Life is in the blood...

What??

I have already address the 'offence against the husband' so I'll leave that at bay. However the last sentence is not even insinuated in scritpure. There is nothing in the scripture that says 'he can choose death IF the fetus (?) is fully developed (?)'.

If the woman looses the child during pregnancy scripture states the offender is to be judged as a murderer, not that the husband chooses if he wants judge him or not as a murderer (Ex 21:23). Also there is not one passage of scripture to be found where even alludes to anything about an unborn child being 'fully formed' much less a 'fetus'. Scripture never calls the unborn anything but 'a child' at all points during a womans pregnancy, whether 1 week along or 9 months.

I went back to look at who had the passage I was quoting from and noticed that Joe already answered pretty much the same as I just did. You can tell I haven't read the whole thread.. :BangHead: ... lol.

 

This is your view or opinion and not something God specifically says in His Word. You are making assumptions. I agree I also make assumptions when I believe life begins with your first breath. This is my view and I believe the Bible supports it.

Secondly, Adam Clarke agrees with my view regarding the fully formed fetus. Please read his view again. I am not saying he is right but he does appear to see the samethings in this verse as I see.

Also, you are applying a lot of what we know today when you say fetus vs fully developed baby vs inception etc.... Trust me when I say I was speaking in more of a premitive sense of recognition. A woman could have a mis-carriage in the early stages of pregnancy and the man or she for that matter would never know. For one, there was no rabbit or accurate testing for pregnancy. Secondly, the loss of blood would make her unclean and so not something she would not openly talk about. She would probably more write it off to her monthly etc...

Also, men had more than one wife back then so they were not as in tune to their spouse as we are today.

In Bible days a woman was a man's property. Not partner or equal or anything like today. You couldn't offend a woman or a child, the offence had to be against the man. The man bought the woman from her father so they were his properties. This is why the offence was against him.

As I stated before, the biblical significance of this verse has to do with every man wanting to be the father of the Messiah. If the fetus was developed enough to tell it was a female, chances are nothing would happen to the offender... Excuse my bluntness, woman were disposable and not valued back then. A woman and/or child dying during child birth was common.

 

Lebuik, with all due respect you most of the above speculation, postulation, and assumption.

Unfortunately scripture is 'specific' and it is what I used to describe what God says in His word about the unborn. Can you show me ANY other wording for the 'thing' (?) in the womb that God uses other than 'a child'? I couldn't find anything either How can it be an 'assumption' when that is exactly what God calls it - bar none. Man in scripture is a living being, woman in scripture is a living being, and so is a child. Do you really want to contend that John (the Baptist) while still in his mothers womb was dead or lifeless when the Holy Spirit filled him? Does the Holy Spirit fill the non-living?

There is nothing in scripture that states life begins with your first breath. That makes no sense LeBuick. Being serious here, how can the child 'draw' it's first breath if it has no life by which to cause the body to 'draw it'? How can that which is not alive move in the womb? God Himself calls the unborn a child, meaning a person, meaning they are alive. Even science proves a unborn is alive before it ever draws it's first breath air after exiting the womb. I'm sorry but there isn't any scripture given that makes such a statement. If you want to use the verse speaking of God making Adam whereby He breathed the breath of life into him, that is not refering to simply air but his spirit, and when it entered his body it THEN became alive. Before that the body that lay there was no more than a empty corpse, unmoving and unable to draw a breath.

Besides the unborn 'does' breathe even in the womb, just not oxygen but oxygen rich amnionic fluid. You were either with child or you were not, there was no in-between.

Where do you get this from? They had ways of knowing just as we do today only different. However, a woman knows when something is different and there are more signs of being pregnant that just a missed minstral cyle. My wife, sisters, cousins all knew when they was pregnant long before they took any tests (appoximately 3 weeks along) and could even tell you when "most likely" it happened and according to their doctors they were always right! But I can tell you this as well, that any woman who wasn't sure if she was pregant and lost it, knew instantly they 'were' but no more.

