Life is in the blood...

[jsn9333]

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.
Sorry, but I strongly believe anyone who would try and use Scripture to support abortion for any reason has earned those monikers ("enables appalling evil" and "shameful")

I'm not using a loophole. I'm am arguing from plain, clear Scripture. It is your side that is twisting the Word in ignorance. 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 into the egg. Neither of us would have any more historical or biblical evidence to support our claim then the other.

Yet you insist on your arbitrarily chosen definition. And that would be fine, except you then call anyone who disagrees with your arbitrary choice a murderer of children! How shameful. How disgusting.

You are shaming Christ with every finger you point at others as "murderers" while claiming it is God's finger and not your own. If you personally want to believe life starts when the sperm implants into the egg... fine. But nowhere in Scripture is it made clear that is what God says. There is just a much evidence that life starts when the zygote implants into the uterus. And what's more, "harah" isn't even said to be the point when life begins anyway, at least not any more then intercourse is said to be.

You have no right to judge someone as "evil" who believes the Bible when it says the life of a creature is in the blood. I know contraception is supposedly off the topic, but both contraception and early abortion are very deeply personal and emotional subjects for women. Your type smugly and self-righteously condones contraception in your church, yet screams murderer at the woman who takes the morning after pill. Yet the Biblical dividing lines between the two are in no way clear in any way, shape, or form. You are judging only by your own traditional understandings and historical ignorance of biblical terms... not by Scripture or God's word at all. You should be truly ashamed of yourself for the vile hatred you spew at others. That is why I'm "voiciferous" (as you spelled it).

 

[standingfirminChrist]

If one has an abortion, or performs an abortion on a woman, that one has prevented a life from entering into the world.

The Word of God says Psalm 127:3 3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

God gives that fruit of the womb. It is not man's right or even his priveledge to stop it from entering into the world.

 

[rbell]

Yet you insist on your arbitrarily chosen definition. And that would be fine, except you then call anyone who disagrees with your arbitrary choice a murderer of children! How shameful. How disgusting. You should be truly ashamed of yourself.

Untrue. I said your position seems to support murder. I never called you a murderer. Get your facts straight. I was quite careful in how I worded what I said. I have no doubt you aren't a murderer. But your position you take makes it appear that you are strongly sympathetic to the cause of abortionists. This is why you are receiving such strong opposition (not to mention many of us feel your misuse of Scripture is indeed misuse....and, of course, because you're arguing that abortion isn't necessarily wrong. And, you're using (mis-using) Scripture, of all things, to support your point.)

I look back and shake my head at some of our ancestors who used the Bible to propagate racism at its worst. Untold damage was done to the Body of Christ because of people using the Word of God to support an entirely unbiblical premise. I view this as a similar situation.

You are shaming Christ with every finger you point at others as "murderers" while claiming it is God's finger and not your own.

Your accusation that I am "shaming Christ" is both untrue and unappreciated. So, am I shaming Christ because I'm against abortion? Or is it because I take Psalm 139 seriously and at its face value? Which one? Honestly, I think you should take that accusation back.

Besides all this....it would seem that one would err on the side of caution when life is in the balance. Doesn't that make sense?

While we're at it, how 'bout counting to ten and calming down a bit?

 

[DHK]

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 have missed my point entirely.
First, when Paul mentions "the world" in Romans 1:8 (1Thes.1:8 says 'every place'), he means the entire known world of that time.

Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Paul was not referring to lands that he hadn't seen as you suggest. He was not referring to North America. He was not God. He was not omniscient. North America existed but Paul had no knowledge of its existence. It existed in spite of Paul's knowledge.
The ovum exists in spite of the knowledge of the Jews. They may call it something else. They may use different terms, as I already have suggested to you. But it still existed. To suggest that it wasn't "discovered" until the 19th century is just absurd.

Again: seed = spermata; sperm. The meaning is clear. They knew what it meant. And you agree.
If they knew one half of the equation, one can be sure they knew the other half. It is not rocket science. Mankind has been in the business of reproduction since the time of Adam and Eve.

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.

Do you think I am going to trust your version of history and the etymology of words when you can't even get the facts of Columbus straight?? :laugh:

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.

Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures.

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.

The Bible doesn't say anything about "Sheehan's Syndrome" either, though it probably existed. You never did get that point did you? It went right over your head.
You want to force your own vocabulary into the Bible. You refuse to study the Biblical languages, and related Biblical passages in detail. "The Bible says nothing about where the life of a fleshly creature comes from..." you say. That is false. It has a lot to say on that subject.

