Abortion

[post-it]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
It is unclear enough to various translators and/or translating committees that they have not only used "from," but also "while yet" and "from birth" in Luke 1:15. Either of these two last types of translations probably to some degree reflect the "bias" of the translators.

I don't think they reflect a bias when one examines additional uses of the word in the same chapter by the same author and by looking at the definition. I like using the Literal Translation in Greek using Strong which I believe most people will accept.

Let's take a look at the word

LIT Luke 1:15
15.
|2071| he will be
|1063| For
|3173| great
|1799| in the eyes
|3588| of the
|2962| Lord,
|2532| and
|3631| wine
|2532| and
|4608| strong drink
|3364| not at all
|4095| he may drink,
|2532| and
|4151| of {the} Spirit
|0040| Holy
|4130| he will be filled
|2089| even
|1537| from
|2836| womb
|3384| of mother
|0846| of him.

Now compare its usage to just a few verses later.

LIT Luke 1:35
35.
|2532| And
|0611| answering,
|3588| the
|0032| angel
|2036| said
|0846| to her,
|9999| {The}
|4151| Spirit
|0040| Holy
|1904| will come up
|1909| upon
|4571| you,
|2532| and
|1411| power of
|9999| {the}
|5310| Most High
|9999| {God}
|1982| will overshadow
|4671| you,
|1312| so
|2532| also
|3588| that
|1080| being
|1537| born
|0040| holy
|2563| will be called
|9999| {the}
|5207| Son
|2316| of God,

W"hile or during" doesn't work here

LIT Luke 1:70-71
70.
|2531| Even as
|2980| He spoke
|1223| through
|9999| {the}
|4750| mouth
|3588| of the
|0040| holy
|3588| -
|0575| from
|9999| {the}
|0165| age
|4396| prophets
|0846| of Him.
71.
|4991| salvation
|1537| out of
|9999| {the}
|2190| enemies
|2257| of us,
|2532| and
|1537| out of
|5495| hand
|3956| of all
|3588| the {ones}
|3404| hating
|2248| us,

"While or During" won't work here either.

LIT Luke 1:73-74
73.
|9999| {the}
|3727| oath
|3739| which
|3660| He swore
|4314| to
|0011| Abraham
|3588| the
|3962| forefather
|2257| of us,
|3588| to
|1325| give
|2254| to us
74.
|0870| without fear
|1537| out of
|9999| {the}
|5495| hand
|3588| of the
|2190| enemies
It doesn't work here either.
However, from as in "out of" or "born" works in all these contexts.

ek: Strong: a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), From, Out, often of completion.

How any scholar could get "While or during" from this is anyone's guess... maybe they are the ones who are bias. ???

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Helen:
And we have presented enough for anyone who is simply reading to know that that baby is a living human being from conception on.

Helen you have only put up one argument based on scripture, that of your definition of the breath word. I answered it in the previous posts and you have not show where your context of the word could possibly be used in this verse unless you are admitting that birds and cattle also have spirits equal to ours. You must show why Gen 2:7 and Gen 7:21,22 have different meanings of the subject of breath of life and nostrils.

Please show me where my interpretation of breath is wrong and not by just "claiming" one of it rare usages found thousands of years later than the period we are talking about.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

Why is it so hard for people just to take what God said and be satisfied with it instead of tearing it apart and trying to make if fit what makes them feel good?

The Bible should be much more than just something to debate about. Some people will twist anything to prove they are right. In doing so, they have become fools.

I am with Artimaeus and Helen. I am outta this thread.

Anyone who blasphemes the Holy Spirit should be out also! I am very surprised the moderators are letting this thread continue.

JMHO,
Sue

 

[Artimaeus]

Originally posted by post-it:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Artimaeus:

I seriously doubt that any OT priests performed abortions and if you find some reference that seems to indicate that, I am VERY sure that your interpretation is unreasonable.

See Numbers 5:13-28
Bitters = common herb remedy used even today to induce miscarriage. Searching the internet you will find several articles on which herbs induce miscarriage and that they fall under the category of "Bitters".

Overview of the verses.
Woman has sex with another, husband takes her to priests. Priest forces her to drink Bitters (herb drink) if she is with child, then her belly will swell and something drops between her thighs, if she is not guilty, nothing happens and she can still conceive at a future time.

This is a combination punishment/test by the pries

ts, it eliminates a bastard child or proves the woman did not have sex. </font>[/QUOTE]I had stopped contributing to this thread but, a thought occured to me that I had wanted to address before and had slipped my mind.

