Life is in the blood...

It is obvious you have arbitrarily defined biblical words according to your own cultural norm, not according to true Biblically stated definitions. You wish to impose your own personal views on people instead of God's views... that is what is shameful and abhorrent. You should really let God speak for Himself...

 

Well, at least I've provided cites with references for when a fetus has its own blood. You've provided no references except your own. Here is another cite (this time it is an anti-abortion one) that says it is week 7 when, "the child has its own blood type, distinct from the mother's," and, "Now the fetus will produce it’s own blood...".

http://www.deathroe.com/Baby_Development/

The life is in the blood. That is all I'm saying, because that is what the Bible says. Whether the fetus gets its own blood (and hence its own life) at week 7 or week 3 I'm not debating (though online medical information has show it to be week 7). If you want to believe it is earlier then week 7, then fine... I'll accept that assumption for the sake of argument. I'm simply saying the biblical definition of life is in the blood, not in the sperm and the egg joining.

The point in citing the verses saying God knew us before pregnancy and from eternity past is that you relied on verses saying God knew us in the womb to say life starts when the sperm meets the egg. You can't rely on when God "knew" us, because He knew us even before sex, or fertilization, or implantation of the zygot, etc. That is the point. You can't just arbitrarily pick the point at which the sperm meets the egg and say God has chosen that point as the beginning of life because you have.

Genesis 38:9 says nothing about life starting at the point when the sperm meets the egg (or anything about eggs). Again, one could just as easily take that verse and arbitrarily say life starts upon the release of sperm, or upon unification of sperm and egg, or upon implantation of the zygote into the womb after sperm was introduced, or upon independent blood creation of the subsequent fetus... all just as easily as you arbitrarily state it is referring to egg and sperm meeting. Like all the other passages you cited, nothing about an egg is mentioned.

Again you say, "The beginning of the pregnancy is, of course, the union of the egg with the sperm. " Well, that may be obvious to you, relying on your traditions and modern cultural norms and knowledge... but it isn't that obvious to someone who read their bible. The Bible doesn't even mention an egg, much less whether life begins when the egg is released, or joins a sperm, or implants into the womb as a zygote, or develops its own blood as a fetus, etc.

The point is to determine when the Bible says life starts, not when you say it does in reliance on modern biological knowledge and religious traditions. We're supposed to rely on Scripture in matters of faith.

It is easy for you to say my view goes against "orthodox Christianity throughout all the ages"... but proving it is another matter. The fact is that eggs weren't even known to exist for the thousands of years you're referring to... so it is ridiculous to say the woman's egg had anything to do with the orthodox view of pregnancy.

Yes, words like conception in the Bible have meanings... and you are willfully ignoring their meanings even after I show you the Hebrew definitions. Again, the word your bible translates to mean "conception" actually simply means "pregnancy" in Hebrew. It is not defined as "when a sperm meets an egg." Words have meanings, just like you said, and you can't assume ancient words have the modern meaning you attach to them. The Israelites did not mean "unification of the sperm and egg" when they said "pregnancy" any more then they meant "implantation of the zygote". They did not know what an egg was... or a zygote.

*Therefore*, when the Bible says Mary "conceived" by the Holy Spirit it literally means she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit. That's it. It doesn't specifically define pregnancy, and you can't assume the Bible goes by your definition of that word. It doesn't mean a sperm miraculously joined her egg any more then it means that a zygote miraculously implanted in her uterus. It means a child was placed inside her... period. In her case, there not necessarily a sperm involved... so that actually goes against your view. You seem to be arguing that the Holy Spirit had to have injected sperm into her and Christ's "life" is defined as beginning at the point God's sperm met her egg. I have no reason to believe that view is more correct then the view that the Holy Spirit injected a living Christ at 7 weeks old into her womb, or a zygote into her uterus. Why should I believe you? What verse of Scripture do you have to say there was union of a sperm and an egg in Mary's case? If you're going to say something so specific, so forcefully, you should really back it up with Scripture... not just your opinion.

The ultra conservatives here seem to be getting upset at me for asking for clear Scriptures from you... which is ironic given that they should be the ones relying on Scripture. I guess they are just uncomfortable facing the fact that they've been relying on their own fallible assumptions instead of actual Biblical truths.

 

What is your point about the development of the circulation system? A baby's lungs develop and start moving in and out before any oxygen is involved. The movement is just lung muscle development, not actual breathing to acquire oxygen. Similarly, the circulation system develops before the baby has its own blood. Logic should tell you there has to be a circulation system before blood can be pumped through it. Sure, it seems the baby does not seem to have it's mothers blood prior to week 7... I assumed it did have its mother's blood and I shouldn't have. Nonetheless, the point is not when the baby has its mother's blood, but rather when it has its own blood. All the citations provided (including the one provided by Joe) say week 7 is when the baby gets its blood.

