Life is in the blood...

[jsn9333]

The first human ovum was discovered in 1828. See "Clinical In Vitro Fertilization." Wood C, Trounson A., Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1984, Page 6. The existence of a mammalian ovum was discovered by Karl Ernst von Baer in 1827. See "An Introduction to the History of Medicine, with Medical Chronology" By Fielding Hudson Garrison p. 474.

Prior to that there is no evidence that any human being knew an internal ovum even existed, much less defined their word "pregnancy" by it. That includes Hebrews.

Is that not relevant because I'm not a Hebrew scholar?? Do I need to be one in order to ask you to produce one shred of evidence that Hebrews knew what an egg was? I think *you* had better be a Hebrew scholar before saying things as historically absurd as that the people in Moses day knew what an egg was. So far the only evidence you can produce is "they knew how to have babies." I'm amazed to have to tell you this, but knowledge of the existence of an internal female ovum is not required for reproduction.

Even the English words "conception" and "pregnant" didn't even have anything to do with ovums 200 years ago... because until the microscope was invented in the 17th century we didn't even know an ovum even existed!! And you are actually sitting there with a straight face telling me that if I would've asked Moses what "harah" meant he would've said, "It is when the sperm meets the egg." Give me a break! You don't have to be a Hebrew scholar to know the translation of the ancient Hebrew word for "pregnant" is not going to as scientifically precise as you are claiming it is. Plus, even with all our scientific knowledge modern English medical dictionaries define conception in multiple ways (fertilization of the egg by the sperm, or implantation of the zygote in the uterus).

Ah, and now contraception is declared "off the topic" of my thread 10 pages into it, even though it has been part of the thread since being mentioned in the first post and has been mentioned on just about every page!? Fine, I'll respect your decision. But I will say this: It would look *a lot* better if you could have a moderator who is not personally involved in the thread make that call. I strongly suspect the reason that contraception is suddenly off topic in this thread is because you were not able to respond when you asked, "What kind of abortion does the Bible advocate?," and I responded, "What kind of contraception does the Bible advocate? The timing method? Physical barriers?" You can call it "off topic", but the fact is it is a very relevant response to your question. It is also a topic that is very relevant to this thread in general. A huge number of Christians don't believe in and don't practice contraception *exactly* because of the implications they feel it has on the human life cycle (ending life or ending potential life early).

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.

 

[DHK]

The first human ovum was described in 1828. See "Clinical In Vitro Fertilization." Wood C, Trounson A., Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1984, Page 6. The existence of a mammalian ovum was discovered by Karl Ernst von Baer in 1827. See "An Introduction to the History of Medicine, with Medical Chronology" By Fielding Hudson Garrison p. 474.

Prior to that there is no evidence that any human being knew an internal ovum even existed, much less defined their word "pregnancy" by it. That includes Hebrews.

Smug in your own knowledge, and yet stubborn in your own unbelief. How long will you continue that way? I will spell it out for you once again:

Mark 12:20 Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed.

sperma sperma sper'-mah
from 4687; something sown, i.e. seed (including the male "sperm"); by implication, offspring; specially, a remnant (figuratively, as if kept over for planting):--issue, seed.

Spermata. Notice the obvious etymology of the word “sperm.” The very Greek word is where are English word sperm comes from.

1 Corinthians 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

Hebrews 11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
--Her egg united with sperm to produce a fertilized egg, an embryo if you will, and a child was born. This is a very clear verse on conception and what it is.

Why do you insist on medical terminology? To be honest you are acting foolishly, and the board knows it. Let me give you an example.


Do you know what Sheehan’s syndrome is?
I do.
It is postpartum hypopituitarism resulting from ischemic necrosis of the pituitary.
Now that was a condition that existed back in Abraham’s day also. They just didn’t describe it that way. You insist on medical terminology that didn’t exist in the days of Abraham or even in the days of Christ. You are the one that is being foolish. Of course they knew what pregnant was, and how becoming pregnant came to be. You are too pride to admit to that fact. They didn’t describe it in the way that you demand. Thus you continue in your unbelief.

