus' birth took place between June and October based on the description in the Bible of Mary shaking a palm tree to get ripe dates during labor.
Some believe that Jesus was born during the Feast of Tabernacles, which took place from October 6–13 in 4 BC."
"Ian Paul is a writer who has discussed the possibility that Jesus was born in September:
When was Jesus born?
According to one calculation, Jesus was born in September, around the middle of the month. This calculation is based on the idea that John was conceived around the beginning of June, and then adding the six months between John and Jesus, and the nine months of Mary's gestation.
Why September?
If Jesus was born in September, it would have been close to the time of Succoth, a major pilgrim feast that commemorates the time Israel lived in tents in the wilderness. It would also have been plausible for shepherds to be outdoors in September, as the weather is usually mild at that time of year." Google's AI
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) does not have an official position on the exact date of Jesus' birth. However, many Mormons have long believed that Jesus was born on April 6, 1 BC, based on a 1915 book by Elder James E. Talmage. Talmage's book, Jesus the Christ, interpreted a verse in the Doctrine and Covenants as a revelation of Jesus' birth date.
Today in history: On this day (October 27) in 312, Emperor Constantine claimed to have had a vision of a cross in the sky and heard the words "in this sign, you will conquer". This vision is said to have led to Constantine's conversion to Christianity and his victory at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge on October 28, 312.
Just how Christian was Constantine?
History is full of myths, tales in where we make mere men as gods and heroes. Molehills of moments blown into mountains of false memories. How many of us truly know that George Washington did not really cut down the cherry tree, or that Helen Keller was a communist, that the first Thanksgiving with the pilgrims didn't happen as told, that Martin Luther was an anti-Semite and John Calvin a murderer? We paint our heroes with the broad stroke of perfection, and the same goes for Constantine the Great, the first "Christian" Emperor. Some books will have you believe that Constantine was used by God, and that he was a "Saint."
Constantine, after his conversion to Christianity, was still a Sun Worshipper who killed his Son and had his wife drowned.
"To pass for a Christian would, indeed, have been a great presumption on his part. Not long after the Council of Nicaea he suddenly had Crispus, his excellent Son by his first marriage and a pupil of Lactantius, put to death at Pola in Istria (326), and soon thereafter he had his wife Fausta, daughter of Maximian, drowned in her bath." [The Age of Constantine the Great, pp.283,284, Burckhardt]
"In modern-day terms, Constantine could hardly be considered much of a Christian. As an example, he never relinquished his title Pontifex Maximus. This was the title given to him as the head of the state pagan cult, which was either Mithraism or Sol Invictus, two distinct but similar religions. In addition, the coinage of his reign continued to depict the Sun God [Sol Invictus]. Finally, it is reported that he personally murdered one of his own sons, had his second wife drowned, had his nephew and brother-in-law killed after he had guaranteed safe passage, etc. However, during all of this he sponsored Christianity because it had been useful to him in winning a decisive battle."
