I still have no reply to the fact that particular words in the original may
have two different meanings. People in the beginning of our era were still
very much influenced by Greek thinking.
Jan
At 05:50 PM 04/02/02 -0800, Adrian Teo wrote:
>This is a difficult philosophical and theological problem that is also
>highly controversial - today. The position Jan is advocating seems to be
>consistent with what has come to be known as nonreductive physicalism -
>which is a monistic understanding of the nature of the person. There are
>just some major philosophical/theological problems with this approach, and
>is quite unsatisfying. The more traditional dualistic understanding (not
>Cartesian but Thomistic) does a better job I think. In this case then, the
>person is not a soul, but a body AND soul. This position (of dualism) has
>been held by Christians since the earliest days, and to claim in the 20th
>century that these folks got it wrong all along (i.e. for 20 centuries)on
>such a major theological issue is to call into serious question the role of
>the Holy Spirit in guiding the church.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jan de Koning
>To: Walter Hicks
>Cc: Asa@Calvin. Edu
>Sent: 2/4/2002 2:03 PM
>Subject: Re: Do animals ever "sin" (was something else)
>
>As far as I remember, I replied last week that man does not have a soul,
>
>but that man is a soul. I quoted some texts from HS, indicating that
>the
>word "nephesh" was often translated as "living being", for example in
>Gen.1. When the word was used in Gen.2, Adam received a "soul" instead
>of
>becoming a living being. I believe, I referred to writings of some
>theologians.
>
>Jan de K.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 04 2002 - 22:23:30 EST