Life is in the blood...

[jsn9333]

Absolute Hogwash.

Clear Scriptural principles lead me to believe far differently than you wish us to.

Finding a Scriptural loophole for abortion is positively shameful and abhorrent.

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...

 

[jsn9333]

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.

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. [DHK's medical opinion omitted to save space, see above to see her quote in full]

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.

 

[Joe]

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...".

You are right jsn. It it is about 7 weeks when the fetus produces it's own blood. Here's a reputable link from The American College of Ob & Gyn's
http://www.medem.com/search/article.../ZZZAM52C67C.html&soc=ACOG&srch_typ=NAV_SERCH

The life is in the blood. That is all I'm saying, because that is what the Bible says.

Alright. Let's put down differences and agree life is in the blood, what does that mean to you?

What exactly in the blood causes this human "life" to suddenly begin at 7weeks, is it oxygen?

Since God breathed (oxygen) life into Adam, and not blood (Adam had a fully formed body already with blood prior to this) then this makes more sense imo. Can we agree upon this?

 

[DHK]

You are right jsn. It it is about 7 weeks when the fetus produces it's own blood. Here's a reputable link from The American College of Ob & Gyn's
http://www.medem.com/search/article_display.cfm?path=\\TANQUERAY\M_ContentItem&mstr=/M_ContentItem/ZZZAM52C67C.html&soc=ACOG&srch_typ=NAV_SERCH

Why do you say that Joe?
From the site that you provided:

[FONT=Verdana, Tahoma, Helvetica, Arial, MS Sans Serif]During pregnancy, the woman and fetus do not share blood systems.[/FONT]

 

[Allan]

You are right jsn. It it is about 7 weeks when the fetus produces it's own blood. Here's a reputable link from The American College of Ob & Gyn's
http://www.medem.com/search/article.../ZZZAM52C67C.html&soc=ACOG&srch_typ=NAV_SERCH


Alright. Let's put down differences and agree life is in the blood, what does that mean to you?

What exactly in the blood causes this human "life" to suddenly begin at 7weeks, is it oxygen?

Since God breathed (oxygen) life into Adam, and not blood (Adam had a fully formed body already with blood prior to this) then this makes more sense imo. Can we agree upon this?

Actually Joe, IF I might be permitted...

It is incorrect (biblically) to say that scripture states 'life is in the blood' since it actaully states "the life of the flesh is in the blood'. They are two totally different things.

The flesh needs the blood to continue or maintian functionality, but just because a person has suffienct blood in their system does not mean they are alive. For example - take a person who just dies for no known cause or trama. Their body still has lots of blood, no damage, yet they are dead and even their flesh is now dieing with suffient blood. Life is the Spirit, for when it leaves the body stops regardless of it's blood. Thus the unborn is also alive regardless of blood or not. Life is not in the blood but the life of the FLESH is in the blood.

Hope it makes sense. Leaving out that small piece changes the whole meaning.

 

[Joe]

Why do you say that Joe?
From the site that you provided:

[FONT=Verdana, Tahoma, Helvetica, Arial, MS Sans Serif]During pregnancy, the woman and fetus do not share blood systems.[/FONT]

Oops. sorry, I never even read it. My sister in law(former OB/GYN) is hard to understand on the phone, she's really sick (terminally ill) so maybe I misunderstood. She probably said the baby doesn't develop it's own blood until 7 weeks, but that is just a guess. Not that they share(d) blood. She sent the link

I think I mentioned her at our last go around when we talked on this same subject (With Annsni) she is terminally ill. She is the one who had invitro, hubby's a Doc also, they have twins. Thanks for your correction

 

[Joe]

Actually Joe, IF I might be permitted...

It is incorrect (biblically) to say that scripture states 'life is in the blood' since it actaully states "the life of the flesh is in the blood'. They are two totally different things.

The flesh needs the blood to continue or maintian functionality, but just because a person has suffienct blood in their system does not mean they are alive. For example - take a person who just dies for no known cause or trama. Their body still has lots of blood, no damage, yet they are dead and even their flesh is now dieing with suffient blood. Life is the Spirit, for when it leaves the body stops regardless of it's blood. Thus the unborn is also alive regardless of blood or not. Life is not in the blood but the life of the FLESH is in the blood.

