The Necessity of Special Creation

[DHK]

Yer still confused, Bro.

That is not conceiving an ovum. That is releasing an ovum.

Conception is when it is fertilized by a sperm, which is what happens in nature when two people come together, with the result of a child being born.
Here it is the Holy Spirit supernaturally coming upon this ovum and in some mysterious way that we do not and cannot understand (as the angel said in Luke 1:25), produced a "holy thing" which would be called the Son of God.

 

[Eliyahu]

After the sin enter the world, the Death started to rule over the human race.

This means that the genes of the human race were damaged, deformed, malfunctioned, disabled, that some people were born as blind, deaf, dumb, diabetes sensitive, with obesity genes, stroke genes, many weakness of stomach. liver, hair loss, fertility problem, depression, innate heart disease, irregular teeth, dental weakness, thyroid hormone problem, various alergy such as peanut alergy, aphasia, autism, etc., and thousand more diseases and weaknesses.

I am very sure that nobody was born without any defects.

On the other hand the OT teaches us the shadow of Jesus Christ like this:

I hope many of you know that Red Heifer is the exact Type of Jesus Christ, the Sinless and Blemish Sacrifice.

Numbers 19:
2This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke:

3And ye shall give her unto Eleazar the priest, that he may bring her forth without the camp, and one shall slay her before his face:
4And Eleazar the priest shall take of her blood with his finger, and sprinkle of her blood directly before the tabernacle of the congregation seven times:
5And one shall burn the heifer in his sight; her skin, and her flesh, and her blood, with her dung, shall he burn:
6And the priest shall take cedar wood, and hyssop, and scarlet, and cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer. 7Then the priest shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp, and the priest shall be unclean until the even.

9And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation: it is a purification for sin.
10And he that gathereth the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: and it shall be unto the children of Israel, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among them, for a statute for ever.

18And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave:


Red Heifer was selected by the priests and they examined if they had any black whiskers, they were disqualified. If they had any scars due to the fighting with other cows, they were disqualified. The Heifer must have been perfect in many aspects.

Why?

Because the Red Heifer represented the sinless person, Jesus Christ.
If Jesus took the ovum of Mary, the innate sinner, then could He be perfect and blemish?

As the sinners were forgiven and became clean by being sprinkled with the Ash Water of the Red Heifer, we are daily cleansed from our sins due to what Jesus did at the Cross.

Could Ovum of Mary be perfect as the Blemish, Spotless, Red Heifer?

 

[DHK]

I have a question:

How does a woman conceive an ovum? That's something new to me...speaking from a woman's point of view.

Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
The woman has the ovum.
It plainly says "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit does the conceiving. The Apostles Creed (used by many Protestant Denominations, not just the RCC), has for generations stated "born of the virgin Mary, conceived of the Holy Ghost..." That much, at least, is an historic orthodox Christian belief. It seems that some are trying to deny or change it.

 

[Eliyahu]

Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
The woman has the ovum.
It plainly says "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit does the conceiving. The Apostles Creed (used by many Protestant Denominations, not just the RCC), has for generations stated "born of the virgin Mary, conceived of the Holy Ghost..." That much, at least, is an historic orthodox Christian belief. It seems that some are trying to deny or change it.

There is NO Word for Conceieved ( Sulambanow) in Matthew 1:20.

The Word used for Conceive is Genao which means Born, Begat, Begotten

Nobody say ovum is born! One baby is Born ! Genao is used for " Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob..."

Only the Greek Illiterates can bravely claim "Conceived"

 

[DHK]

There is NO Word for Conceieved ( Sulambanow) in Matthew 1:20.

The Word used for Conceive is Genao which means Born, Begat, Begotten

Nobody say ovum is born! One baby is Born ! Genao is used for " Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob..."