However, again, I'm willing to assume for the sake of argument that the baby has its own blood earlier the week 7. You keep seem to keep wanting to argue that the baby has its blood earlier. So *again*, let's assume it gets its blood earlier. The point is not the specific time the fetus gets its blood, but rather is the fact that blood being the essence of life is more clear biblically then a sperm joining an egg being the essence of life.

The life is in the blood and the life of the flesh is in the blood mean the same thing. The life of living creatures made of flesh (and a human being is such a creature) is in the creatures blood. That is a clear declaration of what life consists of at the most basic level.

You say, "These people are not ignorant. The union of sperm and ova result in conception. They may not have had the same vocabulary as we do, but obviously they had the same knowledge. There is a reason why the word "conception" is used in the Bible. They knew what it meant."

Again, you refuse to answer as to what evidence you have that the Hebrew word "harah" refers to the modern medical term describing the exact point at which a sperm meets an egg. I hear you keep saying that your Bible translates it "conceived". Okay? I hear you. But the point is that your bible could just as easily translate it "became pregnant." The Hebrew word harah doesn't necessarily refer to the modern medical term of when a sperm joined an egg. In fact, I've seen no evidence that the Hebrews even knew what an egg was... in other words, no evidence that their word "conceived" or "became pregnant" meant the same thing that your word "conceived" means. Do you have any evidence they took "became pregnant" or "conceived" to mean what what English medical dictionaries take it to mean?... besides just telling me, "conception is used in the Bible. They knew what it meant." With all due respect, saying "they knew what it meant because... they knew what it meant" is quite circular.

Oh, and saying "Jacob was a good sheep breeder" is not evidence that he knew what an egg was and defined "pregnancy" or "harah" by the moment a sperm joined it (as opposed to the moment the sheep missed a period... or two... or the moment the sheep began showing). Neither is "Onan spilled his seed on the ground." You're defining "harah" according to the involvement of an egg... and you have no evidence Hebrews knew what an egg even was.

You can mock me and insult my intelligence as long as you want (asking me if storks still deliver babies in my area and the like). But the fact is, until you actually provide Biblical evidence for why you translate "harah" to mean "moment that a sperm joins an egg" you are just like a repeating recording. You refuse to give any evidence supporting your claim.

Again, I hear you... I understand you when you say your bible translates harah as the english word "conceived" in some places. But *again*, the fact that your bible says "conceived" where "harah" is used is not evidence that the Hebrews knew what an egg was and defined life by as the moment a sperm joined it. Harah can be translated "became pregnant" just as easily as "conceived"... and you refuse to provide any evidence that the *Hebrew* definition of pregnancy or conception could have referred to an egg the way modern notions of "conception" do. Hebrew translation is not the exact medical science you are claiming it to be. If you are going to claim such a specific translation, you have to back it up. There is no evidence the Hebrews believed conception occurred 3 days after intercourse when an egg met the sperm... or that they even knew what an egg was! If you asked a Hebrew what "harah" meant... they would not tell you about an egg. And they are the only ones who know the true definition of their own word.

You cannot just assume the Hebrews defined words exactly the way you defined them, and then expect me to believe your assumption just because you say your assumption is good enough. I follow God's word, not yours. God's word says the life of living creatures made of flesh (and a human being is such a creature) is in the creatures blood. God's word does not say "harah" means "the moment a sperm joins an egg", and in fact all the evidence points to the fact the Hebrews did not even know what an egg was, much less define their words according to its existence.

 

By the way, even if I assume your unsupported claim that the Hebrew word "harah" means the same thing as our modern definition of conception (a very bad assumption to make, as I showed directly above this post), even then, it still does nothing for your position.

For the Scriptures refer to both intimacy (lying with) and conception (harah) as pre-cursors to life. One verse says two people slept together (had sex) and a child was born to them. Another says a couple conceived (harah), and a child was born to them. Neither the sex act nor the "harah" is said to be the *beginning* of life necessarily. People are said to have been "known" as beings from eternity past (which includes the sexual act) and to have been "known" from conception (harah)... again, neither is said to be the beginning of life. You can't arbitrarily pick "the point at which a sperm joins an egg" out of many biblically possible points and declare yourself to be the Judge that that is the point life begins.

