Is the Fetus a Human Being?

Phil 1:21

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2017
5,869
4,399
United States
✟144,842.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A great many are due to women being too poor to take care of a child. Given the cuts in the social safety net, this is understandable. This is not the fault of women, but a society that has rejected social responsibility in general.
We've quickly transitioned from health concerns of the mother to killing unborn babies for economic reasons? I can't wait to see what's next. <rolls eyes>

Of course she does and one is which she denies moral agency to her own offspring.

Therefore, your position is the ability to make decisions determines our moral worth. Then this would preclude some of the mentally ill or mentally challenged.
Which probably explains why he refused to clarify whether or not he feels the value of human life is contingent upon moral agency. For all of his earlier posturing and acting as the self appointed spokesman of the disabled community, he just gave good reason to support killing many of them.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,445
1,448
East Coast
✟230,239.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Exodus 21: 22 - 25

Apparently, in God's eyes the fetus is not a human being. Therefore, the abortion is not the murder.

Some posters have already said it, and there may have been a response since I didn't comb though several hundred responses, but the verse doesn't seem to support your view. I see the verses talking about pre-mature birth, not an accidental abortion. If the baby came out harmed, then the offender had to compensate... life for life if need be. How could the offender ever possibly pay life-for-life if killing the baby wasn't murder in the first place? Obviously, if they killed the baby the punishment was death. If they harmed the baby, they could be harmed in a reciprocal manner. If they didn't harm the baby, then it was just a fine for hitting the woman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Pro-life" folks act like pregnancy is risk free for women, that it's simply a choice to deliver a baby or "kill it". It isn't. A woman is 14 times more likely to die from pregnancy than from abortion. That factor alone weighs heavily in me being against the anti-choice crowd's rhetoric.

That's one reason right there why the pro-life crowd simply doesn't get it. The comparison of a fetus to a baby is way off. A baby killing its own mother would have to be one of those fortean events we see in a tabloid, but a fetus killing its own mother occurs often enough that educated people recognize these risks inherent in pregnancy.
So now babies kill their mothers. We had a saying where I used to work "first rule of holes is to stop digging."

What are the babies (noticed you acknowledged they are babies) using? Knives? surgical instruments? burning chemicals? No that's what abortionists use.

But thank you for admitting (1) that the fetus is a human baby and (2) these babies now have moral agency because they can decide to kill their own mothers.
 
Upvote 0

Jennifer Rothnie

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
514
311
40
Washington
✟45,622.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Can't do it, just like you can't show me 'born prematurely' in the Hebrew. That's why I don't rest on this one verse either.

I did look up all 24 verses of the word shakol though. That was a new one I must admit. But having read all of them I find most don't seem to talk about abortion at all, even though Strong's even defines it almost solely as the definition. And when I checked the RSV I did find that it also did define shakol as a miscarriage of sorts. But it also blames God in that same verse. Hmmm so is God pro abortion or just Hosea wishing He was?

Hosea 9:14 Give them, O LORD -- what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying/shakol womb and dry breasts.

Let me ask you a question; Are you a dichotomist or a trichotomist, when defining a human being? The reason I ask is because all of your 'Princeton' and medical support for definition of a "zygote" or "embryo" or "person hood" all seem to miss some things in 'biblical' proportions which no one has so far even mentioned, let alone addressed.

You're right the term 'born prematurely' isn't in the text - it's 'her child comes forth.' Translators that opt for 'born prematurely' as the English translation are not completely off base, though, since the context demands it. The struggle caused her to go into early induced labor at some point in her pregnancy - obviously she didn't have labor as normal. (Unless the fight happened while she was in labor, I suppose, but that doesn't seem to be the scenario given - and would doubtfully carry such harsh penalties since in such a case it would be impossible to prove that his blow directly affected the child.) 'Born prematurely' then is not a literal translation, but fits well in 'thought for thought' translations.