Only the Greek Illiterates can bravely claim "Conceived"

You don't make sense. So Christ was born (conceived) and then born a second time nine months later. How is a person born twice?
If there was no word for conceived the KJV translators must have done a pretty poor job at their work of translating. I believe their work over yours.

 

[Eliyahu]

You don't make sense. So Christ was born (conceived) and then born a second time nine months later. How is a person born twice?
If there was no word for conceived the KJV translators must have done a pretty poor job at their work of translating. I believe their work over yours.

That was the point that I raised so many times.

Jesus was born already before He came out of Mary !

KJV is the best translation in English, but there are several mistakes in there and Matt 1:20 is one of them too.

I already pointed out Mark 2:26 which says " in the days of Abiathar" then you can find in 1 Samuel 21: 1- Abiathar was not the Priest at that time, but his father Ahimeleck was the High Priest. Then was Jesus wrong in understanding the history? Were all the 620 manuscripts wrong because they all mention Abiathar? KJV and most of the English versions were wrong! It should have read " in the chapter of Abiathar" because Ahimeleck was killed suddenly, he had no time to record the visit of David, but his son Abiathar recorded the story, and it was called the section of Abiathar. Read Darby's translation.
Was KJV perfect all the time? NOPE! I can find several more.

You can find conceive in Luke 1:31. In that case Sullepse( Conjugation from Sullambanow) which means Conceive. However, it doesn't specify that the ovum of Mary was used as the original meaning is catch, seize, pregnant, having a child.

What is significant in Matt 1:20 is that the One was already born by the Holy Spirit even before He was born out of Mary. This statement is amazing ! That's why I all the time referred to this verse when I debated with RCC supporters.

 

[DHK]

What is significant in Matt 1:20 is that the One was already born by the Holy Spirit even before He was born out of Mary. This statement is amazing ! That's why I all the time referred to this verse when I debated with RCC supporters.

Again, you are not making sense. It doesn't make sense within the realm of nature, or in common sense.
The word is conceived, not born.
Context gives the meaning of the word in this case.

For example, the English word "church"
I went to the church (building)
The church is buying a new carpet (local church or congregation)
The Church has existed ever since Pentecost (universal church)
The RCC is a corrupt church (denominational organization.)

Only the context in the above examples gives you the correct definition of the word "church." Otherwise you don't know what the meaning is.
The same is true with many words in all languages. Context defines the word. And the context of Mat.1:20 demands the word "conceive" and rules out born or begat.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Since human sperm was not used, if Mary's egg had indeed been used Jesus would have been born female. The female only contributes the X chromosones in the reproduction process.

Jesus was not born a woman, so we know not only was a human male not used in the reproductive process, but a human female was not used either.

It was all God's doing.

 

[DHK]

Since human sperm was not used, if Mary's egg had indeed been used Jesus would have been born female. The female only contributes the X chromosones in the reproduction process.

Jesus was not born a woman, so we know not only was a human male not used in the reproductive process, but a human female was not used either.

It was all God's doing.

Your coming closer in that you are using biology.
Now realize that as the sperm is donated by the male in normal circumstances, in this miraculous event the (so-called sperm), or whatever God did when the power of the Highest overshadowed Mary, acted as the sperm and caused the fertilization to take place. Thus what took place in the womb of Mary kept both the humanity and the divinity of Christ in tact. He was human via Mary's ovum, embryo, and its consequent growth, birth and growing into a man. He was deity, because at no time did deity ever leave him. Christ was always God. We may not fully understand these things but accept them by faith. When Christ came to this earth he came as man--fully man and fully God at the same time.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Again... you are making statements of something without Scripture. I have showed Scripturally that the egg was not used.

You only claim the egg was used with no Scripture whatsoever to back your claim.

I will believe the Word of God.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Unless you can produce Scripture that clearly shows Mary's egg was used, all you are doing is assuming it was used because of the natural thinking process of the biological reproduction process.

Your assumptions are only theory if not backed up with fact.