"Some things have been established with reasonable certainty: Constantine was no intellectual giant; he took himself very seriously with regard to what he considered his mission to promote Christianity; and lacking more than one of the Christian virtues, he was on occasion cruel, ruthless, and even inhumane." Encyclopedia Americana 2000
"Constantine was a hot-blooded man. He was wise to avoid being baptized while there were still so many sins of passion that he might yet commit." [Rubenstein, p. 49]
"Although Constantine attributed his success to the divine message that he believed he had read in the skies before the battle at the Milvian Bridge in 312, he could not officially--and privately, it seems, did not-abandon paganism at once." Encyclopedia Americana 2000
"However, until his preparations for his final campaign by 323, he did not abandon his allegiance to the Sun god, even though he regarded himself as a servant of the Christian God... Constantine's public image remained - the Sun god was the emperor's 'companion.' The liberation of Rome was attributed to the Sun on a medallion struck at the time." The Rise of Christianity, W.H.C. Frend, p.484
It is evident from the above that Constantine was no godly man in a Christian sense. This has been borne out by the violence that erupted at the time during the Nicene Controversy. The pro-Trinitarian side of the issue was led by Athanasius, "a future saint and uninhibited faction fighter, had his opponents excommunicated and anathematized, beaten and intimidated, kidnapped, imprisoned, and exiled to distant provinces." He "possessed a power independent of the emperor which he built up and perpetuated by violence. That was both the strength and the weakness of his position. Like a modern gangster, he evoked widespread mistrust, proclaimed total innocence - and especially succeeded in evading conviction on specific charges." [When Jesus Became God, Rubenstein, pp. 6, 107]
"Constantine was a Christian of a very peculiar type, a type that would hardly be recognized as Christian at all today." Constantine the Great by Michael Grant
This day in history: Steven T. Byington died on this day in 1957. Byington was a Christian Anarchist and a Bible translator. The Watchtower society bought the rights to his Bible in 1972. The book "So Many Versions" remarks on the association below:
"While this translation is completely independent from the NWT, we made a comparison of the two. Since it is published by the Jehovah's Witnesses, we were especially interested in those passages where the characteristic biases of the NWT [New World Translation] were evident. In the BLE [Bible in Living English], "Jehovah" is used in the OT but is not found in the NT. The word "God" is capitalized when referring to Jesus Christ, e.g., in John 1:1; 1:18; 6:45; 10:33. Where the NWT added the article "the" in brackets in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 and "other" in Colossians 1:16, 17, this translation does not, so that Jesus Christ can be identified with God in these passages. Furthermore, by its punctuation in Romans 9:5 it has clearly identified Christ as God: "Whose are the fathers, and from whom in the way of flesh comes the Christ, he who is over everything, God blessed forever-Amen!" The designation "Holy Spirit" is capitalized, contrary to the NWT, and the words "cross" and "crucify" are used instead of "torture stake" and "impale." The only apparent reason for the Witnesses' publishing this translation is the translator's use of "Jehovah" for God's name in the OT, unless they also want to tone down the idiosyncrasies of their own translation." So Many Versions by Sakae Kubo and Walter F. Specht
Reply: Much of the above is over-stated. I fail to see where Christ is identified as God at Romans 9:5, and a clear understanding of the other Scriptures listed and its context removes any divinity from Christ, specifically at John 1:18: "Nobody ever has seen God; an Only Born God, he who is in the Father's bosom, he gave the account of him." A God that is "born" is definitely held as separate from that God that cannot be seen.
Consider also other Scriptures that waters down the deity of Christ:
"I will be what I will be" Ex 3:14
"God is your throne forever" Psalm 45:6
"Jehovah framed me first in line" Prov 8:22
"his origin being from of old, from ancient days." Micah 5:2
"they will look at the one they stabbed to death" Zech 12:10
Acts 20:28 footnote points to "the Lord's church"
"let all God's angels do him reverence" Heb 1:6
"God is your throne forever and ever." Heb 1:8
"firstborn of all creation" Col 1:15
"did not regard equality with God a prize" Php 2:6
"the beginning of God's creation" Rev 3:14
Byington had high sights set for his Bible in his Translator's Preface:
"It is customary for the preface of a new translation of the Bible to say that this translation is to be used only for certain limited purposes, and for most purposes the old version, or a conservative revision of it, should still be preferred. I say the contrary: I sincerely recommend that my translation be used in preference to the old for all purposes, under all circumstances where mine is available. I do not say, observe, that mine is better than any other that can or will be made; neither do I say that it is probable that mine will become everybody's Bible. What I have more right to expect, and what I am bound to be content with, is that when a Bible is made which shall be everybody's Bible, my work will have contributed part of the material which will go into it; what I am here recommending is that when a choice is to be made between mine and the old version, and a version better than either is not available, mine be chosen rather than the old."
