"Soul" and "Spirit"-What Do These Terms Really Mean?
WHEN you hear the terms "soul" and "spirit," what comes to your mind? Many believe that these words mean something invisible and immortal that exists inside us. They think that at death this invisible part of a human leaves the body and lives on. Since this belief is so widespread, many are surprised to learn that it is not at all what the Bible teaches. What, then, is the soul, and what is the spirit, according to God’s Word?
"SOUL" AS USED IN THE BIBLE
First, consider the soul. You may remember that the Bible was originally written mainly in Hebrew and Greek. When writing about the soul, the Bible writers used the Hebrew word ne´phesh or the Greek word psy·khe´. These two words occur well over 800 times in the Scriptures, and the New World Translation consistently renders them "soul." When you examine the way "soul" or "souls" is used in the Bible, it becomes evident that this word basically refers to (1) people, (2) animals, or (3) the life that a person or an animal enjoys. Let us consider some scriptures that present these three different senses.
People. "In Noah’s days . . . a few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water." (1 Peter 3:20) Here the word "souls" clearly stands for people-Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives. Exodus 16:16 mentions instructions given to the Israelites regarding the gathering of manna. They were told: "Pick up some of it . . . according to the number of the souls that each of you has in his tent." So the amount of manna that was gathered was based upon the number of people in each family. Some other Biblical examples of the application of "soul" or "souls" to a person or to people are found at Genesis 46:18; Joshua 11:11; Acts 27:37; and Romans 13:1.
Animals. In the Bible’s creation account, we read: "God went on to say: ‘Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.’ And God went on to say: ‘Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.’ And it came to be so." (Genesis 1:20, 24) In this passage, fish, domestic animals, and wild beasts are all referred to by the same word-"souls." Birds and other animals are called souls at Genesis 9:10; Leviticus 11:46; and Numbers 31:28.
Life as a person. Sometimes the word "soul" means one’s life as a person. Jehovah told Moses: "All the men who were hunting for your soul are dead." (Exodus 4:19) What were Moses’ enemies hunting for? They were seeking to take Moses’ life. Earlier, while Rachel was giving birth to her son Benjamin, "her soul was going out (because she died)." (Genesis 35:16-19) At that moment, Rachel lost her life. Consider also Jesus’ words: "I am the fine shepherd; the fine shepherd surrenders his soul in behalf of the sheep." (John 10:11) Jesus gave his soul, or life, in behalf of mankind. In these Bible passages, the word "soul" clearly refers to life as a person. You will find more examples of this sense of "soul" at 1 Kings 17:17-23; Matthew 10:39; John 15:13; and Acts 20:10.
A further study of God’s Word will show you that nowhere in the entire Bible are the terms "immortal" or "everlasting" linked with the word "soul." Instead, the Scriptures state that a soul is mortal, meaning that it dies. (Ezekiel 18:4, 20) Therefore, the Bible calls someone who has died simply a "dead soul."-Leviticus 21:11.
THE "SPIRIT" IDENTIFIED
Let us now consider the Bible’s use of the term "spirit." Some people think that "spirit" is just another word for "soul." However, that is not the case. The Bible makes clear that "spirit" and "soul" refer to two different things. How do they differ?
Bible writers used the Hebrew word ru´ach or the Greek word pneu´ma when writing about the "spirit." The Scriptures themselves indicate the meaning of those words. For instance, Psalm 104:29 states: "If you [Jehovah] take away their spirit [ru´ach], they expire, and back to their dust they go." And James 2:26 notes that "the body without spirit [pneu´ma] is dead." In these verses, then, "spirit" refers to that which gives life to a body. Without spirit, the body is dead. Therefore, in the Bible the word ru´ach is translated not only as "spirit" but also as "force," or life-force. For example, concerning the Flood in Noah’s day, God said: "I am bringing the deluge of waters upon the earth to bring to ruin all flesh in which the force [ru´ach] of life is active from under the heavens." (Genesis 6:17; 7:15, 22) "Spirit" thus refers to an invisible force (the spark of life) that animates all living creatures.
The soul and the spirit are not the same. The body needs the spirit in much the same way as a radio needs electricity-in order to function. To illustrate this further, think of a portable radio. When you put batteries in a portable radio and turn it on, the electricity stored in the batteries brings the radio to life, so to speak. Without batteries, however, the radio is dead. So is another kind of radio when it is unplugged from an electric outlet. Similarly, the spirit is the force that brings our body to life. Also, like electricity, the spirit has no feeling and cannot think. It is an impersonal force. But without that spirit, or life-force, our bodies "expire, and back to their dust they go," as the psalmist stated.
Speaking about man’s death, Ecclesiastes 12:7 states: "The dust [of his body] returns to the earth just as it happened to be and the spirit itself returns to the true God who gave it." When the spirit, or life-force, leaves the body, the body dies and returns to where it came from-the earth. Comparably, the life-force returns to where it came from-God. (Job 34:14, 15; Psalm 36:9) This does not mean that the life-force actually travels to heaven. Rather, it means that for someone who dies, any hope of future life rests with Jehovah God. His life is in God’s hands, so to speak. Only by God’s power can the spirit, or life-force, be given back so that a person may live again.