 

[DHK]

Again... you are making statements of something without Scripture. I have showed Scripturally that the egg was not used.

You only claim the egg was used with no Scripture whatsoever to back your claim.

I will believe the Word of God.

You have not shown any Scripture at all. All you have done is taken Scripture out of context. For example:

"A body thou hast prepared me." God prepares bodies every day by fertilizing the ovums of women. He did so this time by doing the same with Mary but with the miraculous intervention with the Holy Spirit as explained in Mat.1:20 and Luke 2:35. That should be enough Scripture right there.

However we still have the expression "the seed of the woman to account for in Genesis 3:15.
Paul used the expression "made of a woman" in Galatians 4:4 pointing to an unusual and unique virgin birth.

Isaiah 7:14 uses the word conceived. In Matthew it was fulfilled. It was a sign. Virgins don't conceive. The only way this one could was through the interventon of the Holy Spirit.

All throughout the NT and the OT, we have the same story; the same truth being told. But there is not one verse that tells of your space age version that God somehow just plummeted a child into the uterus of a woman. That is the equivalent of what mothers used to tell their children when they asked how babies were born. "The storks brought them."
It is just plain silly.

 

[D28guy]

Wow!

20 pages in 1 day, 22 hours.

I wonder if thats ever happened before on this site?

A whole lot of "iron sharpening iron" and digging into Gods scriptures going on here. :thumbs:

Glory to God! \o/

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Good to see Dr Henry Morris and his view of things brought up.

He was a monumentally influential teacher and brother. I'm sure his Institute for Creation Research will continue on with the fine work for our Lord that He began.

Mike

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Dr Morris was an awesome teacher. His contributions to past Days of Praise articles has always challenged and strengthened my heart and walk with God.


I look forward to one day meeting face to face the Christ that Dr Morris preached of.

I beleive his articles concerning the birth of Christ and the fact that Mary's ovum could not have been used were well researched before he penned down that wonderful truth for millions of readers to read and reflect on.

Thank God for such men of God who have given of their time to study God's Holy Word that God's people might thereby be enlightened and grow.

 

[annsni]

I'm running out but I just want to say what I'm seeing here.

I'm seeing the denial of prophecy and the denial that God can create a perfect human being from Mary's body. Saying that God can NOT do it. I say that God could do anything but we know that He sticks to His Word and He stated all through the Old Testament that the Messiah would be born of the seed of Eve (showing that there would not be a man involved since "seed" comes from man) and that He would be of the seed of David. He could not have then been created apart from the bloodline of Mary because then God would be a liar. Jesus was born from Mary's ovum and He carried her DNA that was perfected through the power of the Holy Spirit. To say that He couldn't do this makes God a weakling.

God is all powerful. He could have created Jesus from a rock. However, He Himself put limitations on how Jesus would come into this world so that all would know proof positive that He was the Messiah.

If those here choose to say that God did not fulfill prophecy and that just coming out of Mary's birth canal was enough to fulfill the bloodlines, then you are sorely deceived and Satan is laughing. You are also denying the clear teaching of Scripture and are teaching a heresy that, although Dr. Morris believes it, does not make it truth. All through Christian history, it has been accepted that Mary physically conceived the Messiah from her "seed"/ovum and gave birth to a child through the power of the Holy Spirit. This idea that Jesus had no physical tie to Mary is a new teaching and we know about these new teachings - they are wrong.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

What I am seeing here is a denial that God did not do that which His Word clearly states He did.

After searching and searching the internet last night and pouring through several books, I have found 3 instances that say after the ovum is fertilized, it is then conceived by the female. I concede an ovum... a fertilized ovum, is conceived.

But, Scripture backs my stance that Mary's ovum was not that which was conceived. For, Matthew 1:20 states:

Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

What was conceived? A fertilized egg! Who provided the fertilized egg? Matthew declares it to be none other than the Holy Ghost that provided that egg.

