-
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!
Life is in the blood...
- Thread starter jsn9333
- Start date
- Status
DHK said:
All medical texts I've found say the fetus gets its own blood (its own specific blood type) at week 7. I have no reason to believe you over them.
DHK said:
Again, as we've already noted, the Scriptures talk about "me" being known from eternity past. When someone is referred to as "me" cannot be said to be a Biblical pronouncement of when life begins, otherwise life begins before conception. We've discussed this on page 1 of this thread.
DHK said:
Again, as I've said, the fact that conception happens doesn't make it the beginning of life any more then the fact that intimacy happens makes it the beginning of life (or implantation, or any other stage). There are other verses that refer to someone lying with another and bringing forth a son... and applying your logic to those verses then the act of intimacy is the beginning of life. You are arbitrarily picking conception without any biblical basis over other arbitrary points that could be chosen
DHK said:
Actually, the Scriptures refer to conception and then refer to "bringing forth". Look at the verse you cited, "A virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son." He was conceived... then he was brought forth. That does not say he "came into this world at the time of conception." His conception was but an event that required for him to come forth, just like in other cases intimacy is required. But just saying intimacy (or conception) is part of the process is not the same thing as saying it is the definition of when life begins.
The most applicable verse I've seen that actually states a definitional requirement for flesh and bone humans is the verse that states a being's the life is in that being's blood. Other verses are just arbitrarily chosen. Conception is not stated to be the beginning of life any more then intimacy is. They both are stated as something that happens in the process of life reproducing... but neither is necessarily said to be the beginning of life.
DHK said:
Actually you seem to be influenced by the anti-abortion crowd. You have shown no biblical reason that conception is thought to be anything more then something that occurs before the birth of a human being... just like intimacy. And yes, contraception is extremely relevant, because anti-abortionists have somehow decided that is okay... that interfering with the life cycle after intimacy is okay, yet interfering with the reproductive cycle directly after conception is murder. If such specific lines are going to be drawn, we need to talk about the biblical reasons for drawing them.
The Scriptures refer to intimacy (lying with) and conception (conceiving) as pre-cursors to life. Neither is said to be the *beginning* of life. People are said to have been "known" as beings from eternity past (which includes intimacy) and from conception... again, neither is said to be the beginning of life. You can't arbitrarily pick conception and declare yourself to be the Judge... for there is just as much support for saying life starts at the intimacy that resulted in the pregnancy. The fact is, we need other verses to decide this issue. And while the verse I've put forth is not direct in its application, at least it is more direct then arbitrarily picking a position.
Not that it matters (since intimacy has as much support as "conception") in the Bible, but I'm curious as to why you define "conceived" as referring to our modern medical understanding of "conception". The question sounds silly, but the Hebrew word translated "conceived" actually simply means "became pregnant". I have no reason to believe the Hebrews defined "pregnant' as "unification of the sperm and the egg" any more then I have to believe they meant it to mean "missed a period" or "missed two periods" or implantation in the womb of the zygote, or "began showing."
So literally translated, Isaiah 7:14 says, "The virgin shall become pregnant and shall bear a son." Our modern definitions of sperm and egg (conception) doesn't have anything to do with that verse. The Hebrews didn't even know what an egg was, much less define life or even pregnancy by it. In fact our modern definition of conception is not likely what happened with Christ. There was no sperm... so He could've simply been miraculously implanted on the uterine wall (3 days after normal conception), or just miraculously placed into pregnancy at the point where he gets his own blood (7 weeks). We don't know... but certainly a "conception" as to the modern medical definition of sperm joining egg doesn't make sense... there was no sperm involved.
Last edited by a moderator:
Give me a break! Place a three month old baby, place it outside of the house in a rural setting, the child can't live on its own before (and after) that point etc. etc.. Your logic is absurd! I thought that you stipulated in the OP that you wanted Biblical evidence? Since when does "implantation" enter into the Biblical arena?jsn9333 said:
"The fetus can't live on its own" statement has no relevance at all whether or not it is alive. My elderly Pastor-friend who now has Parkinson's can no longer live on his own either. Do you suggest euthanasia for him??No Biblical reason?????
1. Implantation was impossible in Biblical times. They didnt have the technology. Or were you unaware of that?
2. The "blood argument" How about--there is none: not scientifically; not Biblically.
DHK said:Give me a break! Place a three month old baby, place it outside of the house in a rural setting, the child can't live on its own before (and after) that point etc. etc.. Your logic is absurd! I thought that you stipulated in the OP that you wanted Biblical evidence? Since when does "implantation" enter into the Biblical arena?
No Biblical reason?????
1. Implantation was impossible in Biblical times. They didnt have the technology. Or were you unaware of that?
2. The "blood argument" How about--there is none: not scientifically; not Biblically.
If you'll look again you'll see, there on page 3, I was responding to the logic of another poster who argued about "not being able to live on its own". He argued, "When a child is concieved (sic), it can't survive outside the womb." That was not my logic, as you claim, rather it was *his* logic.
I was simply stating that such logic can be used to argue a lot of things (as you pointed out so well). That is exactly why I want to stay on the subject of what the *Scriptures* teach. My entire point was that the Scriptures don't define life as "when something can live on its own", so the poster's logic was not applicable to figuring out the Biblical definition of when life begins.
Implantation is what happens a few days after conception... when the zygote attaches or "implants" itself into the uterine wall. I don't believe they needed high technology for that to occur in ancient times... it occurs naturally.
The blood argument refers specifically to what life consists of, and that is entirely relevant to the discussion of when life begins. The Scriptures refer to intimacy (lying with) and conception (conceiving) as pre-cursors to life. Neither is said to be the *beginning* of life. People are said to have been "known" as beings from eternity past (which includes intimacy) and from conception... again, neither is said to be the beginning of life. You can't arbitrarily pick conception and declare yourself to be the Judge... for there is just as much support for saying life starts at the intimacy that resulted in the pregnancy.
The fact is, we need other verses to decide this issue. And while the verse I've put forth is not direct in its application, at least it is more direct then arbitrarily picking a position.
Not that it matters (since intimacy has as much support as "conception") in the Bible, but I'm curious as to why you define "conceived" as referring to our modern medical understanding of "conception". The question sounds silly, but the Hebrew word translated "conceived" actually simply means "became pregnant". I have no reason to believe the Hebrews defined "pregnant' as "unification of the sperm and the egg" any more then I have to believe they meant it to mean "missed a period" or "missed two periods" or implantation in the womb of the zygote, or "began showing."
So literally translated, Isaiah 7:14 says, "The virgin shall become pregnant and shall bear a son." Our modern definitions of sperm and egg (conception) doesn't have anything to do with that verse. The Hebrews didn't even know what an egg was, much less define life or even pregnancy by it. In fact our modern definition of conception is not likely what happened with Christ. There was no sperm... so He could've simply been miraculously implanted on the uterine wall (3 days after normal conception), or just miraculously placed into pregnancy at the point where he gets his own blood (7 weeks). We don't know... but certainly a "conception" as to the modern medical definition of sperm joining egg doesn't make sense... there was no sperm involved.
Last edited by a moderator:
Please do quote "all your medical texts." I would like to hear from them. Until then, this former biology teacher will rely on his memory and his grade ten biology textbook which states:jsn9333 said:
There are some nutrients that pass through the blood, and some harmful toxins such as drugs and alcohol. The genetic type of the blood is inherited, not passed on through the blood.
As you have already noted. I will take "your opinion into consideration as opinion and that is all. The "me" is not being spoken of in eternity past. Give Scriptural evidence, especially Scriptural context, from where you can make such a statement. David is giving his own testimony. He is speaking of himself. He is not speakihng of eternity past; he is speaking of himself. What right do you have to read such nonsense into that passage? David, in this Psalm of repentance, is acutely aware of his own sin, and of his own sin nature. He is aware that he is a sinner and was a sinner right from the time of conception onward. "In sin did my mother conceive me." The reference is to himself, not to his mother. He was mourning over his sin; not anything to do with his mother. He was conceived "in sin" that is, with a sin nature--a sinful nature that began right from the moment of conception.
