Question about abortion

[OzSpen]

BL,

Well that's extrabiblical.

The verb is actally "yalad" and means "to come out" and it is used for both birth and stillbirths. There is no noun here as it is included in the verb "yalad." I'm not sure about your understanding of ancient hebrew.

Shakol would be a stupid word to use here since it connotates "barrenness," which is certainly not the reason for the termination of the pregnancy.

This is simply false - there is no noun given in the text for the offspring.

Exodus 21 says exactly this:

1) Man hits woman and causes miscarriage = monetary fine.
2) Man hits woman and injury occurs to woman = lex talionis (eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life).

If you try to make it say otherwise, you're being dishonest about the text and warping it so that it will fit your view.

BL

I don't read Hebrew, but my son is a Hebrew exegete. I sent Dr. Geisler's exegesis and your exegesis and he said that Geisler's was on track with the Hebrew text for Ex. 21:22-23.

Sincerely, Spencer

 

[BL2KTN]

I don't read Hebrew, but my son is a Hebrew exegete. I sent Dr. Geisler's exegesis and your exegesis and he said that Geisler's was on track with the Hebrew text for Ex. 21:22-23.

Interesting. So does your son give any reasons whatsoever, or do we just go "Oh, Spencer's son says it's this way, so it must be"?

Odd that your son would take an opposite stance from the orthodox judeo understanding of this passage. You'd think the rabbis would be able to figure it out.

Look forward to hearing your son's reasons,

BL

 

[OzSpen]

Interesting. So does your son give any reasons whatsoever, or do we just go "Oh, Spencer's son says it's this way, so it must be"?

Odd that your son would take an opposite stance from the orthodox judeo understanding of this passage. You'd think the rabbis would be able to figure it out.

Look forward to hearing your son's reasons,

BL

My son uses the standard biblical Hebrew reference tools and concludes that Norman Geisler's exegesis of Exodus 21:22-23 is accurate.

 

[BL2KTN]

My son uses the standard biblical Hebrew reference tools and concludes that Norman Geisler's exegesis of Exodus 21:22-23 is accurate.

So you're not going to tell us how or show how mine is inaccurate. Gotcha.

Well, my son is a hebrew exegete as well and he says my understanding is accurate.

Stalemate.

BL

 

[Mikecpking]

BL,
Your idea of of 'ensoulment' at birth or whatever contradicts the Hebrew idea who had no notion of a disembodied soul, rather the whole living person is a 'soul'. Your theology is coming staight from Plato and now I understand why you have this position.
As God describes forming the person in Psalm 139, I think the validity and the potential for human life is set in motion right from conception. Therefore, any artificial termination of a pregnancy is interfering with what God has set in motion.

 

[OzSpen]

BL,

So you're not going to tell us how or show how mine is inaccurate. Gotcha.

Well, my son is a hebrew exegete as well and he says my understanding is accurate.

Stalemate.
BL

My son gave his reasons why your exegesis is inaccurate, but there is no point in discussing this further with you. You are a brick wall in your defense of abortion. I'm not convinced that any reasons I give would cause you to rethink your adamant position.

I'm not into head butting against brick walls.

Regards, Spencer

 

[hillard]

Does an embryo have a soul?

Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo.

How about miscarrages?

A Miscarriage is any pregnancy that ends spontaneously before the fetus can survive. A miscarriage is medically referred to as a spontaneous abortion. The World Health Organization defines this unsurvivable state as an embryo or fetus weighing 500 grams or less, which typically corresponds to a fetal age (gestational age) of 20 to 22 weeks or less. Miscarriage occurs in about 15% to 20% of all recognized pregnancies, and usually occurs before the 13th week of pregnancy.

 

[BL2KTN]

BL,
Your idea of of 'ensoulment' at birth or whatever contradicts the Hebrew idea who had no notion of a disembodied soul, rather the whole living person is a 'soul'. Your theology is coming staight from Plato and now I understand why you have this position.