Now that is just silly. First, if they hid it they would be living in sin and causing everyone who came in contact to them to be in sin. Secondly, you are taking a quantum leap by such a assumption as though they didn't care or desire to be god-fearing and righteous in their ways before the Lord. You having absolutly nothing by which to base such an accusational statement other than what you think they might be thinking and maybe what they might possibly have done...

Again, a quantum assumption. First not all men had multiple wives actaully not many had multiple wives. Fact is, most of them were of those who in prosperity to afford to keep more than one.

This is abosolutely untrue and biblically they were not nor ever a mans property. Man had authority but a woman was his partner/help-meet. She bought and sold, could have their own business but according to Gods law the man was the one of authority and who God would hold accountable for all things of the family. God never determinded that women were mens property, and the fact that the Jews sought to live by the Law of God would make God to be the one who made of women, mechandise to be bought or sold.

Where do you get this from?? The offence is ALWAYS against the one involved but all matters had to go through the biblical headship. You can not find in the scripture anywhere that alludes to a woman being a mans proporty because he bought her. He is not buying her but giving the father compensation for taking to himself of such a precious portion of the fathers home and family, and that ONLY by HER express permission and agreement. Also in the same manner she gives to the groom a dowry of great price as well.

Again, you couldn't be more wrong. Some men treated their wives in such a way but that was not the norm. It was a pagan practice to treat woman and children in such a way. Remember they were obedient to the Law, and to say woman had no value is to say that God gave them none. On the contrary, however women were to be treated as queens, to not have to work/labor as the man does,. to be taken care of completely, and loved above others. To be his joy and pride so to speak. Prov 31. for example

 

Actually just the opposite. The defintion hasn't changed at all, just what we know regarding it's growth stages.
Secondly, scripture states in Hebrew and Greek 'with Child' and not pregnant. We can use the term pregnant as a dynamic equivalent but it is not a literal rendering of the known ancient texts.

You are right about one thing, scripture does not distiquish between 1 week or 9 months and that was my point. Scripture states they were "with Child" and it always is in refence to the act of 'carrying' an unborn, thus the term 'with'. Therefore it does not nor has it ever refered to the time of copulation onward.

Another thing, there is a wealth of knowledge archeologically (or should I say anthropologically)regarding historical positions of what a culture or group considered to be 'preganant'. Funny thing is they are all the same. If one was pregant, no matter how early or late, they were with child even in pagan civilations.

Because that is the most literal translation from the Hebrew texts and yes, I read Hebrew Again we could use the generic term 'pregnant' following the dynamic equivolent form but the literal rendering is actaully ' with child'. Do you know of any other biblical wording used to describe a woman who is carrying an unborn baby still??? If you said no, your right because there isn't one.

Yes, we agree here.

To my knowledge there aren't any passages in scripture which show life starts later than conception. The fact that scripture consistantly utilizes the phrase "with child" encompasses all gestational periods of it growth, because it refers to the 'being' itself as a child. It is a specific declaration of the being through out the general pregnancy (all aspects of it) which precludes any other point of contention. it is a child at any and all points of the gestational formation and that declaration comes from God Himself. Thus if it is a child it is alive.

 

so let's just throw out all medical knowledge we have, JSN, and practice medicine the way the Bible characters did.

This is one of the more convoluted arguments I've seen on the BB in a while.

 

Ancients with regular periods would have known by about 3 weeks after conception if they were pregnant.

Ovulation occurs around day 14 after the last period and conception would have to occur in the few days after that. They would notice a skipped period about 2-3 weeks after that.

To confuse things, modern medical dating of a pregnancy starts from the last period which is actually 2 weeks before conception. So when a baby is born at 40 weeks (which is the average), it is actually only 38 weeks from conception. Messed up, eh?

 

Fair enough, even though there is a BIG difference between an abortion and the things you listed, which without exception are men enhancing nature, not messing with it. We use natural chemicals in medicine, we use natural resources in airplane wings, even toenail clippers.
The point of the post is 'does an abortion glorify God?' The answer was already discussed, but you have chosen to duck that question by focusing on an arguable supporting point (which, incidentally is very slick and is what I would do if I couldn't answer the question satisfatorily...).