Is that off topic because I'm not a Hebrew scholar?? Do I need to be one in order to ask you to produce one shred of evidence that Hebrews knew what an egg was? I think *you* had better be a Hebrew scholar before saying things as historically absurd as that the people in Moses day knew what an egg was. *Again*, what evidence do you have that medical historians are wrong and in fact Moses and the Hebrews knew about the female ovum?

I have just produced my evidence. Will you accept it?
I have challenged an atheist: If I prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Christ arose from the dead, will you accept my proof? The answer is always "no." You are the same way.

So far the only evidence you can produce is "they knew how to have babies." Sorry to tell you this, but knowledge of the existence of an internal female ovum is not required for mammals to reproduce (that includes humans).

You do err not knowing the Scriptures, neither the power of God.

Even modern English medical dictionaries define conception in multiple ways (fertilization of the egg by the sperm, or implantation of the zygote in the uterus). Not only are you arbitrarily picking one of those two and saying the Bible says I have to believe that is the beginning of life... but you are ignoring the fact that the Hebrews could not have defined pregnancy by *either* of them. They had no way of knowing a woman was pregnant until she missed a period... and even then they probably didn't presume she was pregnant until she missed a couple in a row or started showing. You don't have to be a Hebrew scholar to know the translation of the ancient Hebrew word for "pregnant" is not going to as scientifically precise as you are claiming it is. Even the English words "conception" and "pregnant" didn't even have anything to do with ovums 200 years ago... because until the microscope was invented in the 17th century we didn't even know an ovum even existed!!

I define things according to the Bible, something you apparently do not accept as true.

Again though, even if you can prove the Hebrews meant "when a sperm meets an egg" by their word "harah" (which you can't)... nonetheless the Scriptures still don't say that is when life begins. See my post on p. 10. You are the one grasping at straws, my friend.

I am a former biology teacher. In all the biology I have ever studied I have never encountered a single fact that contradicted the Bible. So why should I start believing you and the garbage that you now present on this board? Science in and of itself can clearly demonstrate that life begins at conception. If God Himself does not give life to those cells that multiply through the process of mitosis, and up until the seventh week, all the while developing complex organs such as the brain and the liver (which produces the blood cells), then what can you call it other than life--the life that God gave at conception.

Ah, and now contraception is off the topic of a thread concerning at what point in the reproductive cycle life begins!? That would be funny... except I have a feeling you are serious. It would look better if have a moderator who is not personally involved in the thread make that call. A huge number of Christians don't believe in and don't practice contraception *exactly* because of the implications they feel it has on the human life cycle (ending life or ending potential life early). But fine... no more contraception talk since you feel it is "off topic." But I will say this, I strongly suspect the reason that contraception is suddenly off topic in this thread (10 pages into it when it has been mentioned throughout it) is because you were not able to respond when you asked, "What kind of abortion does the Bible advocate?," and I responded, "What kind of contraception does the Bible advocate? The timing method? Physical barriers?" You can call it "off topic", but the fact is it is a very relevant response to your question specifically and to this thread generally. I think you are letting your personal involvement in this thread get in the way of unbiased and fair moderation.

You are like a J.W. You cannot keep to one topic at a time. When you find yourself cornered in one subject you want to jump to another. Do not derail this thread with another topic.

 

[Palatka51]

The first human ovum was described in 1828. See "Clinical In Vitro Fertilization." Wood C, Trounson A., Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1984, Page 6. The existence of a mammalian ovum was discovered by Karl Ernst von Baer in 1827. See "An Introduction to the History of Medicine, with Medical Chronology" By Fielding Hudson Garrison p. 474.

Prior to that there is no evidence that any human being knew an internal ovum even existed, much less defined their word "pregnancy" by it. That includes Hebrews.