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.

If you don't know the English meaning of "conception" then you are naive, and shouldn't be posting on this subject in the first place.

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.

Is it "ignorant, cruel, and shameful?
For the first seven weeks of the life of Christ was he just an inanimate rock, a lifeless thing with no dignity. If he wasn't human, then he wasn't God either. Now, by your conclusion, you have not only denied the humanity of Christ but his deity as well, for you have implied that he was lifeless.

 

[jsn9333]

Actually, when Palatka51 said earlier in the thread that I was enabling "The murderer's craft of abortion" you said "ain't that the truth." So yes, you point the finger at those who don't believe life starts when sperm implants in the egg (because no words in the Bible even involve an egg in their definition) and you call them *murderers*. Now you are trying to back away from your position, however you haven't retracted what you said. You're trying to pull a Clinton and say two things at once.

Psalm 139 does not say anything about life starting when a sperm meets an egg. We've already been over the fact that the Hebrew word for "pregnant" (also translated "conceive" in English) does not refer to the point when a sperm meets an egg necessarily. There is just as much evidence that it refers to the point when an zygote implants in a uterus. You shame Christ when you make such harsh judgments of others with absolutely no Biblical basis and claim it is actually Christ's Word that is judging them. Period.

What's more, "harah" (Hebrew word for pregnant) likely doesn't mean either of the two modern English definitions of conceive I listed above as possible... the Hebrews didn't even know what an egg was. If you asked them what harah meant they would not respond with how you are defining it. And like it or not, harah is the word used in the Bible. You lack any clear basis at all for making such specific judgments of the exact point when life begins and then calling others murders based on them. Your self-righteous judgments are shameful, period.

Untrue. I said your position seems to support murder. I never called you a murderer. Get your facts straight. I was quite careful in how I worded what I said. I have no doubt you aren't a murderer. But your position you take makes it appear that you are strongly sympathetic to the cause of abortionists. This is why you are receiving such strong opposition (not to mention many of us feel your misuse of Scripture is indeed misuse....and, of course, because you're arguing that abortion isn't necessarily wrong. And, you're using (mis-using) Scripture, of all things, to support your point.)

I look back and shake my head at some of our ancestors who used the Bible to propagate racism at its worst. Untold damage was done to the Body of Christ because of people using the Word of God to support an entirely unbiblical premise. I view this as a similar situation.




Your accusation that I am "shaming Christ" is both untrue and unappreciated. So, am I shaming Christ because I'm against abortion? Or is it because I take Psalm 139 seriously and at its face value? Which one? Honestly, I think you should take that accusation back.

Besides all this....it would seem that one would err on the side of caution when life is in the balance. Doesn't that make sense?

While we're at it, how 'bout counting to ten and calming down a bit?

 

[rbell]

Actually, when Palatka51 said earlier in the thread that I was enabling "The murderer's craft of abortion" you said "ain't that the truth." So yes, you point the finger at those who don't believe life starts when sperm implants in the egg (because no words in the Bible even involve an egg in their definition) and you call them *murderers*. Now you are trying to back away from your position, however you haven't retracted what you said. You're trying to pull a Clinton and say two things at once.

Palatka said:

The murderer's craft of abortion is not something that I want to up hold.

I responded:

Ain't it the truth?!

I'm not backing away from any position.

You said,

Your type smugly and self-righteously condones contraception in your church, yet screams murderer at the woman who takes the morning after pill. Yet the Biblical dividing lines between the two are in no way clear in any way, shape, or form. You are judging only by your own traditional understandings and historical ignorance of biblical terms... not by Scripture or God's word at all. You should be truly ashamed of yourself for the vile hatred you spew at others. That is why I'm "voiciferous" (as you spelled it).

Thanks for the compiment So....am I "vile and hateful" because I believe life begins at conception?
How dare you insinuate that I scream "murderer" at anyone. Your accusations are growing more juvenile and shrill by the post.
You owe me an apology, but I doubt one's coming.

Besides the fact that you are trying to justify an unspeakable evil, and using Scripture to justify it....you are doing so in an inflammatory manner. Too many incindiery posts for me...It ain't worth having the conversation here. Good day.

 

[jsn9333]

You have missed my point entirely.
First, when Paul mentions "the world" in Romans 1:8 (1Thes.1:8 says 'every place'), he means the entire known world of that time.

Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Paul was not referring to lands that he hadn't seen as you suggest. He was not referring to North America. He was not God. He was not omniscient. North America existed but Paul had no knowledge of its existence. It existed in spite of Paul's knowledge.
The ovum exists in spite of the knowledge of the Jews. They may call it something else. They may use different terms, as I already have suggested to you. But it still existed. To suggest that it wasn't "discovered" until the 19th century is just absurd.

Again: seed = spermata; sperm. The meaning is clear. They knew what it meant. And you agree.
If they knew one half of the equation, one can be sure they knew the other half. It is not rocket science. Mankind has been in the business of reproduction since the time of Adam and Eve.

You didn't cite the verse of Paul you were referring to. I thought you were thinking of verses with meanings like, "God so loved the world," etc.

Anyway, here you go again. "They knew what sperm was, therefore they *had* to know what an egg was." Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Mankind up until the 17th century did not know what the egg was, yet he knew what sperm was. They didn't "call it something else." The didn't even know it existed. It wasn't even described. There are no words that describe the ovum in the Hebrew language at all, nor in *any* human language until it was discovered to exist. No human being is ever recorded as describing it until someone discovered it in the 17th century. That is just historical fact. I've cited medical history books... you have cited nothing except your own reasoning that "if someone knows what sperm is, then they have to know what an egg is." Hmm... what should I believe... DHK's illogical reasoning or every medical history of mankind I've ever seen or even heard of?

Yes, when Paul said, "your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world," he was not referring to lands that he hadn't seen. That is exactly right. And that makes my point. The lands still existed. And yes, the ovum still existed despite their ignorance of it, just like the world outside of Paul's knowledge existed despite his ignorance of it. But the point is, they then were not referring to it when they said "harah". They weren't referring to an egg. When Paul said, "your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world," he wasn't referring to North America. So you can't say he was, and you can't say the Hebrews were referring to an egg. They did not know what an egg was. You haven't produced any convincing evidence at all that they did. And any medical history I've ever seen says the egg was not known to exist or known to play a part in reproduction until the 17th century. You are spouting historical ignorance and revision.

For the first seven weeks of the life of Christ was he just an inanimate rock, a lifeless thing with no dignity. If he wasn't human, then he wasn't God either. Now, by your conclusion, you have not only denied the humanity of Christ but his deity as well, for you have implied that he was lifeless.

For all you know Christ was inserted into Mary at the point he already had his own blood (and life). The Hebrew word for "pregnant" or "conceive" does not necessarily refer to when a sperm joins an egg. The English word we translate it into doesn't even mean that necessarily... it can refer to a zygote. Again, you act like you get to be the judge instead of God's word. You can't just pick arbitrarily and think I have any reason to believe you.

Harah does not necessarily mean what you are saying it means. It could very possible refer to some later point in what we call pregnancy, for the Hebrews never mention an egg nor do you have any evidence they knew what an egg was. There is just as much evidence (or rather just as little) to think it refers to a blastocyst implanting, a zygote, or an embryo as an egg.

You have shown that you are willfully going to remain in ignorance of commonly known historical facts (concerning when mankind first discovered that the thing we now call the "egg" or "ovum" was involved in human reproduction). I can only assume you are also going to willfully remain ignorant of the Scriptures also, and willfully judge others by your own ignorant standards instead of by God's.

For the most part, I achieved my purpose here. I set out to honestly explore and find out why some people believe the Bible teaches that life starts when the sperm meets the egg. You have done a wonderful job clarifying for me what the roots are of such a belief.

 

[jsn9333]

rbell,
If you don't think the Bible teaches that someone who has an early abortion is a murderer, then I misunderstood you. You didn't cite Palatka's full quote that you agreed with. She actually accused me of "enabling" the murder. That is what you said was true, and so that is why I understood you to be saying it was true that I enable murder. So if I misunderstood you, hopefully you can see why.