From: Twenty Speeches and Discourses on Various Subjects By Daniel Chapman 1855
"The idea of interminable or eternal existence is the radical idea of the term Jehovah, the mysterious, incommunicable name of God in the Hebrew language. The form in which it occurs in the Hebrew, is an admirable instance of the perfect simplicity, significancy, and comprehensiveness of that ancient language. It is indeed the predominance of these qualities -the simplicity of its elements, and the complexity of their combinations, which constitutes at once the easiness and the difficulty of its acquisition. It is evident from the transcendent excellence of what remains, that there is no language, ancient or modern, better adapted than the Hebrew was in its perfect state, to convey a complete revelation from God to man: an impartial comparison will justify this remark. This term, considered as a form of the Hebrew verb which signifies to be, to exist, is one that embodies the forms of both tenses, the past and the future, inclusive of the present, a threefold division of time, which, when each of its portions is expanded to infinity, and all those portions are combined with each other, affords, perhaps, as perfect an idea of absolute eternity as we can form,-infinite past, infinite future, infinite present, all blended in one infinite duration, the measure of His existence alone who eternally was, and is, and is to be. The term Jehovah is the most philosophical, as well as the most beautiful name of God that any language can employ."
From: The Concessions of Trinitarians By John Wilson 1845
The word homousion is not found in the Sacred Writings; and therefore from these alone, what the Arians deny cannot be taught or proved, except by inference. ERASMUS: Op. tom. ix. p. 1034.
We ought to believe, that there are three persons and one essence in the Deity; God the Father unbegotten, God the Son consubstantial with the Father; and God the Holy Spirit proceeding from both. But, though you attentively peruse the whole of Scripture, you will never find these sublime and remarkable words "three persons - one essence - unbegotten consubstantial — proceeding from both.” COCHLEUS; apud Sandium, pp. 4, 5.
The word Trinity is never found in the Divine Records, but is only of human invention, and therefore sounds altogether frigidly (frigide). Far better would it be to say God than Trinity. There is no reason for objecting to me, that the word homousion was made use of in opposition to the Arians. It was not received by many of the most eminent men; Jerome himself having wished to abolish the term; and on this account, they did not escape peril. .... But, though from my soul I abhor the word homousion, and am unwilling to employ it, I shall not therefore be a heretic. LUTHER: Postil. Major. fol. 282; Confut. Rat. Latom. tom. ii. fol. 240.
I dislike this vulgar prayer, "Holy Trinity, one God! have mercy on us!" as altogether savouring of barbarism. We repudiate such expressions as being not only insipid, but profane. - Abridged from CALVIN: Tractat. Theol. p. 796.
The phrase,"Holy Trinity, one God," is dangerous and improper. LAMBERT DANEAU: Resp. ad Genebrard. cap. iii.; Opusc. p. 1327.
The words Trinity, person, homousion, and others of a similar kind, besides being ambiguous, .... never occur in the Scriptures. LIMBORCH: Theol. Christ. lib. vii. cap. 21. § 13.
The words Trinity, homousion, hypostasis, procession, &c. ... were not expressly to be found in the Holy Scriptures. BISHOP SANDERSON: Ad Clerum, p. 85; apud Tracts for the Times, vol. iv. No. 78, p. 45.
It must be allowed, that there is no such proposition as this, That one and the same God is three different persons, formally and in terms, to be found in the Sacred Writings, either of the Old or New Testament; neither is it pretended, that there is any word of the same signification or importance with the word Trinity, used in Scripture, with relation to God.- DR. SOUTH: Consid. on the Trinity, p. 38.
It were to be wished that on topics so sublime [as that of the Trinity], men had thought proper to confine themselves to the simple but majestic diction of the Sacred Scriptures [instead of using the terms homoosious, homoiousious, hypostasis, hypostatikos, &c.]. — DR. CAMPBELL: Lectures on Ecclesiastical History: Lect. xiv.
The title of Mother of God, applied to the Virgin Mary, is not perhaps so innocent as Dr. Mosheim takes it to be. The invention and use of such mysterious terms as have no place in Scripture are undoubtedly pernicious to true religion. The use of this [the word Trinity] and other unscriptural terms, to which men attach either no ideas or false ones, has wounded charity and peace, without promoting truth and knowledge. It has produced heresies of the very worst kind. DR. MACLAINE: Note to Mosheim's Ecclesiastical Hist. cent. v. part ii. chap. v. § 9; and Chron. Table, cent. ii.