But the term 'miscarriage' cannot be derived from the term 'child/offspring/fruit comes forth. And the English term for miscarriage, while ambiguous in the sense it can refer to a natural or an induced miscarriage, is specific enough to show that the child either died in the womb or birth canal. Neither of those are demanded by the Hebrew text or context, and so it is not just a poor translation it is deliberately incorrect one.

Also, the term for child/offspring/fruit is the same used for older children as I already posted. There isn't a distinction here, so any translation that attempts to substitute the term 'fetus' (which refers scientifically only to one stage of a preborn child in the womb) is also biased and incorrect.

As for Hosea, look at the context:

"I have seen Ephraim, like Tyre, planted in a meadow. But Ephraim will bring out his children for slaughter. Give them, O LORD - what will you give? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that dry up!"

This doesn't mean Hosea (or God) is pro-abortion. Scripture frequently states that God has the power to open or close a womb. Humans can naturally miscarry, as well. What Hosea is saying is that if the people are literally *sacrificing their own children* it would be better for God to stop them having children at all.

Which would you rather? Be naturally miscarried from your mother's womb before you ever gain consciousness, or burned alive by your own parents in some sacrificial rite to their gods when you are five years old?

If God responded to Hosea's request, He would not be dismembering the children or killing them with acid. Rather, in His sovereign power He would be lessening their parent's natural ability to bear and nurse children.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
  • Agree
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The woman is 14 times more likely to die from pregnancy than an abortion. If its unwanted, tragically, the fetus or embryo is an enemy of her health.
Noticed you threw 'unwanted' above. Is that now part of your situational or pragmatic ethics?
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am a Lutheran, but I am first and foremost a Bible believer and draw my doctrine from the Bible only...it happens that the ELS and WELS Lutherans preach what I read in the Scriptures.
If you do not draw upon Scripture for your beliefs and practices then you are correct in assuming I will not easily follow your understandings nor can I make you account for them in any meaningful way.
Yes I believe Luther himself said Sola Scriptura or something like that right? ;)
 
Upvote 0

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
"Pro-life" folks act like pregnancy is risk free for women, that it's simply a choice to deliver a baby or "kill it". It isn't. A woman is 14 times more likely to die from pregnancy than from abortion. That factor alone weighs heavily in me being against the anti-choice crowd's rhetoric.

That's one reason right there why the pro-life crowd simply doesn't get it. The comparison of a fetus to a baby is way off. A baby killing its own mother would have to be one of those fortean events we see in a tabloid, but a fetus killing its own mother occurs often enough that educated people recognize these risks inherent in pregnancy.
14 times is an alarming high number, just as the Pro Lifer's "a fraction of a percent" is an amazingly low number. I'm not keeping up here ubicaritas, this thread is moving to fast for me. So I'm going to be skipping to those new 'alerts' tagging me to respond. You have obviously thought out your position well IMO. But as much as I'm missing I can't really say I agree with everything. Oh well, I'm off to a couple more 'alerts'. ;)
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Complications due to pregnancy are the sixth leading cause of death among young women. Furthermore, not all women have access to good maternal care thanks to your "pro-life" buddies in American politics.

Huh? You mean closing down facilities mainly used for abortion and allowing states to fund women's health clinics instead is denying good maternal care?

Really, stop the political rhetoric you accuse others of using.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A great many are due to women being too poor to take care of a child. Given the cuts in the social safety net, this is understandable. This is not the fault of women, but a society that has rejected social responsibility in general.
What did Bonhoeffer say about 'the ends justifying the means?'

I'm sure he would have said we should not base our ethics on such. In the case of your post above, you are using abortion as a justified means to combat poverty.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

narrowgateevangelist

Active Member
Supporter
Jul 18, 2018
70
62
43
San Francisco
✟55,190.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Engaged
When I refresh new posts. This thread is on the first page.

New humans don't fall out of the sky into a bale of hay. Specific actions must take place before a new human enters this world.

Copulation between man and woman is default. Woman receives sperm, afterwards a new human is likely. It's simple.

Asking if the result is human. When 7 billion people are here because of copulation. Is an inane posit.

