I read Hebrew and Greek, so I usually consult OT and NT word studies, such as Kittel. . Nephesh can simply mean breathe or soul, and it can even mean throat. God is the Creator of all living things, they have biological existence (nephesh). Ruah can mean breathe, wind, spirit, etc. Looking in a concordance is not helpful. It is the difference between diachronic and synchronic meanings of words. As in all things, context is king.
The Hebrews were not pet or animal lovers in the sense that many of us are about our pets. They certainly thought that dogs were an abomination. Many kinds of animals were considered unclean. Even shepherds and sheep were thought to be unclean and the bottom of the social ladder. They definitely did not think of animals as having souls or consciences. As far as they were concerned, animals were nothing more than beasts to be eaten, worked, or destroyed. It is in this wider context (Sitz im Leben) that the idea of animals having human souls or eternal life would be most odd. I can find nothing in the OT that would indicate that animals were redeemed by the Lord.
There is an old saying that he who asserts must prove. I do not know of anything in Scripture that supports the view that animals have souls, in this case “dogs.” The idea for a Hebrew that dogs had souls would be horrific to say the least.
Reading Hebrew and looking to understand Hebrew cultural attitudes as you do, then, you should be familiar with the concept of the levels of
soul represented by these terms. Translation in context is, as you note, oftentimes difficult between languages, having to deal with differing conceptual notions contained within words, and with Hebrew in particular, having levels of meaning, meaning attached to each character and numeric symbolism with specific meaning, as it does. I will say that a given instance of, for instance,
nephesh or
ruach most definitely does have an implication insofar as our concept of soul, as far as a particular, referenced creature is concerned, regardless of conceptual difficulties between Hebrew/Aramaic and English. Such instances as these are why a good concordance is very helpful in ascertaining deeper meaning, or resolving apparent misunderstanding, at least for those who do not read Hebrew (or Greek) as you, yourself do.
That said, I'm surprised that you would not know that the Hebrews regarded all living creatures with the breath of life as possessing (being, really) a soul. Different levels, yes, but true nonetheless. So, your contention that the idea for a Hebrew, that dogs had souls would be horrific, is not correct.
Regarding Hebrew attitudes toward the "lesser" creatures, I'll point out that the righteous man regards the life of (is merciful to) his beast (Proverbs 12:10), and also the tale from II Samuel of King David being outraged at the taking and killing of a sheep being kept basically as a pet. Going into the fulfillment of Judaism represented by the Messiah, Jesus Christ, there is not one inkling of revulsion, in fact shepherds featured prominently, and He was born among farm animals, who were apparently quite reverential.
I've taken the liberty of going back through your posting history, and you're Lutheran, so of course you'd have more than a passing familiarity with the writings of Martin Luther. How do you rationalize Luther believing as he did, and your beliefs to the contrary, regarding the topic of this thread? Protestant thought, by and large and such as it is, does not reject this concept at all, as demonstrated by not just Luther, but Calvin, Wesley, Henry and others. They found the "proof" that you request in the very passages I've provided.
So, right back at you, he who asserts must prove. How can an animal be present on the new Earth, glorified, as all these prominent Protestants believed, without a soul?