The general practice of Scripture seems to indicate, that, in ordinary worship, we should address the Deity in his unity, manifested to us as, in Christ Jesus, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to men their trespasses. I confess that I have ever disliked the use of the word Trinity in prayer to God, as not being a name whereby God reveals himself to us, and as savouring of scholastic theology. — CARLILE: Jesus Christ the Great God, p. 232.
Substance, and person, and essence, as applied to the Godhead, are not to be found in Holy Scripture.-H. M'NEILE: Sermons preached in St. Jude's Church, Liverpool, on Trin. Sund. 1835; p. 10.
I need hardly make any observation on the word purgatory: the very name itself is generally made one of the topics of abuse, because it is not be found in Scripture. But, I would ask, where is the term Trinity to be discovered in Scripture? Where is the term incarnation to be found? Where are many other terms which are held most sacred and most important in the Christian religion, to be found in Scripture? DR. WISEMAN: Lect. on the Doct. of the Rom. Cath. Church, p. 270.
[It is admitted also by TILLOTSON, SWIFT, HEY, TOMLINE, the Oxford Doctors, and others, that the scholastic terms here spoken of do not occur in the Bible. But who would venture to say that they do?]
This Day in History: The United States Supreme Court rules 8–1 in Abington School District v. Schempp against requiring the reciting of Bible verses and the Lord's Prayer in public schools on this day in 1963.
Billy Graham said, "[i]n my opinion... the Supreme Court... is wrong.... Eighty percent of the American people want Bible reading and prayer in schools. Why should a majority be so severely penalized...?"
There was a time where I would have applauded the Supreme Court's decision and sneer at Billy Graham. There was a time where I thought that the New Atheists (Hitchens, Harris & Dawkins) made a lot of sense.
I've changed my mind. The secularism that the West has embraced has failed society.
Why?
In 1963 most families were intact.
In 1963 everyone knew what a woman was.
In 1963 there were only two genders. In fact, the word "gender" was only used in relation to language.
In 1963 profanity was not as ubiquitous as it is today. In 1963, the entertainment industry adhered to the Hays Code which prohibited profanity, suggestive nudity, graphic or realistic violence, sexual persuasions and rape.
In 1963 there was no Pride Month. People kept their peccadillos private.
From: The Doctrine of the Trinity, founded neither on Scripture, nor on Reason and Common Sense but on Tradition and the Infallible Church (1831):
"And Thomas answered and said unto him, my Lord and my God."
Thomas was a Jew - a believer in the one invisible and immortal God - a disciple of Christ-incredulous - a sceptic who required no less than ocular and palpable proof that the body of Christ had become re-animated and arisen from the dead. Our Lord condescended to give him the proof required, on which occasion he uttered the words just quoted.
Now, what do we learn from them? The Athanasians would have us believe that this incredulous Apostle who would not credit the testimony of his fellow disciples as to a plain matter of fact, passed in a moment to the belief, of which he had not the least previous hint or conception, that in the crucified Jesus, whose flesh he handled, and whose wounds he felt, he saw, touched and addressed the infinite and incomprehensible Jehovah, whom he had been taught to think no man could see and live! That he whom he had so lately beheld nailed to a cross, and mortally wounded by a Roman spear - was Jehovah of hosts - the Lord God of Israel, who liveth and reigneth for ever and ever! Verily, the credulity of the Athanasians exceeds, the incredulity of Thomas! But the Saviour's address to his disciple sufficiently proves the gross folly and absurdity of such imaginations. "Jesus said unto Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed." Believed what? That of which he had previously doubted,-Christ's resurrection. Our Lord continues, "blessed, or happy, are they who have not seen, and yet have believed." -Not seen and yet believed what? Not seen Christ personally, as Thomas had seen him and yet believed that he was actually risen.