Well, I was right, your interpretation is unreasonable. Numbers 5 is no more a priest performing an abortion than pouring water over a brick causes it to grow. Talk about your "miscarriage of justice"

(I love puns). "bitters" may cause miscarriage but, this wasn't a test of pregnancy, it was a test of fidelity. It was God inspired, God overseen, and God sett;ed. If the woman was innocent of adultery (pregnant or not), no harm no foul. If she was guilty of adultery (whether she was pregnant or not) she suffered the consequences and was cursed. You are the one looking for a "scientific" explanation instead of taking what God says and believing that.

One last thing, you are very illogical. One time you will say that when the preborn John leaped it proves your point because it was unique and the next time you say it proves your point because it is common. Make up your mind. If your point was to polarize people into realizing that this preborn glob was indeed a human being, you did a brilliant job. If your point was to convince anyone that the preborn glob was just a glob then you failed miserably.

 

[dianetavegia]

I'm outta here too! I won't waste my time talking with Post-it. He apparently is blinded to the TRUTH.

Diane

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by post-it:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
So, Post-it,

Did you even read my post where I cited mt expert sources and showed you pretty conclusively what the different Hebrew words mean?

Thanks, I missed that post. Sorry. Well your experts and general meanings of breath don't help they way you posted them.

You have to look at how they are used in which book and for what reason. If you just take a general definition, you will most likely be wrong. I take the word and see how it is used again by the same author hopefully in the same chapter or close to the chapter or at least in the same book. After that I look at other similar words that are used in different context by the same author.

This is how I arrived at what Breath means in context to life and why it doesn't mean the same as Spirit in these passages.

KJV Job 27:3
3. All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils;

KJV Genesis 2:7
7. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


KJV Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God ... breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Now compare that to

KJV Genesis 7:21-22
21. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22. All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

In these verses even animals like fowl have "Breath" used in the same context as for Adam.

Connecting the dots of all the breath of life verses throughout scripture seems to indicate the following common items:

1.God's spirit (the giver of spirit and life)
2.Breath (life essence which comes from God)
3.Nostrils (and the means of gaining God's spirit)
4.Life (as when breath is present in the nostrils) </font>[/QUOTE]Tell you what. You post the verses that you would like me to look up in my Hebrew Bible when I get home MUCH LATER TONIGHT, and what words you think are used there, and I will look them up in the Hebrew Bible, and get a fuller commentary on the usage of the words tonight. Would that work for you? I must tell you that the sources from Yale and from Dr. Ellis won't give much commentary as they are simply from Hebrew text books with a glossary in the back of the book. However, BDB and Harris, Laird, and Waltke do have specific commentaries on the word usage in different passages. I might even do a little translation myself and see what comes up. Would that work for you? If I show that your research is wrong on that point, will you then admit it and concede that point? I will if I am wrong.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
I might even do a little translation myself and see what comes up. Would that work for you? If I show that your research is wrong on that point, will you then admit it and concede that point? I will if I am wrong.

Joseph Botwinick

[/QB]

I will be very interested in your interpretation although I would like to hear what scholars have to say on this usage of the word.

Strong's number 5397 nshamah as used in Gen 7:22. Did it mean "Spirit" or does it mean "vital breath, wind"?

Once you have that definition apply the same to Gen 2:7 and let me know your interpretation then of what brings the definition of "life" to man, is it spirit or the process of breathing.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by I Am Blessed 16:
Why is it so hard for people just to take what God said and be satisfied with it instead of tearing it apart and trying to make if fit what makes them feel good?

That's assuming the Church you attend "got it right" to begin with. As I recall, King James did exactly that and hired 50 scholars to find the truth. Many scholars since have continued to change meaning and print new interpretations. Being Baptist for me also entails a responsibility to KNOW why I am going to place a curse on women who have an abortion. I would hate to end up in front of the King with egg on my face by claiming, "I didn't take 10 minutes to see what your word said before I called them all murderers and messed up their lives for no reason, sorry bout that."

You go on accepting everything you are told by church leaders and special interest groups within the church, I will go on seeking my answers in scripture and accept what I am told by the Holy Spirit.

 

[post-it]

He is a helpful hint I use to find problems within the Church. When I start seeing Big money raised to fight this evil plot or that devil's work by the televangelists or large Churches, I understand that special interest groups and plots are coming into play and propaganda is most likely being introduced. That is when I hit the books to see what God says over what man is saying. Questioning is a direct charge we were given and for good reason. We will be held responsible for our action and inaction.

