Is that logical? Even if we never knew the separate natures, functions, etc. of man's spirit and soul the distinction has already been made in the bible not in my imagination.benjoseph wrote:but if not, then don't make a distinction between the soul & spirit of man.
Example:
My soul is grieved.
this couild also mean:
My spirit is grieved.
So it is with:
My heart is grieved.
You see, wich is the correct way to say it?
When some one is grieved, what part of man is it that is grieved?
Another example:
In all this, you could also say:b: the soul had become wounded, lost, undiscerning.
L: Not wounded, but rebellious, disobedient, blind, lost, undiscerning...ect...b: The will of the soul healed by faith is free.
L: Not healed, but shown how not to follow the lusts of the flesh.b: Now a man's wounded soul can be healed and live according to the power of God's Word.
L: Not wounded soul, but rebellious, disobedient soul can submit to HIM.b: The knowledge of good was obscured and lost in man's sinfulness.
L: The knowledge of good is obscured because they do not know God to show them what is good. Not because of sinfulness.
b: the spirit had become wounded, lost, undiscerning.
b: The will of the spirit healed by faith is free.
b: Now a man's wounded spirit can be healed and live according to the power of God's Word.
Why do you think it is the souls and not the spirit?
I think I will start a new thread on this, to get other's oppinions.
