Lucas Banzoli<\/a> is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism).\u00a0He has a Master\u2019s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He\u2019s active on YouTube<\/a>.<\/p>\n This is my\u00a040th refutation<\/a>\u00a0of his articles (or portions of books). As of yet, I haven\u2019t received\u00a0a single word<\/em>\u00a0in reply to any of them (or if Banzoli\u00a0has<\/em>\u00a0replied to anything, anywhere, he certainly hasn\u2019t informed\u00a0me<\/em>\u00a0of it). Readers may decide for themselves\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0that is the case.<\/p>\n My current effort is a major multi-part response to Banzoli\u2019s 1900-page e-book,\u00a0The Legend of the Immortality of the Soul<\/em><\/a>\u00a0[A Lenda da Imortalidade da Alma<\/em>], published on 1 August 2022.\u00a0 He claims to have\u00a0\u201ccover[ed] in depth all the immortalist arguments\u201d<\/span>\u00a0and to have\u00a0\u201cpresent[ed] all the biblical proofs of the death of the soul . . .\u201d<\/span>\u00a0and he confidently asserted:\u00a0\u201cthe immortality of the soul is at the root of almost all destructive deception and false religion.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0He himself admits on page 18 of his Introduction that what he is opposing is held by\u00a0\u201cnearly all the Christians in the world.\u201d <\/span>A sincere unbiblical error (and I assume his sincerity) is no less dangerous than a deliberate lie, and we apologists will be \u201cjudged with greater strictness\u201d for any false teachings that we spread (Jas 3:1).<\/p>\n I use RSV for the Bible passages (including ones that Banzoli cites) unless otherwise indicated. Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas\u2019 Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n See the other installments:<\/span><\/p>\n See also the related articles:<\/span><\/p>\n Seven Replies Re Interceding Saints (vs. Lucas Banzoli)<\/a>\u00a0[5-25-22]<\/span><\/p>\n Answer to Banzoli\u2019s \u201cChallenge\u201d Re Intercession of Saints<\/a>\u00a0[9-20-22]<\/span><\/p>\n Bible on Praying Straight to God (vs. Lucas Banzoli)<\/a>\u00a0[9-21-22]<\/span><\/p>\n Reply to Banzoli\u2019s \u201cAnalyzing the \u2018evidence\u2019 of saints\u2019 intercession\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[9-22-22]<\/span><\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n The true responsibility for the spread of ignorance that preserves the greatest deception of all time are the translators, who suppress the word \u201csoul\u201d without the slightest concern most (if not all) of the times it appears. Thus, although most of the texts that speak of someone\u2019s death speak of the death of the soul in the originals, this is completely imperceptible to one who reads only the translations that we have access to.<\/span> (p. 124)<\/p>\n [T]he syncretism of Christianity with Greek philosophy led many to endeavor to reconcile one doctrine with another, which ultimately resulted in the summary suppression of all texts that speak of the death of the soul in order to conform to the prevailing Platonic view.<\/span> (p. 125)<\/p>\n So now Banzoli again goes back to the slop of a supposed conspiracy<\/em> among Bible translators. This goes to show yet again a sociological observation that the more serious (and in Christian theology, unbiblical) an error becomes, the greater the likelihood in direct proportion that conspiratorialism will be part<\/em> of the foolish and wrongheaded (sometimes downright emptyheaded) analysis. And so we see that this is the case here. Indeed, not only is a massive conspiracy supposedly taking place; but it\u2019s also (gasp!) \u201cthe greatest deception of all time\u201d<\/span>! It\u2019s a massive, gargantuan Big Lie (so Banzoli would have us believe) that has duped \u201cnearly all the Christians in the world.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n In fact, the ignorance here is Banzoli\u2019s inability and\/or unwillingness to comprehend the widespread use of non-literal idiom in the Bible. If there is any<\/em> conspiracy, it\u2019s one of his own ignorance<\/em>. I have already shown that the use of synecdoche<\/em> (including for his big verse Genesis 2:7) will probably explain most of these instances where Banzoli is convinced that the nefarious conspirators are trying to cover up a latent soul sleep in the Bible. In other words, \u201csoul\u201d in those cases is intended to mean (by virtue of synecdoche) a human being or person.<\/p>\n Therefore, reference to a \u201csoul\u201d dying would simply mean a person dying. We do this in English today. We say, for example, \u201cmore than 1,500 souls perished when the Titanic sank.\u201d That\u2019s the short answer. Because Banzoli doesn\u2019t get<\/em> this, he has to resort to tin foil hat conspiratorialism to explain the thing he can\u2019t comprehend. It\u2019s tragi-comic to observe this pitiful spectacle.