Homo's, cults, and abortion seem to be the current evils of the day. Remember when witches were burned? Who questioned scripture at that time was most likely accused of being one. Nothing much has changed, I've been accuse of being a homo and having been connected closely with an abortion. If mob ruled today, I would have been burned at the stake by my fellow Christians.

 

[Bro. James Reed]

Well, gang, I'm of the persuasion that our brother here just will not understand until the truth is revealed to him. Fortunately for the rest of us, it has been.

Matthew 16:17 "...flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

I will pray that the Lord will do this, but I'm not making any promises.

Speaking of having egg on your face for calling someone a murderer; if the shoe fits...

Job tells us in chapter 31,
14. What then shall I do when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall I answer him?
15. Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?

I guess Job is referring to someone other than God, right?

And, how about King David, I suppose he was mistaken when he said, in Psalms 139,
12. Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
13. For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb .
14. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

And, I guess my biggest piece of scripture is the following from Jeremiah 1:
4. Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
5. Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Still don't think God gives us a soul before we're born??? I guess this was just another special case then, right?

Here's my question to you...if you believe that a soul goes into a child, only in special cases, before heis born, then how do you know that a pregnant mother is not destroying one of those "special cases" when she has an abortion?

What if Mary, a pregnant, unwed women, had chosen an abortion? After all, you believe it was her choice, not God's. In your eyes, she would not have been a murderer? I just can not fathom how someone can have such an unreasonable and ungodly belief. I really feel sorry for you and I'll be praying for God to open your eyes to this attrocious view of the murdering of the unborn.

James

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by post-it:
I don't think they reflect a bias when one examines additional uses of the word in the same chapter by the same author and by looking at the definition. I like using the Literal Translation in Greek using Strong which I believe most people will accept.

I don't have access to Strong's Literal Translation. Maybe you mean you are making a literal translation from Strong's. Here is Young's Literal Translation, which says the same and I also accept: "and of the Holy Spirit he shall be full, even from his mother's womb;" It says "from the womb," not from the time of birth. Interpretation of what "from the womb" means is another issue. Studying additional uses of the same word by the same author in the same chapter might give some help, but is not reliable enough to build a point on it, especially in a case like a preposition. If it were a case of a noun or a verb, it would be much more telling. It is not all that unusual for the same author to use the same preposition in two different ways in the same sentence.

Let's take a look at the word...|1537| from |2836| womb
Now compare its usage to just a few verses later.

LIT Luke 1:35
|1537| born W"hile or during" doesn't work here

Don't know what's up with your reference here. The word for "born" in Luke 1:35 is "gennao" (Strong's 1080, not 1537). The word translated "of" is "ek" (Strong's 1537).

It doesn't work here either.
However, from as in "out of" or "born" works in all these contexts.

To pull out some verses that use the Greek preposition "ek" and prove that it can only mean what you want it to mean is fallicious reasoning.

How any scholar could get "While or during" from this is anyone's guess... maybe they are the ones who are bias. ???

post-it, forgive me if I cannot put much faith in your understanding of the Greek language, seeing you have a problem either understanding and/or fairly representing what someone says in English. I did not say definitely that the scholars are biased, but that their choice to translate/interpret "from the womb" as either "while in the womb" or "from the time of birth" "probably to some degree reflect(s) a bias." Nor did I say that only one side is or would be biased. The choice of translating what seems to be literally "from the womb" as one of the two examples above might be because of any number of reasons/choices. Your simplistic 'find the preposition "ek" and translate it "out of" or "born" every time' is another fallicious argument. The word "ek," like most other words, has a semantic range. It cannot mean anything that we want it to, but it can mean different things within that semantic range, depending on its use in a sentence and/or context. Strong's noted above does not give the entire semantic range. Note also that there are more words in the sentence than just "ek." There is the Gk. word "koilia," translated womb. There is the Gk. word "eti," translated even, yet, or still. The combination of "eti" and "ek," with "koilia" (meaning womb, not birth) is probably why some translators choose "while (yet) in the womb." Could "from the womb" mean "from birth?" It could. Could "from the womb" mean "while in the womb?" It could.

The bottom line, though, is that you have made much of a section of scripture that cannot in any way prove that a child IS NOT alive while in the womb, which you have asserted. Evidently it troubles you that it could prove that child IS alive while in the womb, which would contradict your theory.

 

[Don]

Post It, I know you're getting hit from all sides, and that's why you missed this, so I'm re-printing it:
-------------------------------------------
Post-It, your argument seems to rest on the ability to "breath." You seem to be saying that until the baby is able to draw oxygen, you don't consider it "alive."

Think carefully about this.

