God has a soul?

[Mark Doble]

Never really thought of Him like that before ,I read Psalms 11 (NIV)
Whatcha think? Is this talking about God or the evil doer? I don't understand.

1 In the LORD I take refuge.
How then can you say to me:
"Flee like a bird to your mountain.

2 For look, the wicked bend their bows;
they set their arrows against the strings
to shoot from the shadows
at the upright in heart.

3 When the foundations are being destroyed,
what can the righteous do [a] ?"

4 The LORD is in his holy temple;
the LORD is on his heavenly throne.
He observes the sons of men;
his eyes examine them.

5 The LORD examines the righteous,
but the wicked and those who love violence
[B]his soul hates.

6 On the wicked he will rain
fiery coals and burning sulfur;
a scorching wind will be their lot.

7 For the LORD is righteous,
he loves justice;
upright men will see his face.

[Dennis Bratcher]

11:5 The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates. [NIV]

There is no word in Hebrew that means what the English word “soul” means. The word used in this verse is nephesh, which in this context means “person.” In this construction, it is a poetic way to place emphasis on “he himself.” The antecedent of “he” here is “the Lord.”

Note also that the NIV divides the sentence incorrectly. The correct phrasing should be:

11:5 The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked, and his soul hates the lover of violence. (NRSV)

Given the sentence construction, which is rather odd, it could also be translated:

11:5 The LORD , the Righteous One, tests the wicked,

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

[Mark Doble]

11:5 The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates. [NIV]

There is no word in Hebrew that means what the English word “soul” means. The word used in this verse is nephesh, which in this context means “person.” In this construction, it is a poetic way to place emphasis on “he himself.” The antecedent of “he” here is “the Lord.”

Note also that the NIV divides the sentence incorrectly. The correct phrasing should be:

11:5 The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked, and his soul hates the lover of violence. (NRSV)

Given the sentence construction, which is rather odd, it could also be translated:

11:5 The LORD , the Righteous One, tests the wicked,

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

Thanks Dennis.

[Gina Stevenson]

No theologian, but the tho't that came to my mind was, "Well, He did create us in His image, didn't He?" ;)

[Mark Doble]

No theologian, but the tho't that came to my mind was, "Well, He did create us in His image, didn't He?" ;)

That also came to my mind Gina. God created us with an eternal soul to be with Him for eternity... God is eternal no doubt... But does He have a soul such as we do? I imagine it is the soul within us that makes us eternal... Although, angels do not have an eternal soul. They are in no need of salvation and are interested in what exactly salvation is. Hmmm, more questions eh? :fav18

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Thanks Dennis for your explaination.
It seems that the "very core" of God hates sin. He would not have a soul such =as we. The part breathed into us, seems to be our souls. The breath of god is in every person ever born. It is up to them to give it back to God. If not, they will be eteranlly lost--separated from His presence. Critique (sp) that for me, Dennis. I have learned to appreciate you.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Thanks Dennis for your explaination.
It seems that the "very core" of God hates sin. He would not have a soul such =as we. The part breathed into us, seems to be our souls. The breath of god is in every person ever born. It is up to them to give it back to God. If not, they will be eteranlly lost--separated from His presence. Critique (sp) that for me, Dennis. I have learned to appreciate you.

Yes, that "the very core of God hates sin" is good way to say what that verse communicates, as long as we keep in mind that this is not because it is a violation of some abstract law (God as power) but because of what it does to human beings (God as love).

Biblically, the “breath” of God is associated with what we call physical life, not with the idea of a soul (Gen 2:7, Eccl 12:7). The later Christian notion of a “soul” was a way to express in Greek philosophical terms the fact that human beings have the potential of relationship with God. The OT expresses the same basic idea by saying that we are created in the image of God. It is relationship with God that relates to whether we are “saved” or “lost,” whether we use the language of soul or not.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Joel Merrill]

Dennis, I have a question for you. I have been reading the NIV for years and I like it but I'm needing to buy a new Bible. The professors at Vennard College say the NAS version is more accurate and of course there are other versions. Which version do you think is the most accurate or do they all have their good points and bad points?

Thanks, Joel

[John S Knight]

Dennis,

I like your website!! Thanks.
RE: The "breath" of God being related to "physical life."

Animals also have "physical life" but God did not "breathe" into them. (Although I wasn't there.) Can we go a step further and distinguish "soul" from "spirit?"

[Ryan Scott]

Which version do you think is the most accurate or do they all have their good points and bad points?


I know Dennis has some material on this one (having taken a class from him). I think it usually comes down to what you want it for. Many of the most literal translations are difficult to read and, of course, the most readable are often less accurate.

I was converted to the ESV by a professor of mine. It seems like a better translation than the NIV, yet it's much more readable than the NASB.

Just my $.02.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Animals also have "physical life" but God did not "breathe" into them. (Although I wasn't there.) Can we go a step further and distinguish "soul" from "spirit?"

While there is not a specific statement that God "breathed into" animals, the general understanding of life from the OT leads to that conclusion; that is, that the breath of all living things is a gift of God.

Eccl 3:19 For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is vanity. 3:20 All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. 3:21 Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth?

While this is a rather negative appraisal within Ecclesiastes, it reflects the idea that breath is what gives life and without it there is no life. Taken with 11:5 and 12:7, it reveals that the Israelites associated breath/life with God. While the priestly tradition connected life with the blood because of the rituals of sacrifice (it is hard to sacrifice breath; Gen 9:4, Lev 17:11, 14), the physical association of life was with breath (Gen 1:30).

In verse 21, even though the English translation here (NRSV) changes the word to "spirit" it is the same word as “breath” in verse 19. So no, biblically, I don’t think there is any difference between "breath" and "spirit," if by “spirit” we mean a different component of human beings separate from life. The Hebrew word ruah (breath, wind, spirit) can also mean something like “attititude” or “disposition,” but that only functionally, not as a distinct part of humanity (for example, Num 5:14).

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Gina Stevenson]

I was converted to the ESV by a professor of mine. It seems like a better translation than the NIV, yet it's much more readable than the NASB.

Just my $.02.


Tho't about it [maybe a whole minute ;)], and couldn't come up with what ESV means. Huh? Maybe I should've googled ... saved some posting space on NN, eh? Thanks. ;)

OK, nevermind. I searched. There were a couple of places that said "ESV-Reformation Study Bible" (which does not match the initials), yet never said exactly what the "ESV" stood for. Then a third one I found noted that the "Reformation Study Bible" is apparently referred to as the "English Standard Version."

[Ryan Scott]

It's English Standard Version. Mine doesn't have any study notes or anything to make it a study Bible; it's pretty much just the text.

[John S Knight]

Very helpful, Dennis, thanks. I have been kicking around for some time a sort of tripartite concept of man as body, soul, and spirit, with out being too Watchman Nee'sque. lol