There is not the slightest ground for any of the Athanasian whims in the whole passage. Thomas, under the influence of excited and wonderstruck feeling, gave way to his emotion, as was perfectly natural, by apostrophizing God. All men under such impressions, express themselves in language precisely similar. Thus, when Gideon saw that one with whom he had been conversing was an angel of Jehovah - he said, “Alas, O Lord Jehovah! for because I have seen an angel of Jehovah, face to face."-Judg. vi. 22. Thus, Jonathan in the ardour of his friendship, "said unto David, O Jehovah God of Israel, when I have sounded my Father, &c." - 1 Sam. xx. 12. Had Thomas been capable of embodying all his feelings in words, he might have uttered some ejaculations like these, in addition to "my Lord and my God." It is then true! I doubt no longer! Here is proof! I yield O my God, how great is thy power, how wonderful thy deeds! Now, I see, now I believe that thou hast indeed raised from the dead, thy holy child Jesus! That our Saviour understood him thus is evident from his address to the disciple. - Milton refers the words my Lord to Christ, and my God to the Father, who had testified that Christ was his Son, by raising him from the dead. The whole comment of this great genius on the passage before us, is well entitled to the readers serious consideration. He regards the words of Thomas as an abrupt exclamation in an exstacy of wonder, and deems it incredible--
"That he should have so quickly understood the hypostatic union of that person whose resurrection he had just before disbelieved. Accordingly the faith of Peter is commended-blessed art thou, Simon-for having only said-thou art the Son of the Living God.-Matt. xvi, 16, 17. The faith of
Thomas, although, as it is commonly explained, it asserts the divinity of Christ in a much more remarkable manner, is so far from being praised, that it is undervalued, and almost reproved.-Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And yet, though the slowness of his belief may have deserved blame, the testimony borne by him to Christ as God, which if the common interpretation be received as true, is clearer than occurs in any other passage, would undoubtedly have met with some commendation; whereas it obtains none whatever."
This day in history: Bible translator Charles Bray Williams died on this day in 1952. C.B. Williams should not to be confused with Bible translator Charles K. Williams.
Williams graduated from Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem NC, and was a Baptist minister.
Williams stated, "Our aim is to make this greatest book in the world readable and understandable by the plain people."
Some have noted that there are many similarities between Williams New Testament and Goodspeed's New Testament (one of the greatest New Testament translations ever produced).
Here are some comparisons:
Revelation 5:10 "and have made them a kingdom of priests for our God, and they are to reign over the earth." Goodspeed
"and have made them a kingdom of priests for our God; and they will rule over the earth." Williams
While "over" is a better translation, most Bible use the word "on".
John 10:38 "But if I am doing so, even if you will not believe me, believe the deeds, that you may come to know and continue to know that the Father is in union with me and I am in union with the Father." Williams
"But if I am doing them, then even if you will not believe me, believe the things I do, in order that you may realize and learn that the Father is in union with me, and I am in union with the Father." Goodspeed
Both Goodspeed and Williams use the phrase "in union with" many times.
John 8:58 "Jesus said to them, 'I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born!'" Goodspeed
"Then Jesus said to them, 'I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born.'" Williams
This is a better translation than the traditional "I am" as the "Greek at John 8:58 fits an idiom described by grammarian Kenneth McKay as the “Extension from Past”, which occurs when a present tense verb is “used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications.” (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach), p. 41, 42 (Source)
However, Williams was much more conservative/fundagelical in many passages.
For instance at John 1:1 where Goodspeed has "the Word was divine", Williams goes overboard with the horrible rendering of "the Word was God Himself."
At John 1:18, where it should read, "No man hath seen God at any time; an only begotten god, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him", Williams has, "No one has ever seen God; the only son, Deity Himself, who lies upon His Father's breast, has made him known."
Where Goodspeed would use "homage" in places like Matthew 2:2, Williams reverted back to the word "worship,"
Additionally, Williams insisted on continuous action of a Greek verb made Mark 1:5 sound like the people were being repeatedly baptized, "And people from all over Judea and everybody in Jerusalem kept on going out to him and being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins."
This day in history: David Bentley Hart's _The New Testament - A Translation_, was released on this day in 2017.
Bing gave me this description of his New Testament: "David Bentley Hart is a theologian who has translated the New Testament into English. His translation is 'pitilessly literal' and 'not shaped by later theological and doctrinal history.'"
That's not entirely true. He capitalizes the I AM in John 8 is if it has some mystical value and relationship to the words at Exodus 3:14. This is a notion that is "shaped by later theological and doctrinal history" and any relationship between John 8 and Exodus 3 falls apart after closer examination.*
However, Hart's translation is still better than most. I have always had a singular fascination with John 1:1.
