Oldman,
I appreciate the effort you took to respond to my question. I also appreciate that you speak from a perspective of faith. To be fair, I guess I should share that I also am trying to speak from a position of faith, but seem constantly obliged to question whether my faith is 'real' or whether it is simply conforming to a particular brand of Lutheran culture through life-long exposure.
What I like about your essay and some of the resulting give and take that occurred subsequent to its appearance on Talk Origins, was you humility, and patience, and perhaps even a sense of honesty...also your ability to respond without adopting a cynical or hostile tone.
I don't have many of your skills, so I hope you can continue to practice some patience.
I too would like to digress a little bit before rejoining the topic of 'eternal spirits'. During the last three or so years, I've been trying to figure out who wrote the Bible and WHEN did they write it and when did everybody agree it was holy and sacred and why do some claim it doesn't have any mistakes? These questions, as I've written them, probably sound pretty naive, but it turns out there isn't much agreement about them or much that seems certain. Part of my interest in this area is based on the incredible things creationists say. Many creationists make arguments against the evidence of evolution based solely on (what seems to me) misquoted scripture verses wrenched out of context.
The bible, as we in this century have been introduced to it, is a hardbound book by a single author (God). This may or may not be true, but I think it is definitely an interpretation. It adds a layer of tradition and culture to the Bible (a construct) that it didn't always have.
I sometimes think it would be better if the source materials that make up our Bible had never been put into a single binder. I think it would be nice if they were still individual scrolls and codices (hopefully this is the plural form for codex and not codpiece) and hymns, poems and personal letters. The most important reason why I wish this was so is because I think it would make it easier to interpret tone and context... and intent.
I think it would help a lot of people out if they knew that Genesis, just because it is placed first in the Bible, wasn't the first book written. Perhaps people wouldn't confuse it as an eyewitness account of creation if they knew it was written much later...much, much later... when the Hebrew people were in captivity and trying to maintain their identity. Perhaps people wouldn't so readily look for proof-texts in Genesis if they were introduced to the idea that what we call our creation story may really be the Babylonian creation story with pointed Hebrew spin (perhaps political in nature).
Unfortunately, my expert qualifications at deciphering ancient languages are limited to all the Sumerian I picked up as an Art Major. (I once saw a slide of cuneiform writing on a clay tablet.)
So as much as I would like to be able to point to specific Hebrew and Greek words and explain how they don't mean 'eternal spirit', ...well, it would just be silly.
Let me just say that our English language bibles have a wide variety of subtle nuances to keep us occupied.
This brings me back to the 'eternal spirit' thing. I've provided two more versions of the verse you sent me where you seem to indicate that 'living soul' = 'eternal spirit'. The first I think is from the revised standard version, my favorite, and the second is from Young's literal translation.
7...then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground,£ and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.
7...And Jehovah God formeth the man—dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature.
As you can see, no soul. The fact that your version says soul indicates that this may be a matter of semantics, but I'm not prepared to admit it is a basis for a theology. I think you would be better off concentrating on the earlier creation story where 'they' decide to make us in 'their' image.
It seems to me that soul and living being are continually being used in a lax interchangeable fashion. Animals in this narrative are also living creatures. In fact, before God solved the sex thing, he appeared to think it was quite natural to pair the man up with sheep and pigs and such to see if these living creatures would be compatible soul mates...or am I stretching things too far?
My point: It seems to me if I read the narrative without preconceptions, there isn't really a case for an additional eternal component to human beings. I don't think the Hebrew writers shared the later Greek idea of dualism. Wouldn't many Christian theologians also have to conclude that, provided the physical man and woman didn't eat the apple, they would have lived forever in any case as physical beings?
Certainly Paul does write about a dichotomy between spiritual and physical man, but by his era, people had long been Hellenized, and he did after-all have to speak to Greek people. I often think of the battle within me where I often do what I do not want to do, in terms of a battle between Evil Scott and Saintly Scott (just like in those cartoons where the little angel and little devil sit on either side of your head and argue), but in the end, it turns out to be me that is responsible.
That is, all the functions of my 'soul' seem to be admirably performed by portions of my neo-cortex (supported of course by the functioning of my primitive reptilian brain stem).
It seems to me the modern American version of the Gospel depends too much on a creation metaphor as literal fact, a fact that explains Adam's original sin as the ultimate reason for the redemptive work of Jesus. But if Adam is as I suspect, a fiction or a metaphor, what was the Gospel of Jesus really about?
The gospel of Mark describes Jesus setting out immediately after his baptism, to share the Gospel, which can't possibly be the story of his redemptive work through his resurrection...because it hasn't happened yet. What was Jesus sharing? All we get are hints about the Kingdom of heaven and while you may have a predilection to say, "yep, that's where our eternal souls will go", I have a counter predilection that homes in on the idea that the kingdom of heaven is here, now, and that we ought to be working to make the people around us whole...right now, when it counts.
I don't see how failing to recognize an invisible, unknowable abstraction like the soul has any impact on our 'purpose'. Avoiding extinction would be a pretty good purpose. In evolutionary terms, it would seem that the road to transcending the physical body would be to break the tyranny of the genes (which I believe is something Dawkins kind of said but without the positive transcending the physical body stuff). By doing this, our species may be able to further define ourselves from the rest of the animals by achieving some of our best ideals and overcoming our inherent selfishness, but I don't see it happening if our religions tie us into self fulfilling prophecies of Armageddon and the end of the world, leaving it to Jesus to pull our asses out of a nuclear fire or other ecological nightmare.
Well, I think this is kind of an abrupt ending, and I don't know for sure if it is, 'at all useful', but I'm going to call it quits for tonight.
Thanks again for responding. My hope is that if we can do both science and faith properly, they will both lead to the same truth.
Scott