 

Abortion on demand at any stage of human development is a murderous craft. A noble Christ honoring endeavor, NOT! I for one will not be numbered with all of it's enablers. :tear: 49,000,000 dead souls to date and still counting at the daily average of 1,600+.

 

Your premise of "Life is in the blood" is just not Biblically sound as you try to relate it to abortion. You seek to enable the murderous craft by saying that it is ok in God's eye as long as there is no blood involved. I have already posted scripture concerning why I believe that conception is the moment that human life is in it's first stage of development.
The Bible's reference to life is in the blood is a commonsense reaction to the fact that if something is bleed out it ceases to live. That you are not to cook or stew an animal in it's own blood or milk. You are not to eat the blood. No where in God's Word does it relate to the beginnings of human life.
As far as contraceptives are concerned if it causes a failure to to connect to the uterine wall, then that is the death of a human life. God is the judge of all things. I know that I am on the right side of this issue. However if I am not, then what harm have I caused, save to have raised your blood pressure. If you are wrong then it is you that must face His judgment. I'm willing to wait to find out that I am right are you? Meanwhile the blood of 49,000,000 lives are not on my hands.

 

Let's quote Leviticus 17:11 again:

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

The life of the FLESH is in the blood, not life in and of itself. Much of the animal kingdom exists without blood. Everything from microscopic animals (amoeba, paramecium), insects, worms, etc. They have life, but not blood. It is not necessary to have blood in order to have life.
The medical science during Washington's day thougth that the blood carried disease. Therefore if one got sick they would let out the blood (blood-letting). When Washington got sick that is what they did; they let out his blood. The problem was: they let out too much and Washington died. The Bible is true: the life of the flesh is ihn the blood; not its disease or sickness, as the doctors at that time thought. The blood is a sign of life. Consider the reason why Jesus was pierced, and out flowed blood and water.
The life of the flesh is in the blood; not life per se.

The embryo is always its own life. It gains no sustenance from the mother. Once the egg is penetrated by the sperm one cellular wall is formed and the process of meiosis takes place. Very soon after that meitosis takes place where two daughter cells grow into four, and four into eight, and eight into sixteen. That embryo (now properly called a zygote) is about three days old and has traveled down to the uterus and attached itself to the uterine wall. From there it will continue to grow at avery fast rate. By seven weeks all of its organs will be clearly visible, and it is called a fetus.

God gives life, not when man can see the organs, or determine whether or not it has blood, but when God breathes into it the breathe of life. That is conception. From the time of conception it is evident that growth is taking place. The development of the organs from week one to week seven are evidence of life. Would you destroy the life that God has created, simply because there is no evidence of blood. The embryo or the fetus never receives blood from the mother. It always has its own blood. It is evident that life starts at conception.

 

And all the people said, "Amen all glory to God the fashioner of all that lives."

 

Leave the sin issue alone and look at the verse.
"...did my mother conceive me.
My mother did conceive me.
David considered himself "me" a person, at the time of conception. That is how the verse is worded. Why else would he use a first person singular pronoun?
He was a person at conception.

Isa. 7:14--A virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son.
Life starts at conception.

In Matthew the angel told Joseph.
She would conceive by the Holy Ghost.

How was Christ born? When did his life on earth begin? It began at conception. Study in detail the virgin birth of Christ. He came into this world at the time of conception and at no later date. Here is Scripture that cannot be denied. Mary conceived. The Holy Spirit conceived. And nine months later Christ was born. Life starts at conception.

 

At best that is human reasoning and not Biblical reasoning. There is no Scriptural support for this position. You seemed to be influenced by the pro-abortion crowd. There is a multitude of verses which refer to life beginning at conception, not the least of which deal with the virgin birth of Christ.
If Christ had no life before seven weeks then Christ was not fully man, as the Bible declares him to be. Some of his "humanity" was missing.

Reasons for contraception should not even have to enter this discussion. They are a red herring and deserve a thread on their own.

 

Hi skypair- I somehow missed this post, just noticed it. You were replying to this verse

If men strive, and hurt a women 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 Ex.21:22-23

I have re-read your scinereo and I don't really understand what you are saying. Maybe create a real situation with names, I can be a little slow :saint: