"A HUMAN LIFE BEGINNING AT CONCEPTION"

[John 1720]

If it really makes you happy, ok. Sure. I "affirm" it. And again, I "affirm" that common usage is not always accurate. For example, referring to a foetus as a "baby".

Hi Armoured,
No offense to your desire to please me, but I really am not interested in people attempting to make me happy. I'm only seeking an honest response from you which you provided. God's joy, which He showers on us, is quite independent of people's opinion of us. We need to live in order to please God not people.
So we are in agreement then.
To answer your first question

So your basic point is "everyone knows"?

When a person states something that is generally intuitive I have no general reason to impugn their opinion unless there is a precedent of deceit or sarcasm. Just because a phrase is used by the general public does not negate their intention. (.e.g. "It's a beautiful day today? How are you and the family doing? How is your work going? How do you like college so far? ") To dismiss their 'how are you and the baby?' question to one of courtesy rather than their personal belief is truly a subjective postulate.

So which one of the below 1st trimester fetus' should we definitely not call a baby in your opinion and why?

• 4d ultrasound baby pictures 12 weeks - Google Search

 

[Armoured]

Hi Armoured,
No offense to your desire to please me, but I really am not interested in people attempting to make me happy. I'm only seeking an honest response from you which you provided. God's joy, which He showers on us, is quite independent of people's opinion of us. We need to live in order to please God not people.
So we are in agreement then.
To answer your first question

When a person states something that is generally intuitive I have no general reason to impugn their opinion unless there is a precedent of deceit or sarcasm. Just because a phrase is used by the general public does not negate their intention. (.e.g. "It's a beautiful day today? How are you and the family doing? How is your work going? How do you like college so far? ") To dismiss their 'how are you and the baby?' question to one of courtesy rather than their personal belief is truly a subjective postulate.

So which one of the below 1st trimester fetus' should we definitely not call a baby in your opinion and why?

• 4d ultrasound baby pictures 12 weeks - Google Search

None of them.

 

[John 1720]

So which one of the below 1st trimester fetus' should we definitely not call a baby in your opinion and why? - John 1720

None of them.

I'm glad you agree that everyone of them are all babies then. We are in complete agreement then.
May God bless,
Thanks, John 1720

 

[Armoured]

So which one of the below 1st trimester fetus' should we definitely not call a baby in your opinion and why? - John 1720

I'm glad you agree that everyone of them are all babies then. We are in complete agreement then.
May God bless,
Thanks, John 1720

None of them are babies.

 

[John 1720]

None of them are babies.

Oh, you changed your answer. What empirical evidence do you have that proves they are not babies?
John 1720

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Your last point makes sense and is correct.

As to what comes before that here, seems your didn't read my post - certainly didn't respond to it. I thought I pointed out how Luke 1:15 doesn't say what you claim it does - does not even come close to showing that God would (or even merely could) bestow Holy Spirit in the womb. "From" is not "in," in case you didn't notice.

so the fact that this child leaped for joy in the womb means nothing as well(luke 1:44)?

does saying "he will have the Holy Spirit from the time that he is in the womb" work better for you?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

so the fact that this child leaped for joy in the womb means nothing as well(luke 1:45)?

does saying "he will have the Holy Spirit from the time that he is in the womb" work better for you?

The "leaped for joy" does not mean nothing, but I don't think it means what you want to take it to mean.

"... The babe leaped in my womb for joy" is the way Elizabeth characterized what surely was no more than movement of the limbs of a fetus. It is the case that muscular and skeletal development requires rather constant movement, and no doubt a fairly strong event of that occurred in her womb at the time she was greeted by Mary. The timing was a coincidence - it does not say it was anything more than that.

I don't think it makes sense to attribute any joy to the fetus - in accord with the earlier verse 14, the anticipated birth brought joy to the prospective mother, and her visitor as well. The joy of the meeting and greeting was undoubtedly quite great, but was not in anybody's womb. "For joy" could be OUR joy, if we are similarly enthused by the pregnancy and what it meant.

"...From his mother's womb," means in all the time after, since. "HE" was never in a womb, there is no "he" until birth so I would not say,"he will have the Holy Spirit from the time that he is in the womb." It says "even from," or as early as when first exiting the womb - coming FROM. Not "in." To be more precise and unequivocal, I would say Luke 1:15 predicts that the Baptist would be filled with the Holy Ghost at birth, beginning at that time.

 

[SPF]

I would say Luke 1:15 predicts that the Baptist would be filled with the Holy Ghost at birth, beginning at that time.

Luke 1:15 "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb.

Douglas, it would seem as if you're approaching Scripture with a belief and attempting to manipulate Scripture into supporting your belief. Problem though is that what you say and what Luke says are really not in harmony at all. I don't know how you can justify your position when it is a blatant contradiction to the words of Scripture.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Luke 1:15 "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb.

Douglas, it would seem as if you're approaching Scripture with a belief and attempting to manipulate Scripture into supporting your belief. Problem though is that what you say and what Luke says are really not in harmony at all. I don't know how you can justify your position when it is a blatant contradiction to the words of Scripture.

Who's SPECIAL TRANSLATION is that?
Mine is the King James. And it certainly does NOT say that!

Your fabrication? "... it would seem as if you're approaching Scripture with a belief and attempting to manipulate Scripture into supporting your belief."

 

[SPF]

The KJV says, "...even from his mother's womb" I'm not sure how well versed you are in Greek, but the Greek word used that we translate to "even" in this verse is ἔτι, which means yet, or still. And the word used for "from" is ἐκ, which is a primary preposition denoting origin.

Essentially what the angel is expressing here is that John the Baptist would be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in the womb of Elisabeth. I used the NASB translation as it is clearer and easier to understand. On a side note, I hope for your sake you're not a "KJV" only kind of a guy.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The KJV says, "...even from his mother's womb" I'm not sure how well versed you are in Greek, but the Greek word used that we translate to "even" in this verse is ἔτι, which means yet, or still. And the word used for "from" is ἐκ, which is a primary preposition denoting origin.

Essentially what the angel is expressing here is that John the Baptist would be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in the womb of Elisabeth. I used the NASB translation as it is clearer and easier to understand. On a side note, I hope for your sake you're not a "KJV" only kind of a guy.

"denoting origin" meaneth "from," right?

So "from" or "since" (continuance going forward); THE PERIOD AFTER THE TIME INDICATED, THE WOMB.

That's what "from" (ek) means, NOT "in." So do you twist it to have the result you want - well it seems you do not even do the twisting. Has the argument been made by someone else? That is, after indicating what to me plainly means after, you give your second paragraph - JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION OF, "while still "in."
(When I look at Strong's, "eti," it pretty much means, "after that.")
How do you jump from "after" to "still in"?

btw, SPF, I am happy to be conversing with you again. You seem rather intelligent about things.
Edit: Just in general, does it not give a rather hairy, rather "difficult" characterization of the Holy Spirit if it has to operate in a womb?

 

[SPF]

"denoting origin" meaneth "from," right?

No, meaning location. The verse is saying that John was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

"... The babe leaped in my womb for joy" is the way Elizabeth characterized what surely was no more than movement of the limbs of a fetus. It is the case that muscular and skeletal development requires rather constant movement, and no doubt a fairly strong event of that occurred in her womb at the time she was greeted by Mary. The timing was a coincidence - it does not say it was anything more than that.

well, i'll certainly give you points for creativity. so the child leaping was actually a spontaneous significant bone growth that caused a stir in elizebeth's womb to make the author think it leaped right when mary came in?

I don't think it makes sense to attribute any joy to the fetus

except elizebeth described the child as leaping for joy specifically.

"...From his mother's womb," means in all the time after, since.

except for in the events described in the chapter we have a situation where this child in the womb knew who mary was enough to leap for joy while still in the womb.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

well, i'll certainly give you points for creativity. so the child leaping was actually a spontaneous significant bone growth that caused a stir in elizebeth's womb to make the author think it leaped right when mary came in?

I would say more a muscle exercise than a bone growth - ask a doctor what is happening when a pregnant woman feels movement in her womb. The bones need movement in relation to the muscles (and by the muscles, of course) for them to grow properly, apparently. Makes good sense to me. NOT my creation, this idea. TOTALLY EXPLAINS WHAT HAPPENED, as opposed to how Elizabeth may have characterized it, and you may further imagine.



except elizebeth described the child as leaping for joy specifically.

Yes, "for" means for - joy in this case. For joy in whom? It does NOT specifically say!
So you can think (your conclusion, not the Scriptures) the fetus was experiencing joy - from what I can understand of a fetus, I think that is pretty much impossible.



except for in the events described in the chapter we have a situation where this child in the womb knew who mary was enough to leap for joy while still in the womb.

It does NOT SAY the fetus knew anybody in any way. YOUR FABRICATION.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

No, meaning location. The verse is saying that John was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb.

NO, the verse does not say anything historical - it is NOT past tense. (May be a bit of a quibble, but the text actually is a prediction, that he would be so filled.)

Surely the "from" is a temporal thing, about TIME, rather than LOCATION. The import of the verse is to indicate how early and totally John the Baptist was expected to possess the Holy Spirit. Too bad it didn't make it really clear by saying "from birth," but I am very sure that's what it means, how it is best understood.
Edit:
Surely you do not think Scripture is trying to say the Holy Spirit (my translation reads "Holy Ghost") came FROM THE WOMB? "From his mother's womb" does not mean that, surely.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

It does NOT SAY the fetus knew anybody in any way. YOUR FABRICATION.

so you're willing to say that the God inspired author of scripture was simply mistaken when he said the babe leaped in the womb?

the Scripture says that the babe leaped for joy in the womb at the sound of the voice of the birth mother of Christ. basically, the child reacted to Mary's voice.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

so you're willing to say that the God inspired author of scripture was simply mistaken when he said the babe leaped in the womb?

the Scripture says that the babe leaped for joy in the womb at the sound of the voice of the birth mother of Christ. basically, the child reacted to Mary's voice.

NO, I am not saying Scripture is mistaken - I am saying you are mistaken.

Do I have to repeat myself? ".. as soon as she heard the voice." means when,
and co-incidence does not entail any kind of causation.
There is nothing that says "the child" reacted to Mary's voice.

 

[SPF]

Douglas, you're grasping at straws here. The Greek is a lot more clear than the KJV translation that you rely on. I can see how you can maybe come up with an interpretation that would mean that Luke 1:15 is referring to John being filled with the HS from birth and onward if you are relying entirely on the KJV. But thankfully, we don't need to do that. We can use the Greek. The Greek is much more clear, and the NASB does a much better job at translating the verse.

Luke 1:15 "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb."

Likewise, a straightforward reading of Luke 1:41 would clearly indicate that the baby leaped in Elizabeth's womb in direct relation to hearing the voice of Mary. There is absolutely no reason to mention the baby leaping if there was not a connection. The implication is basically explicit and the connection is obvious.

Can you find even one commentary, even one theologian that agrees with your assertion that the commend about the baby leaping was completely random and unrelated to anything the baby itself experienced? Just one?

Luke 1:41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

You have to work very hard to avoid the clear meaning of these passages. And the only reason you are driven to do so is because they contradict with your personal opinion on when human life begins.

Douglas, you really would do well to drop your defensive guard and spend some honest time exploring your heart on this issue and figuring out why you are so set in your position.

Scientific fact contradicts your position. Scripture contradicts your position. There comes a point where we need to throw our hands up and recognize that we may be just plain wrong.

Your argument for when a human comes into existence is based upon a level of development that must be reached. You are correct that some pretty dramatic and important things happen developmentally at birth, but birth is just one stage in development. The formation of the brain and nervous system in the womb is pretty dramatic. Learning to speak and walk is a developmental milestone. Puberty is a pretty momentous developmental stage for a human. For some reason that I can't figure out, you have arbitrarily and subjectively chosen birth as the developmental stage that is the one that transforms human life into a human being.

The problem with your position is that you have nothing to back it up with other than your word and simple observations that some developmental stuff happens at birth. You're alone in your position Douglas - alone. That should raise some serious red flags for you.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

NO, I am not saying Scripture is mistaken - I am saying you are mistaken.

Do I have to repeat myself? ".. as soon as she heard the voice." means when,
and co-incidence does not entail any kind of causation.
There is nothing that says "the child" reacted to Mary's voice.

if you insist...

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

if you insist...

Of course it's not based on "insisting" at all, either mine or anyone else's;
it is based on the truth of the matter.