David Bentley Hart's New Testament 2017 reads at John 1:1 "In the origin there was the Logos, and the Logos was present with GOD, and the Logos was god." (Notice the word "god" in small letters in the last clause.)
"As a general rule, the 'articular' form ho Theos—literally, 'the God'—was a title reserved for God Most High or God the Father, while only the 'inarticular' form theos was used to designate this secondary divinity. This distinction, in fact, was preserved in the prologue to John, whose first verse could justly be translated as: 'In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was a god.'"
It's unfortunate that DBH felt the need to tone it down for his New Testament translation.
His John 10:33 now reads: "We stone not on account of a good work, but rather on account of blasphemy, and you who are a man make yourself out to be a god."
The first edition had "make yourself out to be God." Few other modern Bibles are brave enough for this rendering (The New English Bible comes immediately to mind).
He made a similar change at Philippians 2:6 where he has: “who, subsisting in a god’s form, did not deem existing in the manner of a god a thing to be grasped.” QEOU should be taken as indefinite here, such as in “form of a god.” This would highlight a parallel that is overlooked by most, the parallel between "the form of a god" and "the form of a slave." (Verse 7)
Let me know in the comments section of any other verses you may want to share from this New Testament translation.
In the Bible, the word "Soul" comes from the Hebrew word "nephesh"
and its Greek equivalent "psykhe". As we can see in the following
chart, it certainly doesn't have the immortal aspect to it that people
think it does.
Abbreviations:
N = New
S = Standard
A = American
L = Living
E = English
B = Bible
V = Version
T = Translation
W = World
C = Contemporary
To = Today
I = International
Bible
Gen. 2:7
Gen. 9:5
Ezekiel 18:4
Matt 10:28
Acts 3:23
1Cor. 15:45
1Peter 3:20
Rev. 16:3
N.W.T.
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
King James
SOUL
Life
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
L. B.
Person
Omit
SOUL
SOUL
Anyone
BODY
Persons
Everything
A.S.V.
SOUL
Life
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
R.S.V.
Being
Life
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
Being
Person
Thing
N.E.B.
Creature
Life
SOUL
SOUL
Anyone
Being
Persons
Thing
N.L.T.
Person
Person
Person
SOUL
Omit
Person
People
Everything
N.A.B.
Being
Life
Life
SOUL
Everyone
Being
Persons
Creature
N.R.S.V
Being
Life
Person
SOUL
Everyone
Being
Persons
Thing
To.E.V
Live
Life
Person
SOUL
Anyone
Being
People
Creature
N.I.V.
Being
Life
SOUL
SOUL
Anyone
Being
People
Thing
N.King James V.
Being
Life
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
Being
SOUL
Creature
C.E.V.
Life
Life
Those
SOUL
No one
Person
People
Thing
N.A.S.B.
Being
Life
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
Persons
Thing
Modern Language B.
SOUL
Life
Person
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
Creature
Young
Creature
Life
Person
SOUL
SOUL
Creature
SOUL
SOUL
Deaf
Thing
Life
Person
SOUL
Person
Thing
People
Thing
Darby
SOUL
Life
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
Jerusalem B
Being
Life
Man
SOUL
Man
SOUL
People
Creature
Rotherham
SOUL
Life
Person
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
A.T.
Being
Lives
Person
SOUL
Anyone
Creature
People
Thing
Lamsa
Being
Life
SOUL
SOUL
Person
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
Webster B
SOUL
Life
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
Amplified B
Being
Life
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
Being
People
Thing
Phillips
N/A
N/A
N/A
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
Thing
Douay
SOUL
Life
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
Beck
Being
Anyone
The One
SOUL
Anyone
Being
Persons
Thing
Concordant
N/A
N/A
N/A
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
Emph Diag
N/A
N/A
N/A
Life
SOUL
SOUL
Persons
SOUL
B. Basic E.
SOUL
Life
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
Persons
Thing
Moffatt
Being
Life
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
Being
SOUL
Thing
Weymouth
N/A
N/A
N/A
SOUL
Everyone
Animal
Persons
Creature
Williams
N/A
N/A
N/A
SOUL
Person
Creature
People
Thing
Byington
Person
Life
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
Life
R.E.B.