Anyway, I did not say you were "vile and hateful" because you believe life begins at conception. Again, you edited out the relevant part of the quote. I actually said it was "fine" that you believed life starts at conception... personally. However, I noted that the Bible doesn't clarify if life starts then or a little later. So what is "vile" is to tell someone that *God* thinks they are a murderer if they think life starts a little later. You are perfectly entitled to your own opinion, but you cannot tell someone what God thinks unless the Bible says it. And the Bible does not say life starts when the sperm meets the egg. The Bible never mentions an egg. The English word for "conceived" that you read in Psalms did not even refer to an egg until the egg was discovered to exist in the 17th century, and even now it can still refer to the zygote (not the egg). Hence the Hebrew word for conceive was not defined as "when sperm meets egg". It could not have been. So you can't say Psalms teaches that life starts when the sperm meets the egg. You can believe that is when life starts personally, but Psalms does not teach that. To judge others by something the Bible doesn't even say is wrong. Judge yourself by whatever personal beliefs you want to have... but judge others only by what God says.

good day,

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

The blood is the life. Deut. 12:23
For the life of a creature is in the blood. Lev. 17:11

You don't believe the Bible either if you are saying the baby has nothing to do with the blood until 7 weeks. How do you think the baby eats? The blood of the mother flows into and through the baby... Ever hear of an umbilical cord?

 

[DHK]

You didn't cite the verse of Paul you were referring to. I thought you were thinking of verses with meanings like, "God so loved the world," etc.

Anyway, here you go again. "They knew what sperm was, therefore they *had* to know what an egg was." Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Mankind up until the 17th century did not know what the egg was, yet he knew what sperm was. They didn't "call it something else." The didn't even know it existed. It wasn't even described. There are no words that describe the ovum in the Hebrew language at all. No human being is ever recorded as describing it until someone discovered it in the 17th century. That is just historical fact. I've cited medical history books... you have cited nothing except your own absurd logic that "if someone knows what sperm is, then they have to know what an egg is."

You don't know how silly your argument sounds like. Back in the time of the Patriarchs, in the time of Jacob, Onan (Genesis 38), understood what sperm was. We know that Abraham lived ca. 2100 B.C. At the time of Christ they understood what sperm was, and you fully agree with that. But for some strange reason, you say that the other half (the woman) would be ignorant that she did not have an egg until 1700 years later!!! Does that even begin to make sense??
There are no words to describe ovum in the Hebrew language, you say. How surprising--knowing what detail you may be looking for.
Have you found any words in the Hebrew language for the pituitary? hypothalmus? I didn't think so. But I am sure that almost all the Hebrews have them.

Yes, when Paul said, "your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world," he was not referring to lands that he hadn't seen. That is exactly right. And that makes my point. The lands still existed. And yes, the ovum still existed despite their ignorance of it, just like the world outside of Paul's knowledge existed despite his ignorance of it.

The ovum existed despite your ignorance of how it was described in the Bible.

But the point is, they then were not referring to it when they said "harah". They weren't referring to an egg. When Paul said, "your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world," he wasn't referring to North America. So you can't say he was, and you can't say the Hebrews were referring to an egg. They did not know what an egg was. You haven't produced any convincing evidence at all that they did. And any medical history I've ever seen says the egg was not known to exist or play a part in reproduction until the 17th century. You are spouting historical ignorance and revision.

And who is the one that claimed that people throughout all centuries believed the world was round? "You are spouting historical ignorance and revision." Even your so-called facts of Columbus were not correct. You don't know your own history. How can one depend on you to be reliable on the history of science if you don't know the basic history of your own nation or basic world history.

For all you know Christ was inserted into Mary at the point he already had his own blood (and life).

That is heresy. Christ was not "inserted." He was conceived. Words have meanings. You have apparently not caught onto that yet.

The Hebrew word for "pregnant" or "conceive" does not necessarily refer to when a sperm joins an egg.

An opinion and nothing more. It is an uninformed opinion.

The English word we translate it into doesn't even mean that necessarily... it can refer to a zygote. Again, you act like you get to be the judge instead of God's word. You can't just pick arbitrarily and think I have any reason to believe you.

Have you even taken the liberty to look into a dictionary?

Luk 1:24 -
Conceived (sunelaben). Luke uses this word eleven times and it occurs only five other times in the N.T. It is a very old and common Greek word. He alone in the N.T. has it for conceiving offspring (Luk_1:24, Luk_1:31, Luk_1:36; Luk_2:21) though Jam_1:15 uses it of lust producing sin. Hobart (Medical Language of Luke, p. 91) observes that Luke has almost as many words for pregnancy and barrenness as Hippocrates (en gastri echein, Luk_21:23; egkuos, Luk_2:5; steira, Luk_1:7; ateknos, Luk_20:28). (A.T. Robertson)

Harah does not necessarily mean what you are saying it means. It could very possible refer to some later point in what we call pregnancy, for the Hebrews never mention an egg nor do you have any evidence they knew what an egg was.

Yes. It is called a Bible. You have to study it.

