Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Isa 65:20Originally posted by Chrysoprasus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by post-it:
Ok more bad news for the CONSERVATIVES and some liberals!
ALERT ALERT ALERT:
Bible verse found that once and for all establishes when "life" begins.
Speaking of the New Heaven and Earth...
Isaiah 65:20 "Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
This supports the first breath concept also. So far every verse we have examined supports it and now we have one that says an INFANT HAS ONLY LIVED A FEW DAYS (Infant is one that has been born) It was common that a baby could die soon after birth. This will not happen in the New Earth, as it does in the this earth.
This verse can't be twisted by my opponents. This verse backs up every first breath argument I have posted. Life begins at birth and more specific at first breath.
Will you now stop saying the Bible says life begins a conception... that is a Catholic view and one that is wrong.
OK, so you didn't really mean it.Originally posted by Chrysoprasus:
I suppose it wouldn't help my argument theologically if I cried right now, would it?
Gina
Me too, I hope you come back with something else. This really does suck eggs.Originally posted by Chrysoprasus:
Can't you see I'm crying here?
You might want to give me until tomorrow to come at it from a different viewpoint.
Gina
nobody here is trying to be as God, but you are trying to be a judge!Originally posted by SheEagle911:
Another attempt of man trying to be as God! Hmmm....where have we heard that one before? Eden perhaps?
Wow, that is quite a stretch! Biblical definition as you define one or two verses? Can we please be spared? Do you not compare Scripture with Scripture, precept upon precept? The totality of the Word of God?</font>[/QUOTE]there is actually no stretching at that! i have provided biblical evidences to show that in the womb, there is biological life, but no soul. with that, no human life! the passages that others show to prove otherwise can be also be concluded for my belief with the same validity. yet with the proof that i have shown, you did not refute it (i wonder why). you said scriptures must be compared with scriptures. but where is your comparison? all your responses were emotions and twisting and stretching of biblical truths to suite that emotion!Originally posted by SheEagle911:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />thus, with the biblical definition of life starting at birth, there can be no murder prior to it.
see what i mean?Originally posted by SheEagle911:
So, by your definition then if Mary would have had an abortion, then that would not be murder?
i understand it all! but what part of Eccl. 3:1-2 and Job 3:11 did you not understand? because the way you dealt with it above, you avoided it but instead show another scripture which you merely backed-up with emotions and not with God's Word.Originally posted by SheEagle911:
What part of "thou shalt not kill (murder), do you not understand?"
the problem with you, SheEagle, is that you are too quick to make conclusions. i suggest you stop it and be a more responsible owner of your tounge! the issue at hand is whether or not abortion is murder! when someone tells it is not, it does not necessary mean he pro-abortion! being for it or against it is another issue. i think it is on the other thread that i laid my stand about it.Originally posted by SheEagle911:
To take these verses literally does not support the pro-abortion position by ANY stretch of the imagination!
You pro-aborts will have to do much better than this last feable attempt!
nobody here is trying to be as God, but you are trying to be a judge!Originally posted by Aki:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SheEagle911:
Another attempt of man trying to be as God! Hmmm....where have we heard that one before? Eden perhaps?
Wow, that is quite a stretch! Biblical definition as you define one or two verses? Can we please be spared? Do you not compare Scripture with Scripture, precept upon precept? The totality of the Word of God?</font>[/QUOTE]there is actually no stretching at that! i have provided biblical evidences to show that in the womb, there is biological life, but no soul. with that, no human life! the passages that others show to prove otherwise can be also be concluded for my belief with the same validity. yet with the proof that i have shown, you did not refute it (i wonder why). you said scriptures must be compared with scriptures. but where is your comparison? all your responses were emotions and twisting and stretching of biblical truths to suite that emotion!Originally posted by SheEagle911:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />thus, with the biblical definition of life starting at birth, there can be no murder prior to it.
see what i mean?Originally posted by SheEagle911:
So, by your definition then if Mary would have had an abortion, then that would not be murder?
i understand it all! but what part of Eccl. 3:1-2 and Job 3:11 did you not understand? because the way you dealt with it above, you avoided it but instead show another scripture which you merely backed-up with emotions and not with God's Word.Originally posted by SheEagle911:
What part of "thou shalt not kill (murder), do you not understand?"
the problem with you, SheEagle, is that you are too quick to make conclusions. i suggest you stop it and be a more responsible owner of your tounge! the issue at hand is whether or not abortion is murder! when someone tells it is not, it does not necessary mean he pro-abortion! being for it or against it is another issue. i think it is on the other thread that i laid my stand about it.</font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for you assessment of me and your personal attacks. You sure know how to illuminate the beauty of Jesus Christ and show His love to all creation including the unborn children who never had a chance to draw their first breath because some butcher slaughtered them in the womb and sucked their brains out.Originally posted by SheEagle911:
To take these verses literally does not support the pro-abortion position by ANY stretch of the imagination!
You pro-aborts will have to do much better than this last feable attempt!
Ok, but please be clear. Have you totally given up the thought that life begins when a spirit is imparted? Are you now only using this one verse as your support of abortion, which if it means what you say it does, means that's it's ok to have an abortion up to the time the baby is seperated from its mother.Originally posted by post-it:
I really was centering on Isaiah 65:20 "Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
Not the animal/spirit thing.
Isaiah 65:20 is a verse that can stand on its own as supporting that life begins after birth. That verse is my main focus right now.
My argument has never changed, just the timing of when first breath occurs, other than that I have just been finding more and more scriptures that back it up. This last one, not even you attempted to refute or argue.Originally posted by Ransom:
Besides, I wonder if post-it realizes how contradictory he makes his position look when he changes his argument nearly as frequently as his socks?
No I'm not, it all is part of the same argument. I just thought we should examine this verse first.Originally posted by Chrysoprasus:
Have you totally given up the thought that life begins when a spirit is imparted?
No, this is just another (but solid) verse that supports the first breath concept.Are you now only using this one verse as your support of abortion,
Not really, remember they didn't have ventilators back then, and a child who dies soon after birth could also be premature babies with weak lungs. They were considered alive at the point they took first breath. If anything, this further provides proof that any baby born that can breath or be made to breath should be considered alive.which if it means what you say it does, means that's it's ok to have an abortion up to the time the baby is seperated from its mother.
That is the point of looking to scripture to determine what scripture says is "life" not if it is human or not. I have never said a fetus is not human. The search in this thread is about finding out when life "begins", not what species something is, that is for the scientist. I have no interest in over riding Biblical data with biology at this point since we appearantly will never have to since the Bible is indicating that life starts at first breath.Originally posted by Ransom:
post-it said:
This last one, not even you attempted to refute or argue.
Why should I even bother trying to answer your smokescreen arguments when you have, so far, failed to pass first principles: whether or not the unborn is a human person?
I might be missing something you are getting at but I have never really related life to being born. Just to the ability of the baby being able to breath a first breath. While this verse says born, it must be assumed that the baby was breathing for a certain amount of time before it died. If the baby was born dead, it would not ever have taken a breath and would not be called an infant which lives for only a few days (a time).Originally posted by Chrysoprasus:
No, you can't hold to the first breath concept and keep the meaning of the verse in Isaiah the way you're interpreting it. According to your interpretation it says life begins when a baby is born. Gina