<\/p>\n Leviticus 24:17 . . . states that \u201cHe who kills a man shall be put to death\u201d [RSV]. I bet you haven\u2019t noticed much of anything in this text, and you probably imagined that it refers only to the death of the body, since, as has been taught, the soul is an immortal \u201cghost\u201d. What you certainly must not have even suspected is that the Hebrew of this text reads ve\u2019iysh kiy yakkeh kol-nephesh \u2018\u00e2dh\u00e2m moth yum\u00e2th<\/em>, where nephesh<\/em> is soul, and moth<\/em> is death. Literally translated, the text would read: \u201cWhoever kills a soul will surely die\u201d. Reading the Hebrew text, the situation changes dramatically. The verse in question is not talking about the death of the basar<\/em>-body, but of the nephesh<\/em>-soul.<\/span> (p. 125)<\/p>\n Banzoli cites the Hebrew correctly (see an interlinear Bible for this verse<\/a>; remember that Hebrew reads from right to left). But, ironically, after charging almost all Bible translators with outright deception, he goes on to ignore the presence of \u201cman\u201d (\u2019\u0101\u00b7\u1e0f\u0101m<\/a><\/em>) in this passage: a Hebrew word universally translated<\/a> in English as \u201cman\u201d or \u201chuman\u201d. His \u201cliteral\u201d translation of the passage excludes man<\/em>, for some odd reason. Three literal English translations<\/a> of Leviticus 24:17 do not do that at all:<\/p>\n Young\u2019s Literal Translation<\/strong> \u2018And when a man smiteth any soul of man, he is certainly put to death.<\/p>\n Literal Standard Version<\/strong> And when a man strikes any soul of man, he is certainly put to death.<\/p>\n Smith\u2019s Literal Translation<\/strong> And when a man shall smite any soul of man, dying, he shall die. Note that they don\u2019t express the soul sleep notion that the soul is<\/em><\/strong> the man, but rather, it is \u201cof<\/em><\/strong>\u201d man. In other words, it\u2019s the biblical dualism that Banzoli rejects. And that is the true<\/em> literal rendering of the verse (I\u2019m delighted that he brought up the Hebrew!). If he<\/em> were correct, on the other hand, these three literal Bibles would and should have something like \u201csoul-man\u201d: where the two are identical. But instead all three render it \u201csoul of<\/em> man.\u201d<\/p>\n So his argument collapses. If it were a conspiracy, these three Bibles wouldn\u2019t include \u201csoul\u201d in the passage at all: just as Banzoli omits \u201cman\u201d from his supposed literal rendering of the Hebrew of the passage. But because they are honest<\/em>, they present it as it actually is<\/em>, and we see Banzoli blatantly ignoring the fact that \u2019\u0101\u00b7\u1e0f\u0101m<\/em> is also<\/em> present in the verse.<\/p>\n God commands that \u201cwhoever of you has killed any person, and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves and your captives on the third day and on the seventh day\u201d (Num 31:19 [RSV]<\/span>). The part that says \u201ckilled any person\u201d in the original Hebrew, is hor\u00eagh nephesh<\/em> \u2013 \u201ckilled a soul\u201d.<\/span> (p. 126)<\/p>\n KJV also has \u201ckilled any person\u201d here. As I noted in Part 3<\/a>:<\/p>\n [I]f we examine the case of the KJV (no insignificant or inconsequential translation), we find no nefarious conspiracy to conceal the truth. Out of 753 appearances, nephesh<\/em>\u00a0is translated as soul in the KJV 475 times<\/a>, or 63% of the time that it\u2019s translated. That hardly sounds like a conspiracy to cover up a word that we both agree literally means\u00a0soul<\/em>. The same Bible, however, also translates it as the similar idea of\u00a0life<\/em>\u00a0117 times,\u00a0person<\/em>\u00a029 times,\u00a0creature<\/em>\u00a09 times,\u00a0body<\/em>\u00a08 times,\u00a0himself<\/em>\u00a08 times,\u00a0yourselves<\/em>\u00a06 times,\u00a0themselves<\/em>\u00a03 times, and\u00a0man<\/em>\u00a03 times. Like almost all biblical words, it\u2019s\u00a0used different ways in different contexts<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Thus, in Numbers 31:19, nephesh<\/em> is regarded by Bible scholars as connotating \u201cperson\u201d rather than \u201csoul.\u201d It can have either meaning; again, like most words (in any language) have multiple meanings. If we look up \u201csoul\u201d at Dictionary.com<\/em><\/a>, we find that it has no less than 13 definitions; the fifth on the list being \u201ca human being; person.\u201d<\/p>\n Hebrew is no different. Two of the three literal English Bibles<\/a> render nephesh<\/em> as \u201cperson\u201d here, but Smith has \u201ckilling a soul\u201d; so it must not be in on the conspiracy (at least not for this<\/em> verse). Or does Banzoli now want to argue that every biblical word can only<\/em><\/strong> have one<\/em> definition<\/strong> or meaning? He\u2019s already neck-deep in alleged conspiracy regarding Bible translators; he may as well go down this ridiculous \u201clinguistically insane\u201d road too.<\/p>\n He goes on to provide several similar examples, but they are all based on the same presuppositional falsehood that nephesh<\/em> = person literally, exclusively, and all the time, rather than having a meaning of an immaterial soul of a person (as often occurs in the Bible) or in terms of synecdoche (a person being called a soul). It doesn\u2019t matter how many examples he can come up with if they all involve the same demonstrably false premise.