 

[jsn9333]

DHK,

Yes, Hebrews had pituitary glands and all that. I didn't say they didn't *have* ovums... I said they didn't know ovums existed.

I have cited published medical history books that state the ovum was not known to exist in mammalian reproduction until the 17th century. You have cited your own absurd reasoning that "if you know what sperm is you must know what an egg is." All I can tell you to do is go read a book on the history of medical reproductive knowledge. People were surprised by the discovery of the female egg. That is all I can tell you. Don't believe me if you don't want to... I don't care!

Regardless, the Scriptures don't even say life starts at conception anyway, at least not any more clearly then they say it starts at the intercourse just before conception. And even if they *did* say that life started at "harah" or conception, "conception" to the Hebrews meant what they meant by the word "harah", not what you mean by it.

 

[DHK]

Regardless, the Scriptures don't even say life starts at conception anyway, at least not any more clearly then they say it starts at the intercourse just before conception. And even if they *did* say that life started at "harah" or conception, "conception" to the Hebrews meant what they meant by the word "harah", not what you mean by it.

I think I understand what you are saying here. When I pay for an item by debit, it is not really paid for at the time it is debited, but only when the actual transaction reaches the bank is the payment actually made on the purchase that I bought. Is that correct?

In other words you are straining at gnats.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

jsn,

Children are an heritage of the Lord and the fruit of the womb His reward.

What right do you, or anyone else have to say when life begins when God gave that life?

The ovum and the sperm are both 'live cells' according to medical science. So, life is already in the two cells before the flesh is formed.

The baby is alive at conception because the cells are alive.

 

[jsn9333]

The blood is the life. Deut. 12:23
For the life of a creature is in the blood. Lev. 17:11

You don't believe the Bible either if you are saying the baby has nothing to do with the blood until 7 weeks. How do you think the baby eats? The blood of the mother flows into and through the baby... Ever hear of an umbilical cord?

Not to be rude, but we already talked about this. You may wish to familiarize yourself with what has been posted in the thread already.

To fill you in, I pointed out that umbilical chord notwithstanding, the baby does not have its own life until it has its own blood. It doesn't start producing its own blood until week 7. When it is an egg, an egg implanted by sperm, a blastocyst, a zygote implanted into the uterus, an early fetus, etc. it is part of its mother's body, it's mother's life and, you're right, the mother's blood flows through it just like it flows through other parts of her body. The child becomes a new and individual life when it makes and gets its own blood.

The life of each creature is in its blood. Therefore I don't believe the Bible teaches that abortion ends a life unless it is done after the fetus has developed into a person with its own life, its own blood, which normally happens around 6-7 weeks from what I can tell.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

If the two cells that come together are not both alive, there is no conception. The life is there at the time of conception.

 

[jsn9333]

standingfirminChrist,

What do you mean by "conception"? Medical dictionaries define it as fertilization (when the sperm implants into the egg) and also as implantation (when the blastocyst becomes a zygote by implanting into the uterus). Also, the Hebrew word we translate as "conception" likely didn't mean either of those, because they didn't know what an egg was. No one did until the 17th century... we take that knowledge for granted now. The hebrew word for "conceive", "harah", likely referred to when a woman started missing regular periods and showing. Anyway, I'll assume you mean fertilization by "conceive". I just want to make sure we're referring to the same thing...

So, assuming you are talking about "fertilzation", first of all, yes, children are a blessing

Secondly, I don't have any right to say when life begins. All I can do is point to the Scriptures and say when I can best tell God says life begins in the Bible.

Thirdly, yes, all cells are alive according to the scientific definition of "life". I've never seen a Bible verse that says every cell in the human body is considered an individual "life" in the biblical sense though... that would mean I'm not one life but rather am millions and millions of lives.

Hence, I don't agree that "the baby" (as you call it) is alive when the sperm implants into the egg. There is no baby at that point. Neither is there a cell that is "alive" in any sense other then the scientific definition that all cells are alive.

I don't mean to offend your personal belief in the preciousness of life. You are welcome to it. Everyone has their own comfort level. Some people can't stand the "timing method" of birth control because they say it interferes with nature. Others can't stand the thought of contraception b/c they feel it ends life or potential life, others can't stand abortive contraception ("the pill", which has a secondary effect of aborting the blastocyst by preventing it from implanting into the uterus) for similar reasons, still others can't stand the thought of a "morning after pill", and still others (like me) can't stand the thought of aborting a developed fetus that has its own blood supply.