Remember him—before the silver cord is severed,
and the golden bowl is broken;
before the pitcher is shattered at the spring,
and the wheel broken at the well,
7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

Ecclesiastes 12:6-8

Certainly a spirit cannot be disconnected from a soul.

My son gave his reasons why your exegesis is inaccurate, but there is no point in discussing this further with you. You are a brick wall in your defense of abortion. I'm not convinced that any reasons I give would cause you to rethink your adamant position.

I'm not into head butting against brick walls.

So your son gave you reasons, but you're not going to tell us. My conclusions are wrong, but you're not going to tell us why. You haven't answered the last series of questions I asked you about your position - no reason why.

Yup, I'm a brick wall alright.

BL

 

[Mikecpking]

Remember him—before the silver cord is severed,
and the golden bowl is broken;
before the pitcher is shattered at the spring,
and the wheel broken at the well,
7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

Ecclesiastes 12:6-8

Certainly a spirit cannot be disconnected from a soul.

'Soul' and spirit are not the same

Gen 2:7

The lord breathed in the breath of life (spirit) into the moulded dust and man became a living soul. (nephesh)

You can't have it clearer than that. It is the breath of life that returns to God who gave it, not the whole person (soul) as the person is still a soul when he goes to sheol.

Please show me of one instance of 'ensoulment' in the bible.

 

[BL2KTN]

'Soul' and spirit are not the same

Gen 2:7

The lord breathed in the breath of life (spirit) into the moulded dust and man became a living soul. (nephesh)

You can't have it clearer than that. It is the breath of life that returns to God who gave it, not the whole person (soul) as the person is still a soul when he goes to sheol.

Please show me of one instance of 'ensoulment' in the bible.

I'm aware of all the theories regarding souls and spirits, divisions of a human being, and when those theories have been believed and by whom. Let's now take what you're going with, and apply it to unborn life:

You can't have it clearer than that. It is the breath of life that returns to God who gave it, not the whole person (soul) as the person is still a soul when he goes to sheol.

Does a zygote have the breath of life? No. Does it then have a spirit? No. Does it have a consciousness, psyche, id, or anything else which would constitute a soul? No.

BL

 

[Mikecpking]

I'm aware of all the theories regarding souls and spirits, divisions of a human being, and when those theories have been believed and by whom. Let's now take what you're going with, and apply it to unborn life:



Does a zygote have the breath of life? No. Does it then have a spirit? No. Does it have a consciousness, psyche, id, or anything else which would constitute a soul? No.

BL

You did not answer the question. Where does it state or describe the process of ensoulment in the bible?

Gen 2:7 states man becomes a soul, he did not get one!

'Breath of life' is from God. The fetus is alive, not dead in the womb. The biblical definition of 'nephesh' and 'psyche' (soul) is life.

'Conciousness' as described in the bible is the heart (leb, Kardia).

Now I am beginning to understand how dangerous a falicy in believing Plato's ideas has had on Christianity as you have clearly shown.

 

[BL2KTN]

You did not answer the question. Where does it state or describe the process of ensoulment in the bible?

Genesis 2, Ezekiel 37, John 3.

Gen 2:7 states man becomes a soul, he did not get one!

Yes, a human becomes a soul (human being) at first breath, at birth. God breathed into Adam's nostrils and he became a soul - infants take their breath and become a soul.

'Breath of life' is from God. The fetus is alive, not dead in the womb. The biblical definition of 'nephesh' and 'psyche' (soul) is life.

This is false. If what you say is true, then plants would have souls. My guess is that you really don't know very much about ancient hebrew words for these things.

Psyche is greek and refers to the mind, and is used for "soul." Nephesh refers to animal life, and requires ruach. Ruach is literally wind / breath and is required of Adam before he gains nephesh, and required of every living thing which is considered nephesh. This is why at birth, a baby is referred in ancient hebrew as posessing "adam nephesh."

'Conciousness' as described in the bible is the heart (leb, Kardia).

Do you not see that the geek term for soul is "psyche"? The term synomymously combines the idea of a person essence, mind, conscious, personality, and autonomy. It's where we get the term "psychology."