Hope it makes sense. Leaving out that small piece changes the whole meaning.

I agree, you taught me well, showed me this verse when we debated this subject before. Or maybe it's in this thread even.

I guess I was more focused on the rebuttal I typed out if I could get jsn to agree with the "oxygen" as life- then life would begin at conception. That verse is included in my rebuttal.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Did a little digging about embryological development of the cardiovascular system.

Before the development of the cardiovascular system, the small cluster of embryonic cells gets oxygen by diffusion through the wall of the uterus. However by around 3 weeks after conception, the cadiovascular system begins to form because the embryo is getting too large to be supplied with all its oxygen and nutrients solely via diffusion.

1."Blood islands" develop to eventually become arteries and veins
2. The heart tube begins to form, fold and pump
3. Blood formation occurs in the yolk sac (outside the embryo)
4. Circulation begins

McGill University Medicine - Embryology - Normal Development - Week3

...
This week also marks the beginning of the cardiovascular system as angiogenesis (blood vessel formation) and hematogenesis (blood formation) occurs around the yolk sac and the endocardial heart tubes fuse to form the primitive heart tube.
...

William's Hematology - Fetal Hematolymphopoiesis

...
Erythropoiesis is established soon after implantation of the blastocyst, with primitive erythroid cells appearing in yolk sac blood islands by day 18 of gestation.
...

The liver soon takes over blood formation before shifting to bone marrow closer to birth.

 

[DHK]

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/

I don't understand what you are talking about. The links that you provide say the opposite that you claim. Here is what your link says:
"By the end of the fourth week the unborn baby has a highly functional circulation with three sets of blood vessels."
It also indicates that the circulatory system for the brain is formed in the third week. You apparently don't read your own links.

The life is in the blood. That is all I'm saying, because that is what the Bible says.

Be accurate. Lev.17:11
"The life of the flesh is in the blood."
There is much life that is still outside of the blood. When concerning the flesh, the life of the flesh is in the blood. That rules out the life that is before three weeks. It is alive, but without blood. Does an amoeba (a one-celled animal) have flesh? What constitutes flesh? The embryo, though it have not blood, can still have life.

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.

You are wrong again. "The life of the flesh is in the blood."
That is not the Biblical definition of life. It is a description of how our flesh is maintained. Our bodies are maintained by blood. It is through the blood that they are kept alive.

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.

I was not talking of eternity past which has no bearing on this subject. In Psalm 139, the psalmist, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, describes what happens in the womb; God's knowledge of him in a very descriptive way, right back to conception. It is one of the most descriptive passages in the Bible of a person within the womb, even if it is poetically written.

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.

I had hoped you would gain some information from that verse without me having to bluntly explain the meaning of that verse to you publicly on this board.
Here's the situation:
Judah chose a wife, Tamar, for his eldest son, Er.
Er was a wicked man, and God took his life.
The custom (which later became Mosaic law) was that the next eldest son would take her, marry her, and the offspring born would be the children of the deceased, not his own. Thus he would raise up children in his brother's name.
Onan, the next eldest knew this--that the children would not be his. So he lay with Tamar, but disobeyed the Lord in his duty to Tamar. The Bible is explicit in what happened. "He spilled his seed on the ground."
The Hebrew word for seed is sperm.
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.
Why do you pretend to believe that the people of that time were ignorant, unknowledgeable and perhaps had the knowledge of the world's evolutionary view of what a caveman is? On the whole, they were probably a more intelligent society than we are today.

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.

Tradition??
Is it a tradition to teach scientific fact? What do you believe? A flat earth perhaps?

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 Bible mentions much more than you think, if you take the time to study it. But that is one thing you are not willing to do.

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.

So why don't you?
I give you Scripture and much of it you ignore.
Words have meanings; meanings that you ignore.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
--Virgins don't conceive. Virgins don't give birth. Both are mentioned.

Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
--"that" refers to the embryo. It was conceived of the Holy Spirit. Nine months later Christ was born.

Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
--Fairly explicit here--to conceive "in thy womb."

Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
--Mary knew about reproduction. How can this be without knowing a man? It was a legitimate question.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
--And here is the explanation of the angel. It was God's doing. It was miraculous in nature. "That holy thing" (the embryo) ...shall be called the Son of God.

Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
--Notice that time was also kept.

Christ the Son of God came from the glories of Heaven. He became man, lived and died, both as man and as God, that we might have forgiveness of sins. He had to be perfect man and wholly God at the same time. At no time did Christ give up his deity. He was conceived of a virgin. He had to be to be fully man.
He was not sent here by a spaceship and inserted into the womb by some mysterious force at the time of seven weeks. That is absurd. His humanity started as every other man's humanity started--at conception, with the exception that he was conceived via the Holy Spirit and not through Joseph. It was miraculous in nature. If you say otherwise you will be denying Christ part of his humanity, bordering on blasphemy.
He was wholly man and wholly God at the same time. In order for that to happen Christ had to be man from conception onward. He did not miss any part of his "manhood." You infer that he did. That is an heretical view.

 

[DHK]

It is easy for you to say my view goes against "orthodox Christianity throughout all the ages"... but proving it is another matter.

I believe I just did.

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.

You err not knowing the Scriptures.

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.

They didn't have to use the term "zygote" and other such terms. The word "seed" taken in its context has very specific meanings. Of course the word conception does too. You have a problem understanding the Word of God, and no doubt a bigger problem believing it. You only assume that they knew nothing about reproduction. Back in Jacob's time, Jacob proved his knowledge of Genetics. He was masterful at cross-breeding sheep. He was a shepherd before he ever met Laban, and worked for Laban for 20 years keeping sheep. He may have never used the words genes or genetics or breeding; but that is what he did. He was able to breed all the white and strong sheep and separate them from all the striped and weak sheep. He was able to make stronger breeds of sheep with his knowledge of basic "genetics." Of course, in order to do that he had to have a knowledge of the reproductive system of the animals that he was working with as well. These "ancients" as you call them, had more intelligence than you give them credit for.

*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.

That is very novel. Did you think of this all by yourself? Is it written somewhere in a fairy-tale story book where others can read about it? Did a spaceship carry this child to the womb of Mary? How old was the child when it was delivered to the womb: one month? six months? eight months? already nine months and ready to be delivered? Have you written your own book yet?

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.

As already stated, I said it was miraculous in nature. However, it is the Bible that states that:
Mary conceived.
Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit.
How many Scriptures are you willing to deny??

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?

I never said anything about a sperm. I said that the Bible says he was conceived of the Holy Spirit. It is miraculous in nature. It also says taht Mary conceived. It is miraculous in nature. I don't believe in fairytale stories about spaceships delivering babies of uncertain ages into wombs of women. That sounds like a cult to me. Do storks still deliver babies to the women of your area also?

If you're going to say something so specific, so forcefully, you should really back it up with Scripture... not just your opinion.

I have. But you don't believe the Scripture I have given.

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.

I have quoted to you many Scriptures. I believe they are upset at some of the heresy that you have spouted off here in trying to defend a position that advocates the murder of human life in a process called abortion. Horrible!

 

[jsn9333]

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.

I don't understand what you are talking about. ...
.... (shortened for the sake of brevity and b/c post was too long to include)

 

[jsn9333]

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".

I don't understand what you are talking about. ...
.... (shortened for the sake of brevity and b/c post was too long to include)

 

[rbell]

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...

wow. Using Scripture to argue that abortion can be OK.

Fine, then. You can answer for that garbage later. :wavey:

 

[jsn9333]

wow. Using Scripture to argue that abortion can be OK.

Fine, then. You can answer for that garbage later. :wavey:

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:

 

[DHK]

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 word pregnant means:
"containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pregnant

That is from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
The obvious meaning of "becoming pregnant" is how the embryo is formed, that is, when the sperm and egg unite to form that embryo. You have unwittingly defined "becoming pregnant" in the same way that I have defined it all along. The word "harah" means the uniting of sperm and egg together to form an embryo. You have defined it that way yourself.

 

[LeBuick]

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...