The question is, what does the Bible teach is the beginning of life? It does not teach that fertilization is the beginning... at least not any more or less clearly then it does any other arbitrarily chosen point. The clearest thing I've found the *Scriptures* to teach is that life is determined by a being's blood. So that is what I believe the Bible teaches.

 

[Palatka51]

DHK,

Yes, Hebrews had pituitary glands and all that. I didn't say they didn't *have* ovums...

I said they didn't know ovums existed.

I have cited published medical history books that state the ovum was not known to exist in mammalian reproduction until the 17th century. You have cited your own absurd reasoning that "if you know what sperm is you must know what an egg is." All I can tell you to do is go read a book on the history of medical reproductive knowledge. People were surprised by the discovery of the female egg. That is all I can tell you. Don't believe me if you don't want to... I don't care!

When conception occurred many women were told of their pregnancy before they knew. They would be told that their seed will accomplish many things or in Eve's and Mary's case their seed would bring in the Savior. This seed is Christ. He is not the seed of man. He is the seed of the woman.

Genesis 3:14&15
14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Her seed is not in reference to a conception of man. If it were the verse would have said it as the seed of man. It was the seed of the woman, Christ. Christ is not of man but of God by the woman. This is proof that the Hebrews knew of, the ovum, woman's seed.

Here's more;
Revelation 12:17
17And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of , which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

At conception, Hagar was sent out into the desert by Sarah and God met Hagar and said this;

4And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.
5And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee.
6But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.
7And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.
8And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.
9And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.
10And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.
11And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.

Note that the LORD told her that she was going to have a son. Hagar, Sarah or Abraham could not have known that except that the LORD told them. Did they have sonograms? No.

More evidence that the woman carried seed.

Genesis 24:60
60And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.

Leviticus 12:1&2
1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

Numbers 5:28
28And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.

Ruth 4:12
12And let thy house be like the house of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the LORD shall give thee of this young woman.

1 Samuel 2:20
20And Eli blessed Elkanah and his wife, and said, The LORD give thee seed of this woman for the loan which is lent to the LORD. And they went unto their own home.

Again this encounter with Elizabeth show us what the Holy Spirit is capable of.

39And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;
40And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.
41And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
45And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.
46And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
48For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
49For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
50And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.
51He hath showed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
52He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
53He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
54He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
55As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
56And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.

Note that Mary was with her for about 3 months. It was at this time that Joseph noticed that Mary was with child.

 

[Palatka51]

Regardless, the Scriptures don't even say life starts at conception anyway, at least not any more clearly then they say it starts at the intercourse just before conception. And even if they *did* say that life started at "harah" or conception, "conception" to the Hebrews meant what they meant by the word "harah", not what you mean by it.

Ok, on your premise lets say there is no evidence that the writers of the Bible did not know of the ovum (woman's seed) or egg. That is fine, not that I except your conclusion but for the sake of your assessment, the ovum remained unknown until 1827.

Now your argument that "Life is in the blood". By your reasoning regarding the ovum it is fair too state that men did not know exactly what was in the blood that sustained life. If they could not isolate and view an ovum they could not isolate and view a red blood cell, white blood cell and all the other components of nutrients and waists in the blood stream. Furthermore they had no idea that within each red cell and white cell is life itself, the genetic code DNA.

At conception the sperm has penetrated the ovum. The half of chromosomes of the father and the other half of the mother are united at that very moment in a new individual human life that is now in his/her first stage of growth. In a
matter of hours that life has grown to many cells that carry the identity of that individual. It has it's own supply of nourishment until it attaches to the uterine wall. At that time it gets all of its nourishment from the mother. It never receives any of the mother's blood. The placenta filters the nutrients from the mothers blood. If the blood of the mother and the blood of the infant were to come in contact with each other there would be immune rejections that would be detrimental to mother and baby.

The Bible has it right that the life is in the blood. So too is that life present at conception. :godisgood:

Now please stop your support for the abolition of life.

 

[Palatka51]

rbell,
If you don't think the Bible teaches that someone who has an early abortion is a murderer, then I misunderstood you. You didn't cite Palatka's full quote that you agreed with. She actually accused me of "enabling" the murder.

Hm, I think I should check on something. --------------- Yepper, I'm still the same gender, at least that is what the profile says.

 

[rbell]

Hm, I think I should check on something. --------------- Yepper, I'm still the same gender, at least that is what the profile says.

:thumbs: ........................