Now I am beginning to understand how dangerous a falicy in believing Plato's ideas has had on Christianity as you have clearly shown.

Stop pretending to be smarter than you are. You've already shown that you misunderstand the terms and you would do well to study the information before you continue.

BL

 

[Mikecpking]

Genesis 2, Ezekiel 37, John 3.



Yes, a human becomes a soul (human being) at first breath, at birth. God breathed into Adam's nostrils and he became a soul - infants take their breath and become a soul.



This is false. If what you say is true, then plants would have souls. My guess is that you really don't know very much about ancient hebrew words for these things.

Psyche is greek and refers to the mind, and is used for "soul." Nephesh refers to animal life, and requires ruach. Ruach is literally wind / breath and is required of Adam before he gains nephesh, and required of every living thing which is considered nephesh. This is why at birth, a baby is referred in ancient hebrew as posessing "adam nephesh."



Do you not see that the geek term for soul is "psyche"? The term synomymously combines the idea of a person essence, mind, conscious, personality, and autonomy. It's where we get the term "psychology."



Stop pretending to be smarter than you are. You've already shown that you misunderstand the terms and you would do well to study the information before you continue.

BL

Sorry mate, but I did the theology course.

from the course to clear up.

Psyche - SoulThe important passage in Genesis 2:7 sets the scene for this 'window - word' into the nature of personhood. An individual becomes a 'nephesh' from the infusion of divine breath into moulded dust. In physical terms 'nephesh' means, 'neck', 'throat', 'gullet' and came to mean 'life', that 'vital motion' which distinguishes a living being from a corpse.

'Nephesh' has such a variety of senses that we must make a careful definition in each particular case. Meanings overlap and are used side by side. It is easy to end up with contradictory statements about 'nephesh'. Here are some of the central statements about 'nephesh':-
• it is that vital life which is shared by both humans and animals [Gen 2:19].
• it is life that is bound up with the body, blood is the vehicle of nephesh [Dt 12:23], at death it dies [Nu 23:10] draining away with the blood, with resuscitation it 'returns'; not that it has gone anywhere.
• it can denote 'the living individual themselves' [Gen 14:21], and can replace the personal pronoun to create special emphasis [Ps 42:6], God uses it of himself [Am 6:8].
• it is strongly instinctive [animal] activity; desire, vital urge, feeling, emotion, mood [Dt 14:26].
• it is feelings and emotions of a spiritual kind; grief, pain, joy, peace, love [Ezk 27:31]; its highest expression is longing for God [Ps 25:1].
The New Testament uses the Greek 'psyche' with the sense of the Hebrew 'nephesh'. Paul's writings are significant for how rarely he uses it. The Synoptics are interesting in that one third of their usage refers to life beyond death [Mt 10:28,39; 16:25-26; Mk 8:35-37; Lk 9:24; 21:19], due to the overlap of present and future in the Kingdom of God; revolutionary in terms of its Hebrew roots.
This 'nephesh' is primarily the life of the whole person in terms of strongly instinctive [animal] activity. It reflects the glory and richness of God's gift of life to him though susceptible to death. It is not an independent substance which, as many have argued, survives death. It is, as we shall see a highly complex image very easy to misinterpret.
Ruah - Pneuma - Spirit