It is a psalm of repentance. It is very personal. The first person singular is used all throughout. It has nothing to do with eternity past.
You are entitled to your opinion. If you call green black, the green will remain green no matter how long you call it black. Your persistence on calling green black does not change the facts. It is just your opinion and nothing else.
And do you arbitrarily ignore the Scripture I give you?
You seemed to be confused and put everything into one event when in fact they do have a time line.
1. Conception happens.
2. There is a period of a nine month pregnancy.
3. Then there is a birth--the bringing forth of a son.
"Thy lying with another and bringing forth a son" are not one and the same event. There must be conception first. And that is where life begins. Again you need to study the subject where the most information on this is given--the virgin birth of Christ.
You once again disply your confusion. There is a timeline involved. It is nine months long. First conception, then pregnancy, then bringing forth. The virgin conceived, and nine months later brought forth. I have four children. They, as children, could see this obvious truth very early in life--and you can't??
The "event" of conception was required of the Holy Spirit to bring forth Christ. Why? Because that was the time that the "life" of Christ entered into the body of Mary, humanly speaking. She was conceived of the Holy Spirit. Do you have any argument for that?
The Bible is scientifically accurate but it is not a book of science. It does not speak of DNA, chromosomes, etc. It is not going to tell you the exact things that you are looking for. Here is one thing that it does tell us:
Psalms 139:13-16 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
--The Psalmist describes how God knew about him, the intimacy He had with him while he (a person) was yet in his 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.
--We are fearfully and wonderfully made--far more complex than any computer known to mankind.
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
--The Psalmist referst here to what can only be his "creation," in other words what God did from "conception" onward. His substance, the sum total of the parts of his body, was made in secret, and wrought by the Creator Himself. And it all started at conception. That we can verify from simple biology.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
--The unperfect substance that God saw, God took; and he continued to fashion or mold it. All the organs were completely fashioned by the seventh week. That speaks more of the time from conception to the seventh week to me. All in all, God in his great love, knew me and knew what he was doing.
Do you have the Greek and Hebrew words for intimacy?
I can give you the Greek and Hebrew for conception, but just what specific words are speaking of when you use "intimacy"? We are speaking of the Bible here.
Obviously. The Bible speaks out against "Thou shalt not kill." And I agree with it. I see no reason why anyone else should disagree with it.
Then you haven't read my posts.
Mary conceived. Nine months later Christ was born.
Mary was never intimate. Please explain.
It is another topic. If they need to be talked about start another thread. There is enough going on in this thread already.
Over and over again is conception said to be the beginning of life. Yet you do not believe. Is there a reason for your unbelief?
I am not getting into a Calvinistic debate here. We are not speaking of eternity past. That has nothing to do with the birth process. Try pushing that past your biology teacher. Life begins at conception. What happens between the time that that one celled fertilized egg, then an embryo, keeps on reproducing itself, all the time growing organs, until the time the growth of its organs is complete? All of that growth--is it not life? Is all of that inanimate--like a rock--no life? Is that what you believe? What is life if that isn't life? What was the cause of the growth of those organs until they reached completion at the seventh week. God was always in full control of the life of that person which started at conception.
You don't have much of a grasp of logic or science do you?
If I were to use your logic, I could say that an aquaintance of mine started dating when she was in grade nine. She married after two years of university. A year after that she gave birth to her first child. According to your logic the life of that child began seven years prior when she first met her boyfriend!!
That is a twisted logic.
The Bible doesn't teach that.
Biology doesn't teach that.
Logic doesn't teach that.