Is that off topic because I'm not a Hebrew scholar?? Do I need to be one in order to ask you to produce one shred of evidence that Hebrews knew what an egg was? I think *you* had better be a Hebrew scholar before saying things as historically absurd as that the people in Moses day knew what an egg was. *Again*, what evidence do you have that medical historians are wrong and in fact Moses and the Hebrews knew about the female ovum? So far the only evidence you can produce is "they knew how to have babies." Sorry to tell you this, but knowledge of the existence of an internal female ovum is not required for mammals to reproduce (that includes humans).

Even modern English medical dictionaries define conception in multiple ways (fertilization of the egg by the sperm, or implantation of the zygote in the uterus). Not only are you arbitrarily picking one of those two and saying the Bible says I have to believe that is the beginning of life... but you are ignoring the fact that the Hebrews could not have defined pregnancy by *either* of them. They had no way of knowing a woman was pregnant until she missed a period... and even then they probably didn't presume she was pregnant until she missed a couple in a row or started showing. You don't have to be a Hebrew scholar to know the translation of the ancient Hebrew word for "pregnant" is not going to as scientifically precise as you are claiming it is. Even the English words "conception" and "pregnant" didn't even have anything to do with ovums 200 years ago... because until the microscope was invented in the 17th century we didn't even know an ovum even existed!!

Again though, even if you can prove the Hebrews meant "when a sperm meets an egg" by their word "harah" (which you can't)... nonetheless the Scriptures still don't say that is when life begins. See my post on p. 10. You are the one grasping at straws, my friend.

Ah, and now contraception is off the topic of a thread concerning at what point in the reproductive cycle life begins!? That would be funny... except I have a feeling you are serious. It would look better if have a moderator who is not personally involved in the thread make that call. A huge number of Christians don't believe in and don't practice contraception *exactly* because of the implications they feel it has on the human life cycle (ending life or ending potential life early). But fine... no more contraception talk since you feel it is "off topic." But I will say this, I strongly suspect the reason that contraception is suddenly off topic in this thread (10 pages into it when it has been mentioned throughout it) is because you were not able to respond when you asked, "What kind of abortion does the Bible advocate?," and I responded, "What kind of contraception does the Bible advocate? The timing method? Physical barriers?" You can call it "off topic", but the fact is it is a very relevant response to your question specifically and to this thread generally. I think you are letting your personal involvement in this thread get in the way of unbiased and fair moderation.

How long are you going to beat this horse anyway? We already know what you are. Now go and protect a Planned Parenthood clinic. As for knowing whether a woman is pregnant before 1827-28 I think that the Holy Spirit was quite capable of giving knowledge of such things. He told Sarah, Mary and many other Biblical women of their conception long before 1828.

Man did not think that the earth was round until Columbus proved other wise but Columbus went by God's Word that it was.

Isaiah 40:22
22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

If God can reveal the circumference of the world to Isaiah and then to Columbus without a rocket in orbit, he can show men when their wives are with child at conception.

At conception Mary was with child, as was the announcement of Gabriel. She knew it and so did John the Baptist as he kicked in Elizabeth's womb. Now if the Holy Spirit revealed to an unborn child that the zygote in Mary was the coming Savior then He is able to reveal it to men without microscopes.

The murderer's craft of abortion is not something that I want to up hold. It amazes me that any Christian would want to twist God's Word to enable such appalling evil.

 

[jsn9333]

DHK, You have proved quite conclusively that the Hebrews knew what sperm was. And you have shown that they knew it caused "harah" (the Hebrew word for pregnancy or conception). That's great... except no one has doubted that.

What I asked you to do was show that they knew what an *egg* was. This is because you say their word "harah" was defined as "when a sperm meets the egg." The problem with your statement is that the Hebrews did not know what an egg was. The English word for "conception" did not even refer to the sperm joining the egg until the 17th century when the egg was discovered... much less the Hebrew word! And even now the English word can also be meant to refer to implantation instead of fertilization.