What is at the heart, of a statement of within woman's womb inhumanity is. 'If I intentionally end it's life? Am I commiting an evil deed?' Yes, that is an evil deed. Don't do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

buck1hunter

Member
Jul 17, 2018
12
5
36
PA
✟8,003.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Why do you think Satanists care so much about this topic? It's not because their civil rights are being violated or their body is inviolable. Most people don't even share their views. So how would this benefit them if they believe in a selfish philosophy? Maybe they're about child sacrifice and just maybe duping everyone else into believing abortion is okay is one way they serve their master? Satan is the Prince of Lies and he's been at it for a long time. I'm sure the people who serve Satan are aware of the legal loopholes when it comes to getting the things they want.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is FYI for all interested. It has been claimed that the opinions of some posters are that of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS). Nothing could be further from the truth. The LCMS is stanchly Biblical in their stance on the sanctity of life. This is their opening statement:

What does God’s Word say about abortion? God’s Fifth Commandment is clear,“You shall not murder.” This means, in the words of the Small Catechism, that “we should fear and love God so that we do not hurt or harm our neighbor in his body,but help and support him in every physical need. ”God forbids us to take the life of another person,and this most certainly includes abortion. God’s Word also says,“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart” (Jer. 1:5). Psalm 139:16 says,“Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be.” Our church’s explanation of the Small Catechism puts the matter well when it says,“The living but unborn are persons in the sight of God from the time of conception. Since abortion takes a human life,it is not a moral option except to prevent the death of another person, the mother.” The sin of willfully aborting a child, except in those very rare situations where it may be necessary to save the life of the mother,is a sinful act, totally contrary to the will of God.

Remainder can be viewed (recommend reading it) at the attachment below.

https://www.christianforums.com/dat...7/285804_f84b73ec5fb5f3ea16eb2b62c4765321.pdf

Also, for those curious the below video provides a summary of some of the major differences between the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the more liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).


I'm not Lutheran BTW, but am a godfather for two LCMS children and as such went through the baptism classes which their pastor recommended the parents and godparents go through. So wanted to make sure the LCMS was not grossly misrepresented on their views on the sanctity of life.
 

Attachments

  • WA Abortion.pdf
    72.7 KB · Views: 1
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is where we see the breakdown of consistency. According to the ELCA, there actually isn't a difference in moral worth and value. But then after laying down that principle, they go on to contradict it with their endorsed practices.
I guess if they contradict their own position people from opposing views can find what they want. This way if someone is pro choice they can point to the endorsed practices and find comfort and those pro life say but the church statement supports my view too!

Everyone's happy...er not really and this is a sign of the times. So sad.
 
Upvote 0

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Given the contrast is always between the material and immaterial I come to the dicohtomist view, although recognize the trichotomist view as orthodox and historic as well.
IOW 'orthodox' doesn't mean correct....correct? ;) A point I've believed for quite a while actually.

I did not address the issue as this is not a thread about the soul.[/quote]

And if a 'soul' is a breathing creature according to the Hebrew, then it would appear that the final knitting together takes place in the womb this is not a 'living soul' until it takes a living breath on its own just like in the Garden? And just like Jesus became a dying soul when He gave up his spirit to the hands of the Father and "breathed His last" or EXPIRED/DIED?

If a man is spirit soul body as I believe then just exactly when are those three "knit together" into a functioning 'everything ('the whole'/kol) makes a huge difference as to when one is a 'finished breathing biparte or triparte being'.

Ecclesiastes 11:5 As you do not know how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything/kol.