How comforting it is to know that this is exactly what God will do for all of those resting in "the memorial tombs"! (John 5:28, 29) At the time of the resurrection, Jehovah will form a new body for a person sleeping in death and bring it to life by putting spirit, or life-force, in it. What a joyful day that will be!
If you would like to learn more about the terms "soul" and "spirit" as used in the Bible, you will find valuable information in the brochure What Happens to Us When We Die? and on pages 375-84 of the book Reasoning From the Scriptures, both published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Showing posts with label life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label life. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Blood Transfusions or Safe Alternatives?
Transfusions—The Key to Survival?
IN 1941 Dr. John S. Lundy set a standard for blood transfusions. Apparently without any clinical evidence to back him up, he said that if a patient’s hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying component of blood, goes down to a level of ten grams or less for every deciliter of blood, then the patient needs a transfusion. Thereafter that number became a standard for doctors.
This ten-gram standard has been challenged for nearly 30 years. In 1988 The Journal of the American Medical Association flatly stated that the evidence does not support the guideline. Anesthesiologist Howard L. Zauder says it is "cloaked in tradition, shrouded in obscurity, and unsubstantiated by clinical or experimental evidence." Others simply call it a myth.
Despite all this vigorous debunking, the myth is still widely revered as a sound guideline. To many anesthesiologists and other doctors, a hemoglobin level of below ten is a trigger for transfusion to correct the anemia. It’s virtually automatic.
No doubt, that helps account for the vast overuse of blood and blood products today. Dr. Theresa L. Crenshaw, who served on the Presidential Commission on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic, estimates that in the United States alone, some two million unnecessary transfusions are administered every year and that about half of all transfusions of banked blood could be avoided. Japan’s Health and Welfare Ministry decried "the indiscriminate use of transfusions" in Japan, as well as the "blind belief in their efficacy."
The problem with trying to correct anemia with a blood transfusion is that the transfusion can be more deadly than the anemia. Jehovah’s Witnesses, who refuse blood transfusions primarily on religious grounds, have helped to prove the point.
You may have seen newspaper headlines reporting that one of Jehovah’s Witnesses died because of refusing a blood transfusion. Sadly, such reports rarely tell the whole story. Frequently, it is the doctor’s refusal to operate, or to operate soon enough, that spells death for the Witness. Some surgeons refuse to operate without freedom to transfuse if the hemoglobin level drops below ten. However, many surgeons have successfully operated on Witnesses with hemoglobin levels of five, two, and even less. Says surgeon Richard K. Spence: "What I’ve found with the Witnesses is that the lower hemoglobin does not relate to mortality at all."
A Wealth of Alternatives
‘Blood or death.’ That is the way some doctors describe the alternatives facing a Witness patient. Yet, in reality, there are many alternatives to blood transfusion. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not interested in dying. They are interested in alternative treatments. Because the Bible forbids the ingesting of blood, they simply don’t consider blood transfusions an alternative.
In June 1988, the Report of the Presidential Commission on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic suggested that all patients be given just what the Witnesses have been requesting for years, namely: "Informed consent for transfusion of blood or its components should include an explanation of the risks involved . . . and information about appropriate alternatives to homologous blood transfusion therapy."
In other words, patients should be given a choice. One such choice is a type of autologous transfusion. The patient’s own blood is salvaged during the operation and recirculated back into the patient’s veins. Where such a process is simply an extension of the patient’s own circulatory system, it is quite acceptable to most Witnesses. Surgeons also stress the value of increasing the patient’s blood volume with nonblood expanders and letting the body replenish its own red cells. Such techniques have been used in place of transfusions without increasing mortality. In fact, they can improve safety.
A promising drug called recombinant erythropoietin has recently been approved for limited use. It speeds up the body’s own production of red blood cells, in effect helping a person to make more of his own blood.
Scientists are still searching for an effective substitute for blood that imitates its remarkable oxygen-carrying capacity. In the United States, the makers of such substitutes find it hard to get approval for their products. Yet, as one such maker objected: "If you thought about bringing blood to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] to be approved, you wouldn’t have a prayer of ever getting it tested it’s so toxic." Still, hopes are high that an effective chemical will be found that will be approved as an oxygen-carrying substitute for blood.
So there are choices. Those mentioned here are but a few of those available. As Dr. Horace Herbsman, a professor of clinical surgery, wrote in the journal Emergency Medicine: "It’s . . . quite clear that we do have alternatives to blood replacement. Indeed, perhaps our experience with Jehovah’s Witnesses might be interpreted to mean that we do not need to rely on blood transfusions, with all their potential complications, as much as we once thought." Of course, none of this is really new. As The American Surgeon noted: "The fact that major operations can be safely performed without blood transfusions has been amply documented in the past 25 years."