Oh, and I haven't said any facts contradict the Bible. I have said the Bible is true and is to be followed. That is my entire point. You want me to follow you instead of God's word. And since I refuse to do so you call me "smug" and "stubborn".

 

[DHK]

DHK, You have proved quite conclusively that the Hebrews knew what sperm was. And you have shown that they knew it caused "harah" (the Hebrew word for pregnancy or conception). That's great... except no one has doubted that.

It is evident that if they knew one half of the equation they knew the other half. Common sense tells us that. Ever since Adam and Eve man has known how to reproduce, and they have had some knowledge of the "how" it happens. It is not rocket science.

What I asked you to do was show that they knew what an *egg* was. This is because you say their word "harah" was defined as "when a sperm meets the egg." The problem with your statement is that the Hebrews did not know what an egg was.

Now the onus is on you to prove that statement. Don't make a statement that you can't back up with verifiable proof.

The English word for "conception" did not even refer to the sperm joining the egg until the 17th century when the egg was discovered...

Good for the English language!! Do a study on the English language. When did it come into being? From where did it come? I can tell you this, Paul didn't speak it; Christ didn't speak it; Abraham didn't speak it. So to speak of the "English word for conception" is totally irrelevant, isn't it?

much less the Hebrew word!

And your authority is....
Isaiah used the word 700 years before Christ was born. He spoke of a virgin conceiving.

And even now the English word can also be meant to refer to implantation instead of fertilization.

Good for the English language. That is not what Isaiah spoke.

Oh, and I haven't said any facts contradict the Bible. I have said the Bible is true and is to be followed. That is my entire point. You want me to follow you instead of God's word. And since I refuse to do so you call me "smug" and "stubborn".

It now seems that you follow the English language instead of the Bible. There is a difference.

 

[jsn9333]

Palatka51,

It is just a a cute story and a complete fairytale that Columbus proved the world was round. No one believed the earth was flat. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you believed the fairy tale. You seem to be able to believe a lot of things that aren't in the Bible. Anyway, the ancient Greeks knew the world was round because they saw the curve of the horizon. They also knew because the higher in a tower they climbed, the farther out the horizon got. Most people since the first man to ever think about it for a second knew the earth was round. The ancient Greeks even calculated the size of the round earth! Columbus called the New World the "West Indies" because he thought he had sailed *around* the *round* earth and reached the other side of India (they had already discovered side you get to by sailing east).

Planned Parenthood believes in abortions after the baby gets its life (which the Bible says is when it gets its blood). Hence I would never protect their clinics.

God told Mary and Sarah that they would become pregnant He said "you will be with child," not, "you are with child." And that still doesn't show God defined pregnancy as the point at which a sperm meets an egg. He could've meant "a sperm will meet one of your eggs" or he could've meant "one of your fertilized eggs will implant in your uterus"... or any number of things. The English dictionary has defined "conception" in both those ways. The Hebrews defined pregnant, or "harah", differently then either of those English definitions though, because they didn't know what an egg was. Pregnant and Conceived are just the best general words we have to translate with.

Even if the Hebrews did mean "when sperm and egg meet" by "harah" or "conceive" (which history shows they could not have), that 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.

 

[jsn9333]

DHK,
Yes! That is my point exactly. The English definition of conception *is* irrelevant. You, though, brought it up when you cited Webster's definition of the english word "conception." Anyway, yes... it is irrelvant... I agree, besides the English definition has changed over the years and even still has two definitions. We need to know what the Hebrews meant by *harah

If every historical textbook I know of says the existence of the human female egg wasn't discovered until the 17th century, how is the onus on *me* to prove the Hebrews discovered it earlier!? Oh give me a break. I've already cited reputable medical and historical texts. The onus is on *you* to prove the Hebrews knew what an egg was. And "they knew because it is common sense," doesn't do it. Apparently it wasn't common sense to anyone else in all of mankind until the 17th century.