3605 kol: prop. the whole; hence all, any or every (in the sing. only but often in a plur. sense)

More you are leaving out. Nephesh as well as pneuma (Greek) heavily depends on the context of the passage. To apply 'breath' as in breathing to all instances is error. Here's why.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:26-27 NASB)
I'm leaving nothing out of my POV, I'm simply not talking to the depths that most aren't even capable of dealing with IMO. This 'medium' does not help either. I say that because I've tried so many times here, with the typical 'no response' to the tough questions I've had. Questions I've spent time in study and seeking of God in order to come to conclusions I have (right or wrong, God knows). This above 'comment of yours' is also one of them. GOD IS SPIRIT, that's what the bible said long after Jesus had ascended to glory with a SPIRITUAL body to replace the "sinful flesh" body his Father had the spirit of Christ from God dwell in, here on earth. (Rom 8:3) Your flesh isn't the image of God nor is your soul....your SPIRIT IS. IMAGE is a substance thing and LIKENESS is a character thing. Adam and Eve were not 'LIKE' God and that's why they sinned by falling for that very temptation from the devil "don't you know that you will be LIKE God knowing." They wanted to be 'like God' for God created that desire within them. Legitimate desire, illegitimate source for procurement of that knowledge.

Since God created humans in His image and according to His likeness, it begs the question is God some sort of human form? Of course after the Incarnation one sees the Son of God, God the Son comes in the flesh. However, at that instance in Genesis 1 when Adam and Eve are created and called in the image and according to the likeness of God, what does that imply?
It doesn't IMPLY it illuminates that GOD IS SPIRIT and that God put a spirit from His Spirit into some freshly created dirt. God never lived in a fleshly body before creating one to put a 'spirit' which was 'of His spirit' into. GOD IS SPIRIT, always was always will be.

But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:23-24 NASB)
And you quote the very verse I am referring to.​

God is spirit. Our immaterial aspect is spirit according to the image and likeness of God. In this verse where Jesus says God is spirit, I don't think anyone would conclude that means God is "breath" or 'air.'
Now it is you, and Vines that is disagreeing with your former point that there is a separation between that which is physical and that which is immaterial....E.G. SPIRIT.

A. Noun. nepesh (5315), “soul; self; life; person; heart.” This is a very common term in both ancient and modern Semitic languages. It occurs over 780 times in the Old Testament and is evenly distributed in all periods of the text with a particularly high frequency in poetic passages. The basic meaning is apparently related to the rare verbal form, napash. The noun refers to the essence of life, the act of breathing, taking breath. However, from that concrete concept, a number of more abstract meanings were developed. In its primary sense the noun appears in its first occurrence in Gen. 1:20: “the moving creature that hath life,” and in its second occurrence in Gen. 2:7: “living soul.” However, in over 400 later occurrences it is translated “soul.”
A definition which fits with the zao life of oxygen life. But it is not the zoe life of spirit life.
Context matters always. So the above is evidence we have a material aspect and an immaterial aspect. But what you are getting at is 'when' are we "endued" with the immaterial which goes back to God after we die (Ecclesiastes 12:7; 2 Corinthians 5:6-8; Philippians 1:23). Brings us to your next quote below I believe:

We are endued with that which GOD IS and that is SPIRIT. He is not some cosmic soul as Eastern religion believes nor is he a fleshlyly body 'devoid of blood' as he appeared to the disciples in his GLORIFIED SPIRITUAL BODY.

Based on what I presented up post, your quote above assumes every instance of nepesh or pneuma must mean 'breathing' or 'breath.' This is not true as context matters on what words mean in the Hebrew and Greek.

If we follow your model we would conclude that God is breath. Makes no sense.

However, if you truly want to get technical you would have to look to the blood and not the breath:

'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.' (Leviticus 17:11 NASB)

Interesting here in verse 11 'the life' by the lexicon is nepesh Stongs 5315.

Which is just another piece of evidence we can't call nepesh 'breath' in every verse. Context matters.

Just some general information on when there is a first sign of blood in the embryotic stage:

In the human embryo, the first site of blood formation is the yolk sac.
https://www.britannica.com/science/blood-cell-formation
That is about at 23 days of development.
What makes no sense to you may not be based upon you being right, it may simply be you don't comprehend where I'm coming from. Just like the oxygen in that blood of the yolk sac. It never came from a 'whole person' in the womb. That's why a 'spontaneous miscarriage' births a dead fetus.