Creature
N/A
Person
SOUL
Anyone
Creature
People
Thing
Schonfield
N/A
N/A
N/A
SOUL
N/A
SOUL
Persons
Everything
Wuest
N/A
N/A
N/A
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
SOUL
Creature
As we can see from the above, a SOUL is simply...YOU!! It is
not a separate being outside of you. Even animals are souls-Revelation
16:3
While doing a hand-count in the 80's, of the 858* instances of the
Hebrew word for SOUL [NEPHESH] and the Greek equivalent [PSYKHE] that I
looked at, only the New World Translation (Reference Edition) translated it SOUL every time.
The New American Standard Bible (considered to be the most literal Bible)
only did so 297 times. Other versions are as follows:
Darby Bible: 575 times
Douay Bible: 551 times
King James Bible: 534 times
Young's Literal Version: 533 times
English Revised Version: 504 times
American Standard Version: 503 times
Rotherham Bible: 493 times
Revised Standard Version: 242 times
New International Version: 138 times
*I realize that hand-counting might not be the most accurate way
to do this, especially now with software making this much easier, but this
does give an overall view of the ways this word was translated..
SOUL; SELF; LIFE nepesh-"The noun refers to the essence of life, the act of breathing,
taking a breath." W.E. Vine
psyche-"denotes the breath, the breath of life." W.E. Vine
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (edited
by C. Brown, 1978, Vol. 3, p. 304) states: "Matt. 10:28 teaches not the
potential immortality of the soul but the irreversibility of divine judgment
on the unrepentant."
"However much God may give his spirit to frail man, and however exalted
the resurrected Jesus has become, man, from the biblical point of view,
is dust animated by spirit, and not body and separable soul,which is a
Greek idea. 'Human Being' by definition denoted mortality, subject to frailty
and death. 'It is appointed unto man once to die...' (Heb 9:27)." The Doctrine
of the Trinity-Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound by Anthony Buzzard/Charles
F. Hunting
D.R.G. Owen, "Body and Soul in the New Testament," In Readings and Christian
Theology, ed. M.J. Erickson (Baker Book House, 1967), 86: "In Hebrew thought,
as we have seen, the word translated 'Soul' regularly stands simply for
the personal pronoun and means the self, and the phrase 'body and soul'...stands
for the Hebrew idea that man is an 'animated body' and not for the Greek
view that he is an 'incarnated soul.' "
"Many people today, even believing people. are far from understanding
the basis of their faith...Quite unwittingly they depend upon the philosophy
of the Greeks rather than upon the word of God for an understanding of
the world they live in. An instance of this is the prevailing belief amongst
Christians in the immortality of the soul. Many beleivers despair of this
world; they despair of any meaning in a world where suffering and frustration
seem to rule. And so they look for a release for their souls from the weight
of the flesh, and they hope for an entry into the 'world of the spirit,'
as they call it, a place where their souls will find a blessedness they
cannot discover in the flesh. The Old Testament, which was of course the
Scriptures of the early Church, has no word at all for the modern (or ancient
Greek) idea of "soul". We have no right to read this modern word
into St. Paul's word "psyche", for by it he was not expounding what Plato
had meant by the word; he was expressing what Isaiah and what Jesus meant
by it...There is one thing sure we can say at this point and that is that
the popular doctrine of the soul's immortality cannot be traced back to
the biblical teaching." -G.A.T. Knight, Law and Grace (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1962), 78, 79.
"Both man and animals are souls, they are not bipartite creatures consisting
of a soul and a body which can be separate and go on subsisting. Their
soul is the whole of them and comprises their their body as well as their
mental powers. They are spoken of as having soul, that is, conscious being"
(Life and Immortality, B. F. C. Atkinson, M.A., PhD., p.2).
"Although Heb. nepes has a wide range of usage, it most frequently designates
the life force of living creatures.