The Hebrew definition of "harah" is what counts, and the Hebrews did not define "harah" by anything having to do with an egg. They had to have defined it by what they knew of pregnancy... I'm not sure what that was, but it was most likely missing subsequent periods or showing.

Again though, the Bible doesn't even say life starts at "harah" anyway. Even if it did though, "harah" doesn't refer to an egg in any way, shape, or form in the Hebrew.

 

[DHK]

Again though, the Bible doesn't even say life starts at "harah" anyway. Even if it did though, "harah" doesn't refer to an egg in any way, shape, or form in the Hebrew.

Just your opinion and nothing else. I have given you plenty of Scripture, all of which you have ignored.

 

[rbell]

The murderer's craft of abortion is not something that I want to up hold. It amazes me that any Christian would want to twist God's Word to enable such appalling evil.

Ain't it the truth?!

That's what I find disgusting...not just that someone would decide abortion is OK up to a certain time....but that they would use God's Word to defend it.

"Shameful" doesn't begin to describe it.

 

[Palatka51]

Palatka51,
It is just a a cute story and a complete fairytale that Columbus proved the world was round. No one believed the earth was flat. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you believed the fairy tale. You seem to be able to believe a lot of things that aren't in the Bible. Anyway, the ancient Greeks knew the world was round because they saw the curve of the horizon. They also knew because the higher in a tower they climbed, the farther out the horizon got. Most people since the first man to ever think about it for a second knew the earth was round. The ancient Greeks even calculated the size of the round earth! Columbus called the New World the "West Indies" because he thought he had sailed *around* the *round* earth and reached the other side of India (they had already discovered side you get to by sailing east).

Ah, but what you were referring to was that a microscope assisted men to discover the ovum. Your point is that the ovum was a speculation until 1827. I pointed out that the Holy Spirit revealed things that they could not possibly know without technology beyond their knowledge.

So now that I have you in this box, it stands to reason that if the ancient Greeks could discern the horizon by observation, they could surely know when their hogs were "mak'n bacon" (By observation, of course).

 

[DHK]

Palatka51,

It is just a a cute story and a complete fairytale that Columbus proved the world was round. No one believed the earth was flat. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you believed the fairy tale. You seem to be able to believe a lot of things that aren't in the Bible. Anyway, the ancient Greeks knew the world was round because they saw the curve of the horizon. They also knew because the higher in a tower they climbed, the farther out the horizon got. Most people since the first man to ever think about it for a second knew the earth was round. The ancient Greeks even calculated the size of the round earth! Columbus called the New World the "West Indies" because he thought he had sailed *around* the *round* earth and reached the other side of India (they had already discovered side you get to by sailing east).

Do you revise the Bible like you revise history? What a conundrum of mixed up information (misinformation) you have given. If you can't get your facts straight then don't post, Pleeeeease!!

First, do you know that a Flat Earth Society still exists today? You apparently have a computer; do a search. Look it up for yourself. They believe that all the pictures sent back from space is a big hoax; a conspiracy by the government, and that the earth is still flat. People still believe that to this very day.

Second, Columbus sailed in 1492. Prior to that, in the 14th and 13th centuries all maps were made square. The edges had pictures of water flowing off of them, with ships dropping off of those edges. The common belief was that the world was flat up until the middle ages. Get your facts straight and quit trying to rewrite history as you are trying to rewrite the Bible.

Because they looked upon the horizon did not automatically make a connection with them that the world was round. You assume too much. You need a history lesson, not to mention a Biology lesson, as well as a Bible lesson--a very extensive one.

Columbus was not trying to prove the world was round. He already knew that, as the educated people of his time knew that. Much of the populace still believed the world was flat. That was not his concern. He was trying to find the West Indies. He knew Japan existed. He wrongly estimated the size of the globe, went further west. For 30 years people thought that Columbus landed near China, but they all were wrong. He had landed at what is today called the Bahamas.