Ask the question....Was there ever a point in the development of Jesus of Nazareth where his truly human nature was 'soulless' or lacking the 'inner man?'
Your question makes no sense to me because my 'inner man' is the spirit given me by my Father in heaven. My flesh came from my father's sperm and mother's egg. My 'functioning brain'/'living soul' which started working/living with the oxygen which came from my fleshly mother came from her not me breathing. My zao life came from mom and dad until I started breathing it myself.

The only thing that the Word became when it became FLESH was FLESH. The Word didn't become a SOUL or a SPIRIT.

This is taking too much time again, which I don't have to spend here. So maybe we can just move past this post and realize we are coming from two different perspectives. The depths of which not easily plumbed in this cumbersome medium of exchange.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Phil 1:21

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2017
5,869
4,399
United States
✟144,842.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I guess if they contradict their own position people from opposing views can find what they want. This way if someone is pro choice they can point to the endorsed practices and find comfort and those pro life say but the church statement supports my view too!

Everyone's happy...er not really and this is a sign of the times. So sad.
All the itching ears get a big scratch.
 
Upvote 0

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
You're right the term 'born prematurely' isn't in the text - it's 'her child comes forth.' Translators that opt for 'born prematurely' as the English translation are not completely off base, though, since the context demands it. The struggle caused her to go into early induced labor at some point in her pregnancy - obviously she didn't have labor as normal. (Unless the fight happened while she was in labor, I suppose, but that doesn't seem to be the scenario given - and would doubtfully carry such harsh penalties since in such a case it would be impossible to prove that his blow directly affected the child.) 'Born prematurely' then is not a literal translation, but fits well in 'thought for thought' translations.

But the term 'miscarriage' cannot be derived from the term 'child/offspring/fruit comes forth. And the English term for miscarriage, while ambiguous in the sense it can refer to a natural or an induced miscarriage, is specific enough to show that the child either died in the womb or birth canal. Neither of those are demanded by the Hebrew text or context, and so it is not just a poor translation it is deliberately incorrect one.

EXO 21:22 NAS "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,

This translation breaks down within itself because the verse already stated there was INJURY when the woman was struck, and that's why there was a fine. For it to add the word FURTHER (which isn't in the Hebrew) is an injustice to the translation. But if the woman dies from the blow then the punishment is "LIFE FOR LIFE". Interestingly enough, this NAS translation came from my computer but two other NAS translations I have in book foorm both say "HAS A MISCARRIAGE".

OH 'consistency' thou art a jewel to be sought for when seeking the truth of God, at the hands of false profits....translators and translations.


EXO 21:22 NIV "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,

NIV is the most poorly translated version of this verse. It was first printed in 1978 and has come into vogue within the church, subsequent to the dramatic increase of abortions in this country in the early 1970’s. Along with the abortion issue came the whole ‘when does life begin’ question. Another question might be…biblically when does one die?

GEN 25:8 Abraham breathed his last and died..
GEN 25:17 (These are the years of the life of Ishmael, a hundred and thirty-seven years; he breathed his last and died...
GEN 35:29 And Isaac breathed his last; and he died...
LUK 23:46 Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last.


When does a fetus 'breath his FIRST'? I think the issue is still poorly understood. I'm not claiming I have the answer. But I have questions proving you guys don't either IMO.






gen 25:8, 17; 35:29, 49:33, luke 23:46
 
  • Like
Reactions: fat wee robin
Upvote 0

Ron Gurley

What U See is What U Get!
Supporter
Sep 22, 2015
4,000
1,029
Baton Rouge, LA
Visit site
✟87,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
"A person is a person...no matter how small"...Dr. Seuss

Human Life begins at conception, at the first split of cell in the egg.

Job 33:4
“The Spirit of God has made me,
And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

Isaiah 42:5
Thus says God the Lord,
Who created the heavens and stretched them out,
Who spread out the earth and its offspring,
Who gives breath to the people on it (Body/Soul combo)
And SPIRIT to those who walk in it,

Zechariah 12:1B
Thus declares the Lord
who stretches out the heavens,
lays the foundation of the earth, and
forms the SPIRIT of man within him,(Body/Soul combo)

Psalm 139:13
For You formed my inward parts; (Body/Soul combo)
You wove me (SPIRIT + BODY + SOUL) in my mother’s womb.