Thus, all the earth is full of "living creatures" that have the "breath
of life" (Gen. 1:20-21,24,30). When God creates Adam, God breathes the
breath of life into Adam's nostrils, and Adam becomes a "living being"
(Gen. 2:7). Far from referring simply to one aspect of a person, "soul"
refers to the whole person. Thus, a corpse is referred to as a "dead soul,"
even though the word is usually translated "dead body" (Lev. 21:11; Num.
6:6). "Soul" can also refer to a person's very life itself (1 kings 19:4;
Ezek. 32:10).
"Soul" often refers by extension to the whole person. Thus, Leah bears
Jacob 16 souls (Gen. 46:18), and when Jacob moves into Egypt, there were
"70 persons ('souls') in his house". In the Shema (Deut. 6:4-9) Israelites
are commanded to love their God with all their heart, soul, and strength.
Although "soul" appears in the translation to be a separate faculty of
the body, the verse is an exhortation to love God with ones entire self.
The soul is also the seat of the emotions. It is both the center
of joy in God (Ps. 86:4; cf. 62:1[MT2]) and the seat of the desire of evil
in the wicked (Prov. 21:10)
In the NT “soul” (Gk.psyche) refers to the living being of the whole
person (Acts 2:41; 3:23) and to a person’s life. After Herod’s death,
the angel commands Joseph to take his wife and child (Jesus) back to Israel,
for “ those who were seeking the child’s life (soul) are dead” (Matt. 2:20).
Before he heals the man with the withered hand, Jesus asks the synagogue
authorities whether it is lawful on the Sabbath to “save life (soul) or
to kill” (Mark 3:4). In the parable of the rich young fool (Luke
12: 13-20), the young man says to his soul that he has ample goods laid
up for many years; Jesus then tells him, “ This very night your soul (‘life
force’) is being demanded of you.”
Although the NT contains little evidence of the body-soul dualism
that is apparent in Hellenistic philosophy, some passages indicate that
the soul lives on after death (Luke 9:25; 12:4; 21:19)."
Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible
[Let us see if this is really so. Luke 9:25, “ What benefit
is it to anyone to win the whole world and forfeit or lose his very self.” Luke 12:4, “ To my friends I say: Do not be afraid of those who
kill the body and after that can do no more.” Luke 21:19, “ Your perseverance will win you your lives.”
New Jerusalem Bible As you can see, the scriptures mentioned do not point to an immortal
soul or life after death. As Ecclesiastes says, “for the living are
at least aware that they are going to die, but the dead know nothing whatever.
No more wages for them, since their memory is forgotten…Whatever work you
find to do, do it with all your might, for theirs in neither achievement,
nor planning, nor science, nor wisdom in Sheol where you are going.” New
Jerusalem Bible]
Can souls die? Yes, according to the following scriptures:
(Job 36:14 [KJV margin]; Psalm 56:13; 78:50;
116:8; Ezekiel
18:4, 20; James 5:20; Psalm 22:29; 30:3; 33:18, 19; Isaiah
55:3; Ezekiel
13:19; 18:27; Psalm 49:8; Psalm 35:17; 40:14; Proverbs 6:32;
Ezekiel 22:27;
Acts 3:23; James 4:12; Ezekiel 22:25; Matthew 16:25, 26 [the
Greek word for soul is here translated life in many translations]; Leviticus 22:3; Numbers 15:30) The body is not the soul, but it is a component of the soul. The soul is made up the body and the spirit (or breath) of life from God. (Genesis 2:7) When one dies the soul dies [ceases to be a living sentiency] and the original life process is reversed. (Ecclesiastes 12:7) With the life-giving source departed from the body, the soul [sentiency] ceases to exist.
A Portion of the Bay Psalm Book with the Divine Name Iehovah
This day in history: A Bay Psalm Book was auctioned off on this day in 1947 for $151,000.00.
"THE first piece of literature known to have been written and published in England’s American colonies was the Bay Psalm Book. Its original edition was printed by Stephen Daye in the Massachusetts Bay Colony during the year 1640. That early publication contained the Bible book of Psalms, translated from Hebrew into the English language as spoken and written at that time." Source
It is interesting to note that this, the first ever book published in British North America contained the Divine Name Iehovah quite a few times, as is evidenced in the image above.