But if blood is dangerous, and there are safe alternatives to its use, then why are millions of people transfused unnecessarily—many of them without knowing it, others actually against their will? The report of the presidential commission on AIDS notes in part the failure to educate doctors and hospitals about the alternatives. It blames another factor too: "Some regional blood centers have been hesitant to promote strategies that minimize the use of transfusion therapies, since their operating income is derived from the sale of blood and blood products."
In other words: Selling blood is big business.
IN 1941 Dr. John S. Lundy set a standard for blood transfusions. Apparently without any clinical evidence to back him up, he said that if a patient’s hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying component of blood, goes down to a level of ten grams or less for every deciliter of blood, then the patient needs a transfusion. Thereafter that number became a standard for doctors.
This ten-gram standard has been challenged for nearly 30 years. In 1988 The Journal of the American Medical Association flatly stated that the evidence does not support the guideline. Anesthesiologist Howard L. Zauder says it is "cloaked in tradition, shrouded in obscurity, and unsubstantiated by clinical or experimental evidence." Others simply call it a myth.
Despite all this vigorous debunking, the myth is still widely revered as a sound guideline. To many anesthesiologists and other doctors, a hemoglobin level of below ten is a trigger for transfusion to correct the anemia. It’s virtually automatic.
No doubt, that helps account for the vast overuse of blood and blood products today. Dr. Theresa L. Crenshaw, who served on the Presidential Commission on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic, estimates that in the United States alone, some two million unnecessary transfusions are administered every year and that about half of all transfusions of banked blood could be avoided. Japan’s Health and Welfare Ministry decried "the indiscriminate use of transfusions" in Japan, as well as the "blind belief in their efficacy."
The problem with trying to correct anemia with a blood transfusion is that the transfusion can be more deadly than the anemia. Jehovah’s Witnesses, who refuse blood transfusions primarily on religious grounds, have helped to prove the point.
You may have seen newspaper headlines reporting that one of Jehovah’s Witnesses died because of refusing a blood transfusion. Sadly, such reports rarely tell the whole story. Frequently, it is the doctor’s refusal to operate, or to operate soon enough, that spells death for the Witness. Some surgeons refuse to operate without freedom to transfuse if the hemoglobin level drops below ten. However, many surgeons have successfully operated on Witnesses with hemoglobin levels of five, two, and even less. Says surgeon Richard K. Spence: "What I’ve found with the Witnesses is that the lower hemoglobin does not relate to mortality at all."
A Wealth of Alternatives
‘Blood or death.’ That is the way some doctors describe the alternatives facing a Witness patient. Yet, in reality, there are many alternatives to blood transfusion. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not interested in dying. They are interested in alternative treatments. Because the Bible forbids the ingesting of blood, they simply don’t consider blood transfusions an alternative.
In June 1988, the Report of the Presidential Commission on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic suggested that all patients be given just what the Witnesses have been requesting for years, namely: "Informed consent for transfusion of blood or its components should include an explanation of the risks involved . . . and information about appropriate alternatives to homologous blood transfusion therapy."
In other words, patients should be given a choice. One such choice is a type of autologous transfusion. The patient’s own blood is salvaged during the operation and recirculated back into the patient’s veins. Where such a process is simply an extension of the patient’s own circulatory system, it is quite acceptable to most Witnesses. Surgeons also stress the value of increasing the patient’s blood volume with nonblood expanders and letting the body replenish its own red cells. Such techniques have been used in place of transfusions without increasing mortality. In fact, they can improve safety.
A promising drug called recombinant erythropoietin has recently been approved for limited use. It speeds up the body’s own production of red blood cells, in effect helping a person to make more of his own blood.
Scientists are still searching for an effective substitute for blood that imitates its remarkable oxygen-carrying capacity. In the United States, the makers of such substitutes find it hard to get approval for their products. Yet, as one such maker objected: "If you thought about bringing blood to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] to be approved, you wouldn’t have a prayer of ever getting it tested it’s so toxic." Still, hopes are high that an effective chemical will be found that will be approved as an oxygen-carrying substitute for blood.
So there are choices. Those mentioned here are but a few of those available. As Dr. Horace Herbsman, a professor of clinical surgery, wrote in the journal Emergency Medicine: "It’s . . . quite clear that we do have alternatives to blood replacement. Indeed, perhaps our experience with Jehovah’s Witnesses might be interpreted to mean that we do not need to rely on blood transfusions, with all their potential complications, as much as we once thought." Of course, none of this is really new. As The American Surgeon noted: "The fact that major operations can be safely performed without blood transfusions has been amply documented in the past 25 years."
But if blood is dangerous, and there are safe alternatives to its use, then why are millions of people transfused unnecessarily—many of them without knowing it, others actually against their will? The report of the presidential commission on AIDS notes in part the failure to educate doctors and hospitals about the alternatives. It blames another factor too: "Some regional blood centers have been hesitant to promote strategies that minimize the use of transfusion therapies, since their operating income is derived from the sale of blood and blood products."
In other words: Selling blood is big business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