This 'picture - window' into personhood highlights our unique relationship with God.'Ruah' has its roots in the 'wind' which emphasises both its powerful and yet subtle nature. 'Ruah' is used in a number of different contexts:-
• for the wind in nature.
• for the nature of God's being ['Spirit of God', 'Holy Spirit']; dynamic, overwhelming, at times completely dominating [Jg 6:34], the root of prophesying [ISam 10:5-6] and abnormal strength [Jg 14:6].
• for demonic activity [ISam 16:14].
• for the 'principle of life' [akin to 'nephesh' often used interchangeably]. It is the life force present everywhere; independent, universal, it does not die.
• for the vital energy dwelling within each individual, that force which affects temperament.
Human 'ruah' is more than just the natural breath we breathe [which is 'nesama']. There is a vital energy within each person which is the result of the special 'in-breathing' of God; the centre of thoughts, decisions, moods, and is the dimension of personhood most directly open to the influence of God. 'Ruah' particularly stresses:-
• the direction of the will, it is the energy behind willing and acting, that which urges good and evil [Isa 29:24; Ps 51:12].
• the deep emotions; passion [Jg 8:3], grief [Gen 26:35] zeal [Hag 1:14], often seen in the panting of excitement or distress which is different from normal breathing.
• the seat of individual moral qualities and attitudes [Ecc 7:8; Isa 57:15; Num 14:24]. Ezekiel sees the Messianic age as a period when individuals will be permeated by Yahweh's 'ruah' which in turn will renew their own [11; 19; 18:31; 36:26; 39:29]. This is one of the most important words in Paul's vocabulary with his emphasis on regeneration, sanctification, fellowship with God [Gal. 5:22-23 etc].
• the experience of being in touch with God and under God's influence. The human 'ruah' searches out God's ways [Ps 77:7; Isa 26;9], it can be stirred or hardened by God [Jer 51; 11; Dt 2:30].
'Ruah' presents us with human nature's in interplay with the nature of God. It is stressing a person open to and transmitting the life of God [Rm 8:16; ICor 2:10-11]. It has no physical 'animal' character, [never associated with blood], transcending mere desire or feeling.
Leb - Kardia - Heart
'Leb' is a 'window - word' that looks in at personhood in terms of deepest emotions and from the perspective of intellect and will. 'Leb', in some ways, draws together every spiritual process. It is'conscious spiritual activity'.
It was early recognised that emotions and intense feelings produce physical effects in the heart [slow, quick, intermittent pulse rates, sometimes strong pain]. So it has come to picture the epicentre of the human person as an emotional being. Other bodily organs have been drawn alongside to add other facets to this idea:-
• Kidneys: the unfathomable depths of an individual, centre of emotions that only God can search out and test [Jer 11:20; 12:2; Isa 29:13].
• Bowels: emotions that can be deeply agitated; seething fermenting, troubling [Job 30:27; Lam 1:20].
• Inwards-Belly: emphasising the unique character of human spiritual nature in contrast to the external world [Phil 3:19; Jn 7:38].
• Bones: the basic structural element in man; spiritually and emotionally as
well as physically [Ps 35:10; Pr 3:8], they suffer seismic shock in emotional distress [Jer 23:9].
The other very important emphasis of 'leb' is personhood in terms of their inner direction; the deliberate conscious activity of the will and the responsibility it brings.
What comes from an individuals heart is 'the distinct property of the whole person' making them responsible for it. The 'responsible will' is central to the biblical concept of the 'heart'. Making God's will our own requires a new heart [Ezk 36:26].
Paul in his writings uses 'kardia' with all the senses of the Hebrew 'leb', but enlarges it by the introduction of two other words that emphasis 'will' and ' responsibilities':-
• Mind [nous]: human intellectual capacity [Phil 4:7] which may be good or bad. It may be immoral, vain, corrupt defiled [Rm 1:28; Eph 4:17]. It contains God's law [Rm 7:23] and in a Christian is renewed transforming life [Rm 12:2], imparting the mind of Christ [ICor 2:16].
• Conscience [suneidessis]: human faculty for moral judgment. It can be defiled [ICor 8:7] or pure [ITim 3:9]. It is that consciousness of 'being right within one's heart' [Rm2:15].
So 'leb' is conscious spiritual activity, stressing the sense of responsibility.
Contrast : Nephesh, Ruah, Leb
It will be quite clear that 'nephesh', 'ruah', and 'leb' overlap one another at significant points.
The distinctions between 'nephesh' and 'leb' at the higher level of understanding is very difficult. They are often used interchangeably [cf Ex 6:9 with Jg 16:16; Ecc 7:8 with Job 6:11], and yet they are not the same. The distinction is found back at their roots.
The overlap between all three is to be expected when we remember each is considering the whole man from a slightly different angle. Their contrasting stresses may be seen as:-
• Nephesh : instinctive 'animal' activity.
• Leb : conscious spiritual activity.
• Ruah : personhood open to the influence of the nature of God.
'Nephesh' and 'leb' stand in contrast with 'ruah' between them. 'Nephesh' and 'ruah' stress the 'lower' and 'higher' levels of consciousness.