Three strikes and you're out! Life on all accounts starts at conception. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise I will listen to both the Bible and to biology which agree with each other on this point.
rbell said:
No, you're being led down a "pro-Scripture" path, my friend. The fact that you're being forced to rely on clear Scriptural principles instead of your own traditional beliefs is making you uncomfortable... because your traditions don't have the clear biblical support you were led to believe they did.
"...during pregnancy week 7... your baby begins to produce his own blood type." from http://www.womenshealthcaretopics.com/pregnancy_week_7.htm
Until week 7 the embryo and/or zygote does not have its own blood. Every website I've found that describes stages of pregnancy acknowledges this fact.
When I say there is just as much support that life begins at "intimacy" I am not referring to simply dating... I'm referring to sexual intimacy... "lying with" each other. People have cited verses saying a woman conceived, and a son was born. But other verses say a woman lay with a man, then had a child. Who are you to say "conception" is when life started, and not "lying with"? Both say the same thing... something occurred before birth. Yet you pick one of the two and say it defines when life begins. God has not said it, you have.
Yes, David said he was knit in his mother's womb and conceived in sin. However, God says of Jeremiah in Jer. chapter 1, " "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you...". That is *personal* knowledge... but it is even before pregnancy. The fact is, God says in Eph. 1 and Romans 8 that He foreknew his children before the world was even created. You can't say when God "knew" someone is when life begins. Period. God knew us before the womb and after... yet again, you pick one verse out of many that say the same thing (in this case a point in time in which we were known) and say only the arbitrary verse you picked defines when life begins.
These passages you're citing simply don't state when life begins. And besides, the verses that refer to conception are not referring to the point at which a sperm and egg unite. The Hebrew word translated "conceived" actually simply means "became pregnant". It does not refer to the modern medical term of "conception" meaning the point at which the sperm joins the egg. I have no reason to believe the Hebrews defined "pregnant' as "unification of the sperm and the egg" any more then I have to believe they meant it to mean "missed a period" or "missed two periods" or "zygote implanted into the womb", or "woman began showing." So even if I assume you are correct that "conceived in sin" means David was a sinner and therefore a person when he was conceived... you still haven't shown that "conceived" is meant to refer to unification of sperm and egg... or the act of intimacy... or implantation... or what. And the fact is, when David referred to being conceived in sin he was not referring to his own personal sin, but rather the general state of sin of all of humanity. Fetuses do not sin, even after they become living people. Infants do not sin either. But that is a discussion for another day.
You claim to using Biblical standards, but you are arbitrarily picking one point in time out of many that are referred to, and a point in time which no Biblical author ever specifically referred to at that... the unification of the sperm and the egg! At least "laying with" is a specific point in time that the Bible specifically refers to. I'd have more respect for someone who said the act of lying together (sex) is the beginning of life then someone who says it is when the sperm and egg unite... because at least the former person has specific biblical support.
The fact is, the Bible does not say when life begins. It doesn't say it is at intimacy, conception (modern medical definition), implantation, etc. It doesn't say life starts when God knows us... for he knew us from eternity past.
The Bible *does* say the life of a being is in the being's blood. A zygote/embryo does not have its own blood (and hence its own life) until week 7. That is about as direct as we can get.
The biblical evidence for saying life starts when the sperm and egg unite is as strong as the biblical evidence for saying life starts when the sperm that is going to fertilize the egg is ejaculated, or when the zygote implants in the uterine wall. If that makes you uncomfortable, change your position to something more biblically sound.
Until week 7 the embryo and/or zygote does not have its own blood. Every website I've found that describes stages of pregnancy acknowledges this fact.
When I say there is just as much support that life begins at "intimacy" I am not referring to simply dating... I'm referring to sexual intimacy... "lying with" each other. People have cited verses saying a woman conceived, and a son was born. But other verses say a woman lay with a man, then had a child. Who are you to say "conception" is when life started, and not "lying with"? Both say the same thing... something occurred before birth. Yet you pick one of the two and say it defines when life begins. God has not said it, you have.
