Life is in the blood...

The Bible doesn't say why it proclaims that the life is in the blood. So I can't assume it was because life is in DNA any more then I can assume it is because life is in protein. I have no Biblical reason to assume either of those. If you logically think "life is in the DNA" is a better belief then what the Bible says because DNA is unique... then believe it. But you can't claim the Bible teaches that. That is a personal, logical belief you can only hold yourself too.

To talk about your logic (even though it is off topic, since it has nothing to do with the Bible's teachings)... the DNA that forms in a fertilized egg is not unique to one life anyway. That cell can split into multiple cells (one way twins occur). There is not an individual life at fertilization any more then there is before fertilization. Many lives could result from fertilization, or no lives could result. It depends what happens later. Similarly many lives can result from intercourse, or no lives... it depends.

So your logic about DNA is irrelevant anyway. All we truly know from the Scriptures is that the life of a being is in its blood. Beyond that you are guessing and assuming.

If someone says life starts at conception because a verse says "He knew me when I was conceived," then, again, I'll point out that other verses say "He knew me before I was conceived." The Bible doesn't say life starts at conception. And, again, even if it did say life started at conception, the Hebrew word for conception ("harah") does not necessarily refer to fertilization of an egg. The English word for conception didn't even refer to an egg until eggs were discovered in the 17th century.

You cannot judge people by your own personal beliefs. You can only judge yourself by them. You must use the Scriptures to judge others.

 

If you say abortion at week 2 is a sin because the woman doesn't want the child, then contraception or even abstinence is a sin if it is done because the woman doesn't want a child. This thread is not about your own logic, even if it were not faulty logic (as yours is). This thread is about what the Bible says.

If you can't provide a verse as to when life begins, then your opinion is not relevant to this thread. Feel free to start a thread on "my opinion on when life starts apart from any Biblical basis." This thread is about what the Bible teaches.

 

That was my point exactly. Amy had said, while referring to abortion as murder, "If a woman decides to have an abortion, it is the child she does not want. That is the sin." I pointed out that there are many ways to show that you d not want a child... and if you go by her logic then abstinence (one way) or contraception (another way) are sins as well. You are critiquing her logic, not mine.

I read and responded to Palatka's post. I'm not saying that the "life is in the blood" verse clearly references when life starts. I'm saying that is the most direct reference because it at least talks about life and in what physical medium life resides.

If you think that is a poor verse for deciding when life starts, by all means suggest an alternative. Mostly people have given verses that say, "He knew me when I was conceived," to say life starts at fertilization. I have just pointed out that other verses say "He knew me before I was conceived." The Bible doesn't say life starts at fertilization anywhere I have seen.

And, again, even if it did say life started at conception, the Hebrew word for conception ("harah") does not necessarily refer to fertilization of an egg. The English word for conception didn't even refer to an egg until eggs were discovered in the 17th century.

 

The pharisees used their own traditional beliefs instead of Scripture to justify their harsh judgments of others, and were called "children of the devil" by Christ because of it.

The true Christian uses Scripture to know the Truth. I respect your personal belief about life starting at fertilization. But the Bible does not teach it, so therefore you cannot judge others by it. Practice it yourself, but if you try to tell anyone God agrees with you you are a false prophet. God has not said life starts at fertilization.

 

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

To have it implied by DHK that I am unlearned is indeed a very high compliment. Despite every known medical history book's claims that the human female ovum was not known to exist until 1828, you continue to insist the Hebrews knew about it and defined their word "harah" (or "conceived") according to it because "even teenagers know about the egg!" There are few I would rather have imply I am unlearned then someone who chooses to remain in such absurd historical ignorance.

You can reprimand me all you want if it makes you feel better, but in the end all I have done is to simply ask you for biblical support for your claim that fertilization of the egg is the beginning of life. That is a call for proof, not a "twist" of Scripture.

For instance, you have given verses that say, "He knew me when I was conceived," to say life starts at fertilization. I have merely pointed out that other verses say "He knew me before I was conceived." If all I have done is cite another verse for you to compare yours too, then I have not twisted anything. I have simply given you another verse to keep in mind... two verses is better then one. You should be thanking me, if anything.

If you want to choose to remain in historical and biblical ignorance, then be my guest. :thumbs:

 

I didn't say you called me unlearned, I said you implied I was unlearned. And you did, by telling me the unlearned twist Scripture and accusing me of twisting Scripture.

Concerning Columbus, you said most common people believed the earth was flat in his day. I said that wasn't true. The only reference you provided was that there exists old, flat maps with drawings of water going off the edges. I pointed out maps like that are still made today, so that proves nothing. I'll point out, that according to Jeffrey Burton Russell, Professor of History, Emeritus, at the University of California, Santa Barbara, (practically) "no one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat." see http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html
Again, I'm going to have to go with my reference of yours... as "unlearned" as that might make me seem.

I don't have to prove my statement that history books claim the female ovum was discovered in 1828. I've cited two medical history books already. YOu have cited none. The ball is now in your court, yet all you do is tell me I need to cite every medical history book that exists in every language known to man. At this point, you would make yourself look a lot better if you would just put away your pride, admit you were wrong about Columbus, and admit you were wrong about the Hebrews knowing what an egg was "because teenagers know."