Your supposition that nephesh and psuche is the mind does not concur with Hebrew ideas.

It was the Greeks who called the soul the essence of the person or the mind, but that is not a biblical view.

The bottom line is you have no respect for human life before birth when God calls children a gift from the lord. You say a lost pregnancy is of no consequence and no value, because a fetus is not human and has no soul; which is a biblical nonsense.

Do pre-born babies have blood? Of course they do, because the nephesh is the blood.

Go look it up

DT 12:23 For the nephesh (life) is the blood.

 

[BL2KTN]

Sorry mate, but I did the theology course.

from the course to clear up.

I love responding to other people's material, strenuously copy and pasted. The first thing I notice is that when I google this material, it only pulls you up over and over and over on different forums copying and pasting this same stuff. How about that. You're here posting it, you're on CARM forums posting it, you're on Prophecy Fellowship forums posting it... but I can't find any author or source.

What is the source of this? I want to know where this comes from, who is the author, and why in the world it should have any authoritative credentials.

Psyche - SoulThe important passage in Genesis 2:7 sets the scene for this 'window - word' into the nature of personhood. An individual becomes a 'nephesh' from the infusion of divine breath into moulded dust. In physical terms 'nephesh' means, 'neck', 'throat', 'gullet' and came to mean 'life', that 'vital motion' which distinguishes a living being from a corpse.

So it starts out with "psyche-soul" and then goes to hebrew, a totally different language. It then falsely states that nephesh means "neck" or regions within the neck. It doesn't and it never has. Here are some references that show it never means "neck" or anything around it:

Nephesh - Hebrew Lexicon
Nephesh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nephesh

Now tell me... why should I read any more of your silly document when it screws up the very first paragraph so obviously? Why should I care what this moronic author says when he can't even tell me what nephesh actually means? The only way you could possibly ever come up with nephesh meaning "neck" is if you juxtapose it with the hebrew verb for "thirst" or "breath" whereas you could use it via metonymy as the physical part which results in that action (though I don't know of any scholar who would actually do that).

Seriously, please do not waste my time copying and pasting junk that is so wrong a first year biblical hebrew student would laugh at the first paragraph. It's ridiculous.

BL

 

[Mikecpking]

I love responding to other people's material, strenuously copy and pasted. The first thing I notice is that when I google this material, it only pulls you up over and over and over on different forums copying and pasting this same stuff. How about that. You're here posting it, you're on CARM forums posting it, you're on Prophecy Fellowship forums posting it... but I can't find any author or source.

That is because it is not an online document.

The course is run by

www.workshop.org.uk

And you check the credentials.

What is the source of this? I want to know where this comes from, who is the author, and why in the world it should have any authoritative credentials.




So it starts out with "psyche-soul" and then goes to hebrew, a totally different language. It then falsely states that nephesh means "neck" or regions within the neck. It doesn't and it never has. Here are some references that show it never means "neck" or anything around it:

Nephesh - Hebrew Lexicon
Nephesh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nephesh

Now tell me... why should I read any more of your silly document when it screws up the very first paragraph so obviously? Why should I care what this moronic author says when he can't even tell me what nephesh actually means? The only way you could possibly ever come up with nephesh meaning "neck" is if you juxtapose it with the hebrew verb for "thirst" or "breath" whereas you could use it via metonymy as the physical part which results in that action (though I don't know of any scholar who would actually do that).

Seriously, please do not waste my time copying and pasting junk that is so wrong a first year biblical hebrew student would laugh at the first paragraph. It's ridiculous.

BL

you can also check about 'neck' etc here online

Paul’s Anthropology

you can also google it.

BTW, your 2nd link clearly defines blood as nephesh

" An example of nephesh is blood"

 

[BL2KTN]

That is because it is not an online document.

The course is run by

www.workshop.org.uk

And you check the credentials.