<\/p>\n For this reason, a book as absurdly long as Banzoli\u2019s (1900 pages!) mustn\u2019t be thought to be unanswerable and profoundly compelling merely<\/em> due to length and hundreds of \u201cexamples.\u201d They simply multiply the same lie and falsehood over and over and prove nothing. That being the case, I\u2019ll deal with a few of his supposed proofs (like the two above), but need not deal with all<\/em> of them, because they\u2019re all refuted by virtue of the fact that the same falsehood is present in each one. Once that falsehood is decisively refuted, all the examples built upon it go down with it.<\/p>\n David is . . . the author of the Psalm 141, where he declares that \u201cmy eyes are toward you, O Sovereign Lord; on thee I take refuge; do not give me over to death\u201d (Psalm 141:8, Google translation of Banzoli\u2019s words), in which \u201cdo not give me over to death\u201d is the translation of the Hebrew nephesh `arah<\/em>, which literally translated is \u201cnot deliver my soul to death.\u201d This shows that to David the soul was as mortal as any part of the body.<\/span> (p. 127)<\/p>\n The Hebrew Interlinear Bible at Bible Hub<\/em><\/a> translates the phrase in question as (in English syntax) \u201cdo not leave my soul destitute.\u201d Apart from whether the word means \u201cdeath\u201d or \u201cdestitute\u201d we should also note the use of \u201cmy<\/em><\/strong> soul\u201d: even in Banzoli\u2019s rendering. Expressing it that way is not conducive to the belief that the soul is simply the person. It\u2019s something the person possesses<\/em>. A man is made up of both body and soul. But the meaning in this passage simply isn\u2019t death<\/em>. If we follow the word that in this verse is in the form of t\u0259\u00b7\u2018ar<\/a><\/em> (Strong\u2019s word #6168<\/a>: arah<\/em>), we find that Strong\u2019s Concordance<\/em> defines it as \u201cto be naked or bare.\u201d The NASB translates it as:<\/p>\n defenseless* (1), emptied (1), empty (1), laid bare (2), lay him open (1), leave (1), made naked (1), make their bare (1), make yourself naked (1), poured (2), raze (2), spreading (1), uncovered (1).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n We find nothing about death or dying there<\/em>. The KJV (all instances also laid out on this web page<\/a>) is similar; never translating it as death<\/em>. The standard linguistic reference Brown-Driver-Briggs<\/em> specifically defines the word as used in Psalm 141:8 as meaning \u201cbe naked, bare.\u201d What more do we need<\/em>? But to bring home the point even more, I\u2019ll cite my three hyper-literal English translations:<\/p>\n Young\u2019s Literal Translation<\/strong> . . . Make not bare my soul.<\/p>\n Literal Standard Version<\/strong> . . . Do not make my soul bare.<\/p>\n Smith\u2019s Literal Translation<\/strong> . . . thou wilt not make my soul naked. I see nothing about a soul (supposedly = a person) dying. So this is no proof at all of what Banzoli seeks to establish from the Bible.<\/p>\n Joshua \u201cslew all the nephesh that lived in it with the sword\u201d (Josh 10:30), as he did at Lachish (Josh 10:32) and Hazor (Josh 11:11). No Portuguese version consulted translated it by \u201calma<\/em>\u201d [soul<\/em>], because the immortalist translators would never admit the idea of \u200b\u200ban immaterial and immortal soul being literally wounded and killed by the sword. Thus, they prefer to simply discard the nephesh<\/em> of the texts.<\/span> (p. 127)<\/p>\n I can\u2019t speak to Portugese translations, but I do know that the most historically influential and widely-read Bible in English, the King James Version (1611) has for Joshua 11:11: \u201cAnd they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword . . .\u201d So the good ol\u2019 KJV translators refused to join the supposed conspiracy. But of course, we know that \u201csouls\u201d here simply mean \u201cpeople\u201d: as I have already explained in a general sense. Joshua 10:30 and 10:32 also include \u201csouls\u201d in the same sense, as do Joshua 10:28, 35, 37 [2], 39. Also<\/em> in the chapter we have examples of other descriptions, showing that \u201csoul\u201d in this context (through the beauty of cross-referencing) is simply a synonym for \u201cpeople\u201d:<\/p>\n Joshua 10:33<\/strong> (KJV) Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and his<\/em> people<\/em><\/strong>, until he had left him none remaining.<\/p>\n Joshua 11:17<\/strong> . . . all their kings<\/strong><\/em> he took, and smote them, and slew them. (cf. 12:1, 7)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Other Old Testament examples of the same thing abound in the KJV<\/a>:<\/p>\n Exodus 12:27<\/strong> . . . he smote the Egyptians, . . .<\/p>\n Numbers 11:33<\/strong> . . . the LORD smote\u00a0the people with a very great plague.<\/p>\n Numbers 21:35<\/strong> So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land. (cf. Dt 2:33)<\/p>\n Deuteronomy 3:3<\/strong> So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining.<\/p>\n [see many more examples at the above link, and 91 examples of \u201csmote\u201d in the OT in RSV<\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/11\/SoulsHeaven-1.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n