Notice it did not say of a union with the Holy Ghost. if a fertilized egg is that which is conceived, then we have to believe the Scripture the fertilized egg was of the Holy Ghost. Mary did not provide the egg at all. It was of the Holy Ghost as Scripture so evidently put forth.

 

[donnA]

I'm running out but I just want to say what I'm seeing here.

I'm seeing the denial of prophecy and the denial that God can create a perfect human being from Mary's body. Saying that God can NOT do it. I say that God could do anything but we know that He sticks to His Word and He stated all through the Old Testament that the Messiah would be born of the seed of Eve (showing that there would not be a man involved since "seed" comes from man) and that He would be of the seed of David. He could not have then been created apart from the bloodline of Mary because then God would be a liar. Jesus was born from Mary's ovum and He carried her DNA that was perfected through the power of the Holy Spirit. To say that He couldn't do this makes God a weakling.

God is all powerful. He could have created Jesus from a rock. However, He Himself put limitations on how Jesus would come into this world so that all would know proof positive that He was the Messiah.

If those here choose to say that God did not fulfill prophecy and that just coming out of Mary's birth canal was enough to fulfill the bloodlines, then you are sorely deceived and Satan is laughing. You are also denying the clear teaching of Scripture and are teaching a heresy that, although Dr. Morris believes it, does not make it truth. All through Christian history, it has been accepted that Mary physically conceived the Messiah from her "seed"/ovum and gave birth to a child through the power of the Holy Spirit. This idea that Jesus had no physical tie to Mary is a new teaching and we know about these new teachings - they are wrong.

I'm seeing a denial of Ro. 8:23, Mary being without sin so she could not pass sin on to Jesus. Which of course is RCC.
I'd like to see scripture where the bible uses the word 'bloodline', I think your adding that to scripture.
Mary doesn't have a 'seed'. You say you have horse breeding experience, you should know females do not have a 'seed'.
I have yet to see anyone deny prophecy, that you are making up.

 

[DHK]

I'm seeing a denial of Ro. 8:23, Mary being without sin so she could not pass sin on to Jesus. Which of course is RCC.
I'd like to see scripture where the bible uses the word 'bloodline', I think your adding that to scripture.
Mary doesn't have a 'seed'. You say you have horse breeding experience, you should know females do not have a 'seed'.
I have yet to see anyone deny prophecy, that you are making up.

1. Please remember that the Bible is not a book of Biology. Thus when people like SFIC demand to see the word "ovum" in the Bible it is an absurd request. The word "seed" could (in some cases) rightly refer to that ovum. What other word would they use in that generation?

2. There is a direct physical connection to David. That is why the genealogy is given in Matthew 1. Consider all the begats that are used, and why they are almost all men. The men carry the seed (in the NT normally translated sperm), but not in all cases. Obviously it wasn't when we have three women in that genealogy. The word simply means born. And so it is throughout the genealogy, showing a distinct bloodline right to David.
But in Matthew 1:20 the same word is used and cannot mean born both times. It has to mean sperm, otherwise the verse makes no sense at all. The thing (ovum) which is in thee shall be conceived (fertilized--normally with sperm) by the Holy Spirit. Think what happens when a a child is conceived. It wasn't any different at the conception of Mary except that the Holy Spirit was involved instead of Joseph. If it wasn't that way then Jesus did not inherit a complete human nature.

The sin nature comes through the man. This has nothing to do with a sin nature. We inherit the sin nature through Adam. In Adam we sin; not in Eve; not in Mary; but in Adam, for we have an Adamic nature--a sin nature. Jesus escaped that through the virgin birth. That was the primary reason for the virgin birth; the other reason being it was the way that he would come into this world and obtain a human nature. What part of his sin nature would you suggest that he do without if he were not to start his human life from the very beginning?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Another Scripture to show the egg is not the seed:

Genesis 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Here Eve shows that the seed is the offspring...that which was born, not to be born as some would argue