You can argue logically that child birth is virtually inevitable after fertilization, so to stop pregnancy after that point is murder. However, birth is virtually inevitable when sperm surround an egg as well. 99.9% of the time sperms reach an egg, a birth will occur. However sometimes no sperms are able to get into the egg to fertilize it. Rare, but it happens. Sometimes a fertilized egg fails to implant in the uterine wall. Rare... but it happens. Even if you define "harah" as "point when sperm meets egg" (which you can't) you still are arbitrarily picking one point as "the beginning of life" in a reproductive cycle for no better reason then many other points could be chosen. A Roman Catholic may define murder as stopping a sperm that otherwise would fertilize an egg... because were it not for your stopping it via contraception a birth was virtually inevitable. Their position is no stronger, biblically, then yours. The Bible does not specify the exact point life begins, even assuming your overly specific definition of the word "harah".

 

A Roman Catholic would say the same thing to a "good baptist" who uses Scripture to argue that contraception is okay. And they would use the same exact verses you use, but in order to say contraception is evil.

I'm happy to answer to you according to the arbitrary assumptions want me to make, and similarly I'm happy to answer to Roman Catholics according the the arbitrary assumptions they would have me make. The passages you cite are not nearly as specific as either you or the Roman Catholics make them out to be.

And I'm even happier to answer to God for what you call the "garbage" of following His Word in the clearest way I can, regardless of the Traditions of prominent religious groups of my day.

:wavey:

 

*Again*, translating Hebrew into English is not the exact medical science you claim it to be. "Pregnancy" and "conception" are both words that can be used to translate "harah", however they are simply the closest words we have in our language. They are not "medically precise" definitions. You are imputing one of the two English definitions of the word for conception ("sperm joins egg") onto the Hebrew's word with no evidence they even knew what an egg was!

Also, as Joe pointed out, Webster's New World Medical Dictionary, Second Edition, (c) 2003 says "conception" has two definitions, even in English! "The term Conception has also been used to imply implantation of the blastocyst, the formation of a viable zygote, and the onset of pregnancy."

Therefore, even in the English you don't know if "conception" means fertilization (sperm meets egg) or implantation (blastocyst becomes a zygote by attaching to the uterus). And in fact, "harah" (since it is not English) probably doesn't even mean either of those two English meanings. The English words are just the closes t equivalent we can come up with. This is because they Hebrews had no way of knowing what an egg was, much less when a sperm joined an egg or when a blastocyst attached itself to the uterus.

The definition of "harah" is what they Hebrews meant when they said it. Period. Not necessarily what you mean when you say conception or pregnacy. When they said "harah" or "conceived" it was most likely when a woman started showing, or had missed a couple of periods in a row, etc.

And finally, *again*, even if I assume your unsupported claim that the Hebrew word "harah" means the same thing as one of the two modern medical definitions of conception we have (a very bad assumption to make), even then, it still does nothing for your position. For the Scriptures refer to both intimacy (lying with) and conception (harah) as pre-cursors to life. One verse says two people slept together (had sex) and a child was born to them. Another says a couple conceived (harah), and a child was born to them. Neither the sex act nor the "harah" is said to be the *beginning* of life necessarily. People are said to have been "known" as beings from eternity past (which includes the sexual act) and to have been "known" from conception (harah)... again, neither is said to be the beginning of life. You can't arbitrarily pick "the point at which a sperm joins an egg" out of many biblically possible points and declare yourself to be the Judge that that is the point life begins.

If fertilization is when you logically think life begins... then fine. Another might think it logically begins the instant before fertilization for the same reasons... or upon implantation, etc. All that is fine and reasonable. It is when you tell others the *Bible* defines life as beginning when the sperm meets the egg (and calls ending a pregnancy after the sperm meets the egg "murder") that you are acting shamefully and without any clear Biblical support.

What kind of contraception does the Bible advocate? Where does the Bible advocate contraception? The timing method? Physical barriers? What kind of automobiles does the Bible advocate? Motorcycles? Cars? The fact is, the Bible does not speak as directly to some topics as we would like it to. That doesn't make those topics sinful, however.

That being said, to answer your question, the closest verse I've found that indicates what the true essence of life is is "the life of the flesh is in the blood." Therefore I personally believe that abortion after a fetus has developed its own blood (and hence its own life) is wrong because it is, biblically, ending a life.

Again though, the Bible is not as clear as we would like it to be. If someone believes life starts when the sperm is about to meet the eg (Roman Catholic), when it actually meets and penetrates the egg (your position), or a little later when the zygote implants into the womb (the position of many Christians)... then fine. But they have no clear biblical support with which to push that definition onto me.

Even if someone thinks life first occurs at the first breath then the most I can say is that the Scriptures lead me to think life occurs earlier, in the womb. I can't say with 100% certainty that they are murderers though, because the Bible doesn't directly approach the topic. There are other passages that may lead people to believe life starts with breath instead of blood. I happen to think life starts with blood though, because the passages about life starting with breath seem to be in unique circumstances (breathing life into Adam as the first human, not a developing human, breathing life into bones in Ezekiel, etc.). The "blood" passage is just too clear to me.