Life and breath

One question post-it: at what point in the gestation period of Mary did the baby become the Son of God?

 

Where is the justification that it is sin?[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]In your so-often quoted but mis-interpreted verse from the OT. You still owe me an answer about that, by the way.

Good question Doc asked you. Try answering that one with a straightforward (UN-political) answer.

 

Doc, scripture is very muddy about when the event took place however, upon the day of birth, an angel appeared and made an announcement of his deity. It was not done before the birth, which one would think would have been done before if in fact it had occurred before birth. To further support this assumption when the conception occurred it was announced again that at a future point, (birth) he would be called Christ. All scripture points to the future tense (she shall bring forth a son) (Unto you is born this day, Christ).

KJV Luke 2:11
11. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord.

KJV Matthew 1:21
21. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Of course, the whole argument is null since this is a special case anyway. So even this argument for the birth wouldn't reflect on regular humans.

 

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life." Exodus 21:22,23

How is it so CLEAR to you that it's only wrong if the baby is 'taken' from the mother after it is ABLE to breathe?

If a woman is with child and men strive (fight), and the baby departs from her and dies ... it requires the death penalty. There is absolutely NO MENTION of whether the baby is ABLE to survive, only if because of men it is taken from the woman and DOESN'T survive.</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, I missed your question earlier.

Well, you have to understand what the definition of life is in Hebrew. (nephesh) Life. Nephesh means a "breathing creature" in Hebrew. King James' transalators translated it into english as "Life". So when you read the passage Life for Life (as in the punishment), you must read it as a breathing creature for a breathing creature.

Now let's look at the verse again.


KJV Exodus 21:22-23
22. If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

So the only time a Life for Life punishment follows is when a fetus (baby) is born alive and breathing then dies shortly after "(harm (mischief) that occurs" or if the Child should have been expected to be breathing but isn't, then the life for life punishment should also kick in.

We can now draw that if a baby can't be expected to breath let's say at pre-8 months (back in that time,) then only a fine could have been placed on the man who cause the miscarriage. However, today we can help the baby to breath at 6 months, so we should back the time of murder (life for life) (breathing creature for breathing creature) to 6 months.

Ok, that is how I got to this number, and that is how I justify when it is murder and when it isn't. Of course, I don't expect everyone to go by the literal word of the Bible, but if you do, then this is what it says.

 

Helen, I think I know why you have been so confused all this time. You didn't understand the meaning of nephesh and still don't. Go back and study some more, you'll get it and then know. Also look up the root it came from, that will help solidify its meaning.

[ September 23, 2002, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

I think you are getting confused with which words I'm referring to, I think you think... that I'm looking at "chay" which is the breath of life from God which he breathed. I'M NOT using that.

Also, nephesh is used in Gen 2 as what man became "after" the breath of life was breathed into him. He became "nephesh".

But anyway, I'm reading out of Exodus not Gen.

[ September 23, 2002, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

Thank you, Helen.

Post-it, "nephesh" is used to describe the "life for life" that is the punishment for taking the fruit from the woman's womb ..... NOT used to describe the fruit itself.

05315 nephesh {neh'-fesh}

from 05314; TWOT - 1395a; n f

AV - soul 475, life 117, person 29, mind 15, heart 15, creature 9,
body 8, himself 8, yourselves 6, dead 5, will 4, desire 4, man 3,
themselves 3, any 3, appetite 2, misc 47; 753

 

So you are saying that it is your opinion that no women will continue to abort illegally if a law is passed?

That isn't a 3rd choice. I'm serious and you are trying to play word games. We are talking about your daughter, your grandaughter, her daughter and so on. Which one are you willing to give up because they made a mistake and the law allows their death because of it?</font>[/QUOTE]WHAT women do or don't do if there is a law against abortion isn't what is supposed to dictate law.

 

Post-It,

Proverbs 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Since unborn children are innocent and likely to bleed during the abortion procedure, are you willing to concede that the Bible prohibits abortion after blood is developed?

 

Since life doesn't exist in the unborn yet without breath, it isn't considered blood with life. This verse would not be sufficent to make a case. Gen 9 says not to eat blood of flesh because it contains "Life" that of a breathing creature. So even with scripture against scripture, it fails to make even a supporting premise.

 

Grammy1013, you conveniently left out the definition, and opted to mislead us with "usage" numbers and translationsinstead of actual meaning. Shame Shame.

Let's have a look at the meaning and the root it came from.

Strong's Ref. # 5315

nephesh

from HSN5314; properly, a breathing creature, i.e. animal of (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental):

**********************************************
Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
Strong's Number: 5314
Transliterated: naphash
Phonetic: naw-fash'

Text: a primitive root; to breathe;

[ September 23, 2002, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

double post

[ September 23, 2002, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

Assumes facts not in evidence. You may be satisfied with your breath = life equation but it does not satisfy the scripture I quoted. This scripture says "sheds innocent blood". It says nothing about breath or lack thereof being a limitation. Since an unborn with a beating heart will bleed when aborted, it qualifies for protection under this scripture.

False. Genesis 9 supports this notion. Breath is not mentioned but the penalty for shedding the blood of a man is. This passage does not qualify life as someone who breathes but as someone who bleeds. Any one who is capable of bleeding human blood fits under this law.

 

Assumes facts not in evidence. You may be satisfied with your breath = life equation but it does not satisfy the scripture I quoted. This scripture says "sheds innocent blood". It says nothing about breath or lack thereof being a limitation. Since an unborn with a beating heart will bleed when aborted, it qualifies for protection under this scripture.

False. Genesis 9 supports this notion. Breath is not mentioned but the penalty for shedding the blood of a man is. This passage does not qualify life as someone who breathes but as someone who bleeds. Any one who is capable of bleeding human blood fits under this law.</font>[/QUOTE]The Proverbs verse you place so much weight on doesn't say blood. And it doesn't even say "shedding", the word r'iy is more exact to say "appear" or "look" (a sight). Thus, hands that "appear" innocent, (deeds that "appear" innocent but aren't.) The more acurate interpretation is "People that deceive others." This interpretation also matches the poetic words which the author just made with eye and tongue. It flows like this "Arrogant eyes, Lying Tongue, deceitful Hands".

[ September 24, 2002, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

Another interpretation could be "hands that appear innocent but are red (Hebrew: adami). (as in hands that kill people) more correctly (people who murder that get away with it because of appearance of innocence).

[ September 24, 2002, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

I am not really sure where you got this information from but I think you might be confused. I just looked at the Strong's definition for each of the words used... the words are "hands", "shed or pour out", "innocent", and "blood". The NIV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, ASV, YLT, Amplified, and Darby translations all say something very close to "hands that shed innocent blood." This is about as literal a translation as is possible from Hebrew to English.

Maybe you would like to cite a source since hundreds of expert translators disagree with you.

 

Post-It, Just wanted to make sure you didn't miss this. I am interested in your response.

 

Sorry...been busy, wasn't tryin' to ignor anyone.
Post-it you made a comment on my last statement about having the baby.
First I wasn't tryin' to play any word game, but thats alright.
Second you said"Which one are you willing to give up because they made a mistake and the law allows their death because of it?"...Which law?
Just because there is a law in the land saying it is legal doesn't make it right.
I also know that we as servants of Christ aren't perfect, but my daughter, or granddaughter. Seems to me I read somewhere in Gods Word that nothing is too hard for him. If We weren't able to care for the child ourself then I know a God that can provide. I also know there are lots of folks that don't know Him...don't know they can turn to Him.
That's our fault.