ALL life requires oxygen--even in the womb. The baby in the womb is receiving oxygen through the blood. That oxygenated blood is absorbed, and the cells continue to energize and grow and create more cells because they've received oxygen.

The baby "breaths" through amniotic fluid.

If your main criteria is whether the baby is able to breath oxygen or not, then yes, the embryo/fetus is drawing oxygen well before birth.

Would you please care to clarify further?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by post-it:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
I might even do a little translation myself and see what comes up. Would that work for you? If I show that your research is wrong on that point, will you then admit it and concede that point? I will if I am wrong.

Joseph Botwinick

I will be very interested in your interpretation although I would like to hear what scholars have to say on this usage of the word.

Strong's number 5397 nshamah as used in Gen 7:22. Did it mean "Spirit" or does it mean "vital breath, wind"?

Once you have that definition apply the same to Gen 2:7 and let me know your interpretation then of what brings the definition of "life" to man, is it spirit or the process of breathing. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Post-it,

This may take me a while as I just got home and may not be able to finish tonight as I do need to go to bed at about 10:30 or 11:00, so please be patient.

Genesis 7:22 (Hebrew transliteration), excuse me a minute. My wife just called me over to feel my baby kicking and to feel the heartbeat. Pretty amazing for a big ole blob that isn't alive, huh? Anyway, back to the Hebrew:

kol asher nishmath RUACH chayim beapayn mikol asher behahrahbah meythuh

The word used here is Ruach, not nephesh. Now for the word usage according to the experts:

BDB: "breath, wind, spirit...1. breath of mouth or nostrils...e. as sign and symbol of life...breath of life..." p. 924.

Harris, Laird, and Waltke: "Wind, breath, mind, spirit...In living beings the ruah is their breath, whether of animals (Gen. 7:15; Ps. 104:25, 29), men (Isa 42:5; Ezk 37:5), or both (Gen 7:22-23); whether inhaled (Jer. 2:24) or on their lips..."

Conclusion: The word used in this verse is indeed ruach and not nephesh. Ruach does indeed refer to the spirit or breath of God.

More later,

Joseph Botwinick

 

[post-it]

Joesph, I'll wait for your conclusion on the breath definitions before posting any more. Thanks for the attention you are giving this. I'm sure many here are looking forward to what your research brings.
Just a quick request, also look up nishmath (the word that also is spelled "nephesh" by some dictionaries) it was the word right before RUACH.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
There is the Gk. word "eti," translated even, yet, or still. The combination of "eti" and "ek," with "koilia" (meaning womb, not birth) is probably why some translators choose "while (yet) in the womb." Could "from the womb" mean "from birth?" It could. Could "from the womb" mean "while in the womb?" It could.

the word eti can mean, "after that" or "hereafter" or "yet". Reading it would thus be "after that from the womb", "hereafter from the womb" or "yet from the womb". Nothing indicates "While in the womb". "While" just isn't in the sentence anywhere, and is should be to make your argument.

In your conclusion you state that it could go either way. And even if I agreed with that, it leaves doubt that John received the holy spirit while in the womb. Therefore this scripture can't be used to prove either side of the argument. This takes us back to other verses we are examining.

[ April 11, 2003, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[Bro. James Reed]

posted April 10, 2003 04:29 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, gang, I'm of the persuasion that our brother here just will not understand until the truth is revealed to him. Fortunately for the rest of us, it has been.

Matthew 16:17 "...flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

I will pray that the Lord will do this, but I'm not making any promises.

Speaking of having egg on your face for calling someone a murderer; if the shoe fits...

Job tells us in chapter 31,
14. What then shall I do when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall I answer him?
15. Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?

I guess Job is referring to someone other than God, right?

And, how about King David, I suppose he was mistaken when he said, in Psalms 139,
12. Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
13. For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb .
14. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

And, I guess my biggest piece of scripture is the following from Jeremiah 1:
4. Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
5. Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Still don't think God gives us a soul before we're born??? I guess this was just another special case then, right?

Here's my question to you...if you believe that a soul goes into a child, only in special cases, before heis born, then how do you know that a pregnant mother is not destroying one of those "special cases" when she has an abortion?

What if Mary, a pregnant, unwed women, had chosen an abortion? After all, you believe it was her choice, not God's. In your eyes, she would not have been a murderer? I just can not fathom how someone can have such an unreasonable and ungodly belief. I really feel sorry for you and I'll be praying for God to open your eyes to this attrocious view of the murdering of the unborn.

James


I just wanted to post this again, in case anyone missed it. The original is on the bottom of page 6. Please go back and view the original, as it looked better because I used bold print in several places to make my point.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by post-it:
the word koilia can mean, "after that" or "hereafter" or "yet".