That's what I figured. It's not from a credentialed college / university, it's not academic, and God only knows who wrote the document which is so flawed I stopped reading it and showed how poorly it is written. Somebody with no degree probably put the paper together based on bad information and poor understanding. That document would have never made it out of a peer-reviewed environment, yet here you are quoting the stupidity on a half-dozen online forums like it's the verified truth of God.

you can also check about 'neck' etc here online

Paul’s Anthropology

Well, how about that, the website shows nephesh can also be used as stomach as well. Hmm, how about that... it's almost like if you can use the word in a metonymous way to mean any body part. And that's exactly what I said when I said:

The only way you could possibly ever come up with nephesh meaning "neck" is if you juxtapose it with the hebrew verb for "thirst" or "breath" whereas you could use it via metonymy as the physical part which results in that action (though I don't know of any scholar who would actually do that).

Nephesh is not defined as neck. You can use it to mean neck if you juxtapose it with a function of the neck. In that way you can make it mean any body part. The author of your document obviously didn't know that, and my guess is they were confused by Psalms 105. If they had known what the heck they were talking about, they could have avoided such a glaring mistake.

BTW, your 2nd link clearly defines blood as nephesh

" An example of nephesh is blood"

Yup. Obviously I knew that before I posted it and have no problem with that. If you understood the way biblical hebrew grammar works, you would understand. You don't, just like the author of your document didn't, and at this point I'm not really interested in teaching hebrew grammar and why blood being "nephesh" doesn't mean blood is required for "adam nephesh." Maybe when I have more time.

BL

BL

 

[Mikecpking]

That's what I figured. It's not from a credentialed college / university, it's not academic, and God only knows who wrote the document which is so flawed I stopped reading it and showed how poorly it is written. Somebody with no degree probably put the paper together based on bad information and poor understanding. That document would have never made it out of a peer-reviewed environment, yet here you are quoting the stupidity on a half-dozen online forums like it's the verified truth of God.



Well, how about that, the website shows nephesh can also be used as stomach as well. Hmm, how about that... it's almost like if you can use the word in a metonymous way to mean any body part. And that's exactly what I said when I said:



Nephesh is not defined as neck. You can use it to mean neck if you juxtapose it with a function of the neck. In that way you can make it mean any body part. The author of your document obviously didn't know that, and my guess is they were confused by Psalms 105. If they had known what the heck they were talking about, they could have avoided such a glaring mistake.



Yup. Obviously I knew that before I posted it and have no problem with that. If you understood the way biblical hebrew grammar works, you would understand. You don't, just like the author of your document didn't, and at this point I'm not really interested in teaching hebrew grammar and why blood being "nephesh" doesn't mean blood is required for "adam nephesh." Maybe when I have more time.

BL

BL

You can twist scripture all you like. There is no 'ensoulment' and I can't see any references to that in any of those scriptures you posted.

Workshop has a recognised status and if you look at "Advanced workshop", you will see what status it gives and has Spurgeons as one of the members of the advisory comittee.

 

[BL2KTN]

You can twist scripture all you like. There is no 'ensoulment' and I can't see any references to that in any of those scriptures you posted.

Sorry, I even posted what they say. Literacy problem maybe? I mean, maybe if you could show how they're not saying that, then we might be able to go somewhere with it.

Workshop has a recognised status and if you look at "Advanced workshop", you will see what status it gives and has Spurgeons as one of the members of the advisory comittee.

Sorry, chief. It's a non-accredited, non-academic, non-peer reviewed series of workshops. I'm not impressed and the work you provided from them is sheer stupidity.

BL

 

[Mikecpking]

Sorry, I even posted what they say. Literacy problem maybe? I mean, maybe if you could show how they're not saying that, then we might be able to go somewhere with it.



Sorry, chief. It's a non-accredited, non-academic, non-peer reviewed series of workshops. I'm not impressed and the work you provided from them is sheer stupidity.

BL

Accreditation & Entrance Requirements | Workshop

 

[BL2KTN]

So is this "Advanced Workshop" where the paper came from?

BL