Yes, David said he was knit in his mother's womb and conceived in sin. However, God says of Jeremiah in Jer. chapter 1, " "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you...". That is *personal* knowledge... but it is even before pregnancy. The fact is, God says in Eph. 1 and Romans 8 that He foreknew his children before the world was even created. You can't say when God "knew" someone is when life begins. Period. God knew us before the womb and after... yet again, you pick one verse out of many that say the same thing (in this case a point in time in which we were known) and say only the arbitrary verse you picked defines when life begins.
These passages you're citing simply don't state when life begins. And besides, the verses that refer to conception are not referring to the point at which a sperm and egg unite. The Hebrew word translated "conceived" actually simply means "became pregnant". It does not refer to the modern medical term of "conception" meaning the point at which the sperm joins the egg. I have no reason to believe the Hebrews defined "pregnant' as "unification of the sperm and the egg" any more then I have to believe they meant it to mean "missed a period" or "missed two periods" or "zygote implanted into the womb", or "woman began showing." So even if I assume you are correct that "conceived in sin" means David was a sinner and therefore a person when he was conceived... you still haven't shown that "conceived" is meant to refer to unification of sperm and egg... or the act of intimacy... or implantation... or what. And the fact is, when David referred to being conceived in sin he was not referring to his own personal sin, but rather the general state of sin of all of humanity. Fetuses do not sin, even after they become living people. Infants do not sin either. But that is a discussion for another day.
You claim to using Biblical standards, but you are arbitrarily picking one point in time out of many that are referred to, and a point in time which no Biblical author ever specifically referred to at that... the unification of the sperm and the egg! At least "laying with" is a specific point in time that the Bible specifically refers to. I'd have more respect for someone who said the act of lying together (sex) is the beginning of life then someone who says it is when the sperm and egg unite... because at least the former person has specific biblical support.
The fact is, the Bible does not say when life begins. It doesn't say it is at intimacy, conception (modern medical definition), implantation, etc. It doesn't say life starts when God knows us... for he knew us from eternity past.
The Bible *does* say the life of a being is in the being's blood. A zygote/embryo does not have its own blood (and hence its own life) until week 7. That is about as direct as we can get.
The biblical evidence for saying life starts when the sperm and egg unite is as strong as the biblical evidence for saying life starts when the sperm that is going to fertilize the egg is ejaculated, or when the zygote implants in the uterine wall. If that makes you uncomfortable, change your position to something more biblically sound.
DHK said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes I understand what you meantjsn9333 said:
Lying with (intercourse/intimacy whatever the term) is not the same as conception. Not sure why it keeps being brought up
In intercourse, it takes 24-48 hours for sperm to travel to fertilize the egg. OR more than one egg. This is conception. Lying with obviously doesn't equate fertilization, as most of the time, women don't conceive after intercourse. Women are fertile maybe 5 days out of the month.
They are two separate events so we obviously know intimacy, lying with or whatever term used, is not conception. So we don't need to focus on intimacy right. But on when conception took place according to the Bible
Last edited by a moderator:
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
That is why I added the disclaimer of ancients with regular periods. While many women are irregular, there is a large majority who are extremely regular without the pill and their cycle is like clockwork. Those women would know by 3 weeks if not sooner.jsn9333 said:
This is an assumption on your part and hardly a good one.jsn9333 said:
Your link to an information site for pregnant women is hardly a "reputable Medical site." It is there to give simple information to pregnant women. The statement you quoted although not altogether wrong is ambiguous.
First, it says nothing of the mother's blood.
Because it says that by week seven the embryo starts producing its own blood, does not mean that the mother was producing the baby's blood before that time. In this you err.
Second, you have not studied where the baby was getting its blood, nor when it started getting its blood.
Third, have you considered when? Does a one celled fertilized egg have blood? A four celled zygote? An eight-celled one? Just when does the "embryo" start having blood, and how do you know? I realize you don't know much about biology.