:applause: :applause: :applause:

It is not about him supporting abortion, it's about being against people finding a verse to support any cause they feel strongly about. God's word is clear to those who deligently seek him.

Years ago in Boulder Co a woman trashed an abortion clinic and spray painted scriptures all over the wall in red paint. Supposed to simulate blood. Why drag God's good name into an act like that? God never told her to deface that business. Then we wonder why people don't respect the Church.

I think the people in the Church are the Church's worst enemy...

:thumbs:

 

[Joe]

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".

It's true. Harah means conception

*Conception:* Hebrew #2032 herown (hay-rone’); or herayown (hay-raw-yone’); from #2029; pregnancy; Hebrew #2029 harah (haw-raw’); a primitive root; to be (or become) pregnant, conceive (literally or figuratively):

http://www.tlcjesus.org/BibleStudy-Words.htm

Edited to ADD:

Mosby’s Medical dictionary, 7th Edition, (c) 2006
Conception (l, concipere, to take together): 1. The beginning of pregnancy, usually taken to be the instant that a spermatozoon enters an ovum and forms a viable zygote. 2. the act or process of fertilization

Webster's New World Medical Dictionary, Second Edition, (c) 2003
Conception: The union of a sperm and an egg to create the first cell of a new organism. The term Conception has also been used to imply implantation of the blastocyst, the formation of a viable zygote, and the onset of pregnancy.

1828 edition of the Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary
Conceive: v.t. [L., to take.] 1. To receive into the womb, and breed; to begin the formation of the embryo or fetus of animal.

http://www.noroomforcontraception.com/pregnancy/Medical-definitions.htm

 

[DHK]

There are several women in the Bible that had babies that, humanly speaking, were not supposed to have children. Both Rachel and Rebekkah were barren. So was Sarah and Hannah. Mary was a virgin who conceived without knowing a man. Manaoh’s wife was barren. All of these had children, and humanly speaking, they were not supposed to have children. But they all did.

But what about those who did have children and lost them, even though they were not supposed to?
All the male children less than one were killed in the days of the infancy of Moses. That was abortion.
All the male children less than two were killed in the days of Christ by Herod. That genocide was also a type of abortion.
And there are other examples as well. Let me give just one more.

2 Kings 6:28-29 And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow.
29 So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son.
--Was this also a form of abortion??

What kind of abortion does the Bible advocate? Where does the Bible advocate abortion. What examples of abortion can you find in the Bible that are condoned by the Lord?

 

[jsn9333]

The word pregnant means:
"containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pregnant

That is from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
The obvious meaning of "becoming pregnant" is how the embryo is formed, that is, when the sperm and egg unite to form that embryo. You have unwittingly defined "becoming pregnant" in the same way that I have defined it all along. The word "harah" means the uniting of sperm and egg together to form an embryo. You have defined it that way yourself.

It's true. Harah means conception

*Conception:* Hebrew #2032 herown (hay-rone’); or herayown (hay-raw-yone’); from #2029; pregnancy; Hebrew #2029 harah (haw-raw’); a primitive root; to be (or become) pregnant, conceive (literally or figuratively):

http://www.tlcjesus.org/BibleStudy-Words.htm

*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 abortion does the Bible advocate? Where does the Bible advocate abortion. What examples of abortion can you find in the Bible that are condoned by the Lord?

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.

 

[DHK]

You are definitely grasping at straws.
Medical science? I am not a doctor. We are not speaking of medical science here. We are speaking of basic biology which the Israelites knew all about. They knew how to produce babies. Ostriches put their head in the sand; apparently you do too. Becoming pregnant is the union of a sperm and an egg. The people as far back in Moses day knew that. But you treat their intelligence like the caveman that you learned about in the secular humanistic public school system. Are you a graduate of one?

Your topic of contraception is off topic. If you want to discuss it start another thread. I will not allow this thread to be derailed by that topic. So leave it alone. You have trouble enough answering questions posed to you one just one topic. Why bring in another?!

BTW, are you a Hebrew scholar or are you just qualified to criticize the language? What are your credentials? I want to know before we enter into more repetitve conversations.