No, it means "womb" or "belly" - in the context of Luke 1:15 it is womb.

In your conclusion you state that it could go either way.

In my conclusion I state that "ek koilia(s)" means "from the womb," but that it could be interpreted either way.

And even if I agreed with that, it leaves doubt that John received the holy spirit while in the womb. Therefore this scripture can't be used to prove either side of the argument. This takes us back to other verses we are examining.

I repeat again that the verse, interpreted either way, provides no problem for the pro-life position of a baby being alive in the womb. If John was not filled until after he was born, the verse simply doesn't speak to the issue. But you cannot admit that it could be interpreted either way for fear of destroying your position.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
I repeat again that the verse, interpreted either way, provides no problem for the pro-life position of a baby being alive in the womb. If John was not filled until after he was born, the verse simply doesn't speak to the issue. But you cannot admit that it could be interpreted either way for fear of destroying your position. [/QB]

But it can't be interpreted that way, if it could then the Greek language could leave out the word "While" and just use FROM. But that is not the case, they had a word for "while" and many other words that would have made it obvious that it was during his time in the womb. It said "yet/hereafter from the womb" not "while yet in the womb". "in" and "from" are two different words also.

Greek language is not so limited that they couldn't convey a clear meaning here. Why didn't it say "from conception" or "from this time" or 10 different ways of saying it so that is would be understood "while yet in the womb"? Did the author forget how to use the word "while"? Or was it meant to confuse and lead to debate. No, this verse clearly speaks its meaning.

[ April 11, 2003, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:


Job tells us in chapter 31,
14. What then shall I do when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall I answer him?
15. Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?

I don't question God forms us in the womb, but he also formed Adam BEFORE he brought him to life. This verse doesn't help your argument.

And, how about King David, I suppose he was mistaken when he said, in Psalms 139,
13. For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb .
14. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

Covered me or brought me to life in my mother's womb. Two different things. God can cover, form, sanctified, bless, etc without having a life in existence yet.

And, I guess my biggest piece of scripture is the following from Jeremiah 1:
4. Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
5. Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

God knows everything he wants to know. He knew me before I was formed in my mothers womb and before my mother was formed in her mothers womb. Does that mean I was alive before my mother was formed in her mother's womb? No. This verse doesn't discuss life in the womb it speaks of the knowledge of Jeremiah before he ever even existed. We can't get that Jeremiah was alive before he was conceived.

Here's my question to you...if you believe that a soul goes into a child, only in special cases, before heis born, then how do you know that a pregnant mother is not destroying one of those "special cases" when she has an abortion?

God wouldn't allow it. No man can do anything God has not allowed him to do.

I really feel sorry for you and I'll be praying for God to open your eyes to this attrocious view of the murdering of the unborn.

Don't feel sorry for me, geel sorry for the women we Christians have placed so much guilt on that they abandon the Faith after having an abortion and spend their eternal life in Hell. All because we don't question Church leaders on Scripture interpretation... like the Pope and the Baptists, and the....

 

[Bro. James Reed]

God wouldn't allow it. No man can do anything God has not allowed him to do.

How do you know God wouldn't allow it? He allows us to make mistakes all of the time. He allowed the Romans to crucify Christ, but was it not a sin for them to do so? He allows some people to murder other people, does that mean that it is not a sin? Currently, he is allowing women to abort babies. If he desired to, he could stop it, but that does not make it right.

He allows us to make mistakes so we can learn from them and see just how stupid we are.

Don't feel sorry for me, geel sorry for the women we Christians have placed so much guilt on that they abandon the Faith after having an abortion and spend their eternal life in Hell.

As far as this is concerned, I don't agree with your interpretation that anyone is being sent to hell for turning from the faith. To blame someone's going to hell on anyone other than that person is ludicrous. Also, what do you say about "Jane Roe," Norma McCorvey, who was baptised in 1995, upon realizing the sinfulness of abortion? She has now dedicated her life to getting Roe v. Wade overturned. Are we pushing women away, or are we trying to save babies?

As I can see, even with obvious, over-whelming scriptural evidence, you are absolutely not going to change your mind about this. As such, I will not be posting on this thread any further. Just mark my words, my friend. One day, when the truth has been revealed to you, you will feel very sorry for what you have been advocating as a choice.

Abortion is a sin, I think you know it's a sin, but you refuse to ackowledge it as such, because you want to remain politically correct. I am truly sorry that you're earthly "image" is more important than the truth that God has CLEARLY presented in scripture.