There may have been an occasional mathemetician or scientist throughout the annals of history that believed that the earth was round, but it never was an accepted belief until relatively recently in history. You need to check up on your history. (as well as a number of other subject areas).

 

[jsn9333]

DHK,

Sure, there are a few wackos who believe the earth is flat. There is a historically ignorant person out there to believe every crazy idea... even the idea that the Hebrews discovered the egg before the doctor everyone else in the world says actually did in 1827! (that one's you).

Just because square maps with water flowing off the edges existed doesn't mean most people actually thought the earth was flat! Maps like that are still made today, that doesn't mean most people think the earth is flat. Those maps were and are made because they are humorous... not serious! The idea that it was commonly believed that the earth was flat is a *myth*... it is a joke.

The ancient Greeks, specifically Eratosthenes, Librarian of Alexandria, calculated a figure for the Earth's circumference creditably close to the true figure of 24,900 miles. That was long before Columbus. People knew the earth was round since time immeasurable. It is fairly obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Anyway, the funny thing about this whole idea is that somehow "contraception" is declared "off topic" (even though it is mentioned in the original post and almost every one of the first 10 pages of posts) and yet whether or not Columbus set out to prove the earth was round is on topic, apparently, since you're more then happy to take that issue up with me and and say I'm re-writing history.

I guess it is just a coincidence that contraception was declared "off topic" directly after you were not able to answer a question I asked you about it . It seems complete and obvious bias might be a qualification this site looks for in moderators.

Let's get this back on topic, if you don't mind Ms. unbiased moderator. You still have not produced not a single shred of evidence that any ancient Hebrew knew what an egg was. So far your evidence has been "they had babies", "they bred sheep", "they knew what sperm was," and various other points that are completely useless in proving they knew what an egg was. What was the Hebrew word for "ovum"? Since you claim their word for conception ("harah") means "when sperm meets ovum" they should definitely have a word for the female ovum... what was it again?

Oh yeah! There isn't one... that is because mankind did not discover the existence of the ovum until the 17th century, as I pointed out to the on the last page (p. 10). Therefore your absurd, ridiculous, and completely historically ignorant assertion that the Hebrew word "harah" means "when sperm meets egg" is a complete re-write of history! Surprise, surprise... looks like we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Anyway, this whole display of your historical ignorance is totally pointless. For even if the Hebrews did mean "when sperm and egg meet" by "harah" or "conceive" (which, baring the evidence you refuse to produce, history shows they could not have), that 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.

I have not "ignored" any one of the Scriptures you have cited, as you claim I did on the last page. I have responded to every one of them. Rather, I have *disagreed* with your historically ignorant and logically absurd interpretations of the verses you cited. That is not me ignoring your verses... it is me acknowledging and responding to them. There is a difference.

If anyone is ignoring information it is you and Pal. She's over here telling me Columbus proved the earth was not round, and you're telling me the Hebrews actually discovered the egg. You two embody the reason Christians have to deal with the stigma that they are ignorant.... just so you know.

May God bless you with wisdom that you might shine the Light of his knowledge and Truth. Good night, and God bless...

 

[DHK]

Oh yeah! There isn't one... that is because mankind did not discover the existence of the ovum until the 17th century, as I pointed out to the on the last page (p. 10). Therefore your absurd, ridiculous, and completely historically ignorant assertion that the Hebrew word "harah" means "when sperm meets egg" is a complete re-write of history! Surprise, surprise... looks like we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

According to Paul, as he writes to the Thessalonians, the gospel through them went out to the whole world.

Of course North America did not exist because no one had "discovered" it until 1492. This is the logic of your own reasoning. The ovum still existed whether or not man "discovered" it. It doesn't change the facts any.

 

[jsn9333]

DHK,

If what you mean by saying Paul referred to the entire world is that just because he hadn't seen every person doesn't mean he wasn't referring to them... then I agree. Paul was referring to people and lands he hadn't even seen when he used the term "entire world." However, he knew there was a finite number of men and nations in the world, and he was referring to all of them. He didn't have to know them all by name or to have seen each one... he knew they existed out there. You could point at any one person and I can tell you with certainty... "Yes, Paul was referring to him... for he is in the world."