Ecclesiastes 12...Remember God in Your Youth: AT DEATH...
7 then the dust (Body/Soul combo) will return to the earth as it was, (SEE: Genesis 2:7)
and the SPIRIT (ruwach)(breath of life) will return to God who gave it. (SEE: Genesis 1:26 SPIRITUAL image)
8 “Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher, “all is vanity

John 6:63...Jesus:
It is the Spirit who gives life;
the flesh profits nothing;
the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

Psalm 33: 4-6 (NASB)...a Song of Praise to the Creator and Preserver.
For the word of the Lord is upright,
And all His work is done in faithfulness.
He loves righteousness and justice;
The earth is full of the lovingkindness of the Lord.
By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
And by the breath of His mouth all their host.
 
Upvote 0

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,836
794
✟516,876.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
EXO 21:22 NAS "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,

This translation breaks down within itself because the verse already stated there was INJURY when the woman was struck, and that's why there was a fine. For it to add the word FURTHER (which isn't in the Hebrew) is an injustice to the translation. But if the woman dies from the blow then the punishment is "LIFE FOR LIFE". Interestingly enough, this NAS translation came from my computer but two other NAS translations I have in book foorm both say "HAS A MISCARRIAGE".

OH 'consistency' thou art a jewel to be sought for when seeking the truth of God, at the hands of false profits....translators and translations.


EXO 21:22 NIV "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,

NIV is the most poorly translated version of this verse. It was first printed in 1978 and has come into vogue within the church, subsequent to the dramatic increase of abortions in this country in the early 1970’s. Along with the abortion issue came the whole ‘when does life begin’ question. Another question might be…biblically when does one die?

GEN 25:8 Abraham breathed his last and died..
GEN 25:17 (These are the years of the life of Ishmael, a hundred and thirty-seven years; he breathed his last and died...
GEN 35:29 And Isaac breathed his last; and he died...
LUK 23:46 Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last.


When does a fetus 'breath his FIRST'? I think the issue is still poorly understood. I'm not claiming I have the answer. But I have questions proving you guys don't either IMO.






gen 25:8, 17; 35:29, 49:33, luke 23:46
If you are insistent upon misinterpreting the the text above you may wish to examine Psalm 22:9-10...it is clear God sees life, soul and spirit already in the womb.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is taking too much time again, which I don't have to spend here. So maybe we can just move past this post and realize we are coming from two different perspectives. The depths of which not easily plumbed in this cumbersome medium of exchange.
Wish you put this statement up front and early. LOL. Like the conversation as I've spent the better half of the last two weeks exchanging with soul sleepers on another thread. So, perhaps we can bring this up in another thread.

But your point is clear as a bell. You want to know where exactly in the development of a human being one obtains their spirit from God. If we cannot categorically answer that question as hu-mans then those are the mysteries of God and as such err on the side of His sovereignty by not treating a developing human being as sub-human. It's God's work.

I would once again offer, that since Jesus Christ followed the same course of human development as we did from conception, that informs us of the sanctity of human life from the very beginning.

With that in mind, we should also be careful to 'set' what we think is a spiritual viability stage. For who would argue that the truly man Jesus was at some point without a human spirit.

The only thing that the Word became when it became FLESH was FLESH. The Word didn't become a SOUL or a SPIRIT.
The truly human nature of Christ was just like our own in every way. Jesus Christ as truly God and truly man had/has two natures but was/is One Person. His Risen body had flesh and bones too.


IOW 'orthodox' doesn't mean correct....correct? ;) A point I've believed for quite a while actually.
No that was not a knock. Christian history shows both views were and are still held. I tend to in these soul/spirit discussions to focus on the inner man (immaterial) and outer man (material) as that is how Paul explained it to his audience.
 
Upvote 0