Foruth, I will repeat the statement again:
"The baby makes it own blood,...none of the mother's blood cells enters the child.
That remains true, in spite of what you think or may have read. Here are some reasons why:
By the third week of development there are some special membranes that develop around the embryo. They are not part of the embryo, but are there to protect it, help it to obtain nourishment, and provide other functions.
One such membrane is called the amnion. It begins to develop before any of the first structures of the embryo take form. The amniotic cavity is filled with amniotic fluid. It is a sterile fluid which serves to keep the embryo moist and also acts as a shock absorber.
The yolk sac is another membrane that forms during the second through sixth weeks of development. There is no yolk in the human ovum, but this sac, along with the spleen, functions in blood cell formation.
These are just two membranes that are formed early on in the life of the embryo. There are others.
However, by the seventh or eighth week, when the liver is fully developed, it is the liver that takes over from the spleen, and the liver produces the red blood cells that the baby needs. In other words by the 7th week the baby is making its own blood. That is what the statement meant.
Your quoted statement did not mean:
1. That the baby did not have blood previous to the 7th week.
2. That the blood came from the mother previous to the 7th week.
Both of the above are false assumptions.
Those medical journals again??
There are Biblical phrases that are somewhat synonymous with one another.
"And Joseph knew her not until..."
"And she conceived and brought forth..."
Deuteronomy 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
--In this last verse I hope it is evident to you what the expression "lay with" means. The penalty was death if you didn't know.
In all three cases either a child was born or could be born.
If a child was not born, it was God's will that a child was not conceived at that point.
Conception takes place within a very short time after a couple comes together. So you are splitting hairs with the use of Biblical terminology.
And your point is??
God is omniscient. He knows all things. That is not really the subject here is it. As I said before, try explaining that point of view to a biology teacher. BTW, I am not the one being arbitrary.
How Profound! :laugh:
That is the basic definition of conception.
You have much to learn. You think that the Israelites all lived with a "caveman" mentality and had little intelligence. Typical!
Check out Genesis 38:9. That will give you some indication about how much they knew about the word "seed" (Hebrew "sperm") and its effects.
You missed the point if you think I was saying fetuses sin. I never said that. David was saying that he had a sin nature from conception onward. Conception being defined as the beginning of the pregnancy onward. The beginning of the pregnancy is, of course, the union of the egg with the sperm.
And you have already demonstrated your lack of knowledge in Biblical synonyms.
The Bible does say, but you don't want to accept it. In fact theologians of centuries gone by of all different stripes have agreed on this point all with one consensus. But you are here arrogantly calling into question the theology of most of orthodox Christianity throughout all the ages. That is fairly presumptuous of you, wouldn't you say?
Get your facts straight. You are wrong. The embryo has its own blood long before week seven. If your ignorant of that fact, it is your own problem.
Your last paragraph is rather crude.
The Bible, as well as science deals with facts, unlike evolution, humanism, existentialism, and other false isms which deal in relative possibilities.
When sperm and egg unite an embryo is formed. That is conception. Words have meanings. The word conception is in the Bible. It is there for a purpose. It has a meaning.
Mary conceived. She conceived by the Holy Spirit. Nine months later Christ was born. Are you really saying that for seven weeks of the humanity of Christ, the Son of God was not human?
Think of the implications of your answer.
Allan said:
I haven't read all the responses but this stuck out. Child does not = living. Child is just that, a child.
Let's say a 5 year old child dies. As their parents, that is still their child. For that matter an old man can die but his mother will still refer to him as her child.
Allan said:
Reading your post I can see you are getting pationate so I will let it alone. I will say you don't know much about the middle eastern culture. It was an entirely different world from the one in which we live even to this day. Ex. A woman is a possession there even to this day and she is bought from the father with a dowery. You don't have to believe me but I would think you would at least read on the subject before you call me wrong.
To truly understand the OT you have to understand the time and culture otherwise you will be reading words and trying to apply or assimilate them as we live today. It just isn't so.
- Status