However, neither Paul nor Moses knew anything at all about the ovum. They didn't know it existed anywhere... at all. There is no evidence that *anyone* knew an ovum existed before the 17th century. I can claim the Hebrew word "harah" referred to the zygote implanting in the womb just as easily as you can claim it referred to the sperm implanting itself into the egg. Neither of us would have any more historical or biblical evidence to support our claim. In fact, we would both be wrong... because the Hebrews did not know what an egg even was. Neither of us could say with any certainty (biblically) that our definition is correct.

To say Hebrew "harah" means "sperm meets egg" is to re-write history. The female ovum is never mentioned in scripture, it has nothing to do with the Biblical definition of when life begins. When the Bible talks about where the life of a fleshly creature comes from, it says it comes from that creature's blood. And a developing human doesn't get its blood until weeks after fertilization of the egg.

Even the English definition of "conception" can refer to either when the sperm meets the egg or when the zygote implants in the uterine wall. The definition includes both those (at least it has since the 17th century when it was changed) . And the Hebrew word is even less specific then the English. It most likely refers to whatever they *did* know about pregnancy... either several missed periods or when a woman started showing, etc.

To arbitrarily pick the point "when sperm meets egg" as the beginning of life is fine as a personal belief. But the Bible doesn't teach that as fact in any way, shape or form. To say it does is to show your ignorance of history and Scripture. And to call someone a murderer for disagreeing with you, and to say the Bible calls them a murderer as well, is ignorant, cruel, and shameful.

 

[rbell]

Anyway, this whole display of your historical ignorance is totally pointless.

If anyone is ignoring information it is you and Pal. She's over here telling me Columbus proved the earth was not round, and you're telling me the Hebrews actually discovered the egg. You two embody the reason Christians have to deal with the stigma that they are ignorant.... just so you know.

May God bless you with wisdom that you might shine the Light of his knowledge and Truth. Good night, and God bless...

"Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be so” (James 3:9-10)"

JSN, I think you're out of line with some of your comments.

 

[jsn9333]

rbell,
"Historically ignorant" is not an insult... it is an observation my friend. If I told you I believed babies came from storks or that God is a frog... I would be ignorant of the facts of reproduction and of the person of God.

I don't think you are in any position to be nitpicking my comments either. If you can call me one who "enables appalling evil" and "shameful" I think I can say someone who is on par with one who thinks the earth is flat is historically ignorant.

By the way, I got the stork example from DHK. He said I probably believed babies came on storks... you sure didn't pipe up in my defense then. I think you should heed Proverbs, "Like one who seizes a dog by the ears is a passer-by who meddles in a quarrel not his own."

 

[rbell]

rbell,

I don't think you are in any position to be nitpicking my comments either. If you can call me one who "enables appalling evil" and "shameful" I think I can say someone who is on par with one who thinks the earth is flat is historically ignorant.

Sorry, but I strongly believe anyone who would try and use Scripture to support abortion for any reason has earned those monikers.

 

[rbell]

I think you should heed Proverbs, "Like one who seizes a dog by the ears is a passer-by who meddles in a quarrel not his own."

OK, forget it. But your position seems to support the murder of innocent babies via a "Scriptural loophole." It's a sad, sad position. And it's troubling to me at how voiciferous you are on this.

 

[Allan]

OK, forget it. But your position seems to support the murder of innocent babies via a "Scriptural loophole." It's a sad, sad position. And it's troubling to me at how voiciferous you are on this.

If I'm not mistaken this the same person who also hold that smoking pot is scriptually supported as well.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

If I'm not mistaken this the same person who also hold that smoking pot is scriptually supported as well.

Not sure [if your not sure yoiur personal attack on another poster is gossip]