I have not ignored your claims that "seed" in reference to a woman refers to an egg. I have cited several reasons why "seed" does not refer to the egg.
1) The Hebrew and Greek concordances define the word as "sperm" and as "seed", not "ovum". So when the Bible says she conceived seed or became pregnant by seed, it is referring to her becoming pregnant via sperm.
2) Verses that say "your seed will number more then the sand on the seashore" are referring to her decedents... not billions of ovums. The female body makes a very limited number of ovums. The verse in Genesis that says her seed will crush the serpent is translated "her offspring" in the NIV, which is in line with the understanding that female "seed" refers to children, not to ovum.

You are not telling the truth about "never using those verses" about being known in the womb, which is sad, since you are supposedly a "moderator" in this discussion. Post number 69. You relied on Psalm 139 saying a person was known in the womb... the very verses I have said should not be used to show life starts at conception since other verses say a person was known before being conceived. Now here you say you never used such verses.

You are one who does not tell the truth, and you are playing games here. Concerning the human egg being discovered in 1828, you unashamedly deny the history which all medical history books that we have seen claim as fact, and you refuse to cite even one history book or encyclopedia in your defense. Instead you say I have to prove that every history book *ever written* agrees with the two I have already cited... as if the names of every history book ever written could even fit on this server.

You refuse to cite references about your claims concerning Columbus, but that is unrelated to this discussion. The fact is, I have cited numerous published books of history and distinguished professors. You refuse to cite a single published historical reference, and you also refuse to tell the truth about what you have said in previous posts. You are playing games, it is obvious at this point.

When even the moderator refuses to engage in discussion and resorts to game playing the pursuit of mutual knowledge becomes a waste of time. It is sad that the telling of un-truths and and ridiculous game playing are tolerated in the moderation of this board.

I am through with this topic and will be off the board for a while preparing for final exams. I'm sure DHK will have fun "abolishing" my arguments in my absence. However, the last few pages speak for themselves.

I have truly not intended to offend anyone with this sensitive topic, however I do believe the Church should have Biblical support for every stand it takes. Good-bye and God bless,

jsn9333

 

DHK,

As far as my "logical fallacy", I am not asking you to prove a negative now. You have said the egg was known to exist before the 17th century, because "even a teenager knows what the egg is." I have cited several published historical books of medicine that back up my claim that the egg wasn't known to exist until 1827 or 1828. I am simply asking you to prove a positive: prove that you can find even one one published book of history that claims any human knew what the egg was before the 17th century. That is not a "universal negative" or whatever "fallacy" you are accusing me of. I'm asking you to prove one positive thing... that you have even a single educated historian on your side of this issue.

We all make mistakes. You should just man up and admit that you assumed we always knew what an egg was. It is an assumption a lot of people make, because we are taught about the egg at such a young age. Just set aside your pride and you'll look a lot less ignorant... and then your position on the abortion issue will seem a lot more educated and reasonable. When I say ignorant I don't mean that you are stupid... "ignorant" means you are ignoring information. You are ignoring history. You haven't been able to find one educated historian who agrees with your position and you ignore every historian who disagrees with you (a few of whom I have cited).

As far as Columbus, etc., you say you have cited history books to show your claim that, "the common belief was that the world was flat up until the middle ages," from post 111 is true. Neither in that post nor in any other have you cited one historian or published book. I have earlier cited a distinguished professor of history stating that such was not a common belief. You have ignored it. Again... ignorance.

You say, "your version of history is not the only one." I'm not saying my view is the only one. I'm simply asking you to cite a historian who agrees with your view. The main view of yours is your assertion about the egg being known early, but as far as Columbus (since you keep bringing it up), add to the list of published scholars and historians who disagree with you Jeffrey Russell. He states that the modern view that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat entered the popular imagination in the 19th century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy, "The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus" in 1828. For a citation see Russell, Jeffrey B.. "The Myth of the Flat Earth." page 3. American Scientific Affiliation.

Other historians who agree with him are Klaus Anselm Vogel, Jeffrey Burton Russell, Reinhard Krüger, also Edward Grant, David Lindberg, Daniel Woodward, and Robert S. Westman.

Again, just like with the egg issue, you refuse to cite published educational, standard historical materials. Your assumption is a common one because many kids are taught the myth when they are young. Palatka made virtually the same mistake you did, saying Columbus proved the earth was round. But Palatka has the humility to just stop when he sees he was wrong. In your foolish pride you continue to insist you were right... yet you refuse to cite any published historian who agrees with you. That is called pride and ignorance my friend, pride and ignorance. No one is perfect and we all have a little pride and ignorance or what not... but you are full of it. Just admit you are human and make mistakes. The only way to learn is to recognize your mistakes.

As far as Psalm 139, basically, in this thread about when life starts you referenced a verse about God knowing someone at conception. Then later when I showed such verses cannot be used to show life actually begins at conception you said you "did not use any of those verses." Now that I have pointed out where you used Psalm 139 you are saying that you weren't using the verse "that way." Alright, whatever. I'll trust your good faith on that, even though I have no reason to.

As long as you willfully remain ignorant, further discussion with you is pointless. If we get to make up whatever facts we want (which is what you have done), then trying to find the Truth in a matter is impossible. In almost 20 pages we have sorted through an amazing amount of Bible passages, medical facts, etc. I respect the people in this thread who have disagreed with me for personal reasons or for Biblical ones. I may not agree with them, but I respect them. I have zero respect for someone who chooses to remain ignorant in order save his pride.