I see no difficulty in saying that God knew each of us thousands of years ago, as He today still knows everyone who will be born in the future. He sees everything, everywhere, and knows already how close to Him your walk will be.
God took Moses [during one of his dark moments] and brought him forward in time to meet with Jesus, to give him 'hope'.
God did the same for Elijah.
God took Paul [during one of his dark moments] and brought him forward to see things] to give him hope.
God took Daniel forward to show him future events.
God took John [the revelator] forward to show him future events.
That being said, I see no connection between this ability of God's and when we become living souls.
I stand on the idea that to be a living soul we must breath air.
It seems that the biblical position, as WW so ably demonstrated, is that a baby in the womb, from at least 6 months onward is considered by God to be "a person".
What about the whole "Adam breathed in the breath of life and became a living soul" position? Keep in mind that Adam was not born, was never a fetus, so his first moment of personhood was when God breathed life into him. Also note that it says that God breathed into him "the breath of life". Is that different than just sucking in air? Is it literal or figurative? Did God literally blow air in his lungs? Or did God imbue Adam with life, figuratively called "breathing into him the breath of life"?
It also seems like we never fully explored the whole issue of different punishments for a woman "losing her fruit" and the killing of a free man. The killing of a slave does not appear to rate capital puinshment either.
quote: Ok, I believe that, concerning the initial question on the table, the question as to what the Bible
says on the subject,
Again, the bible says nothing directly on the subject. It doesn't say abortion is or is not murder. There was no such surgical procedure at that time. You got me on the verses in Luke 1. So sometime between verse 35, where Jesus in utero is called a holy thing, and verse 41 where the babe leaped in Elisabeth's womb God considered John the Baptist in utero a babe.
Of course, it is possible that God called JTB a babe because He knew JTB would be born and do something for God, but I agree with Galen that God knows the future. In the bible God has always been willing to work around some human practices. Example: multiple spouses. Jacob, David, and Elkanah had difficulties with their spouses, but there is no indication that any of them were penalized for having them. Solomon's wives were an issue to God only because they led him to worship other gods.
How do you know God isn't willing to work around abortion? Could you look Abigail's friend in the eye and call her a murderer?
You got me on the verses in Luke 1. So sometime between verse 35, where Jesus in utero is called a holy thing, and verse 41 where the babe leaped in Elisabeth's womb God considered John the Baptist in utero a babe.
Ok,
so you either insist on skipping the rather straightforward explanations- which I've run through more
than once- that showed that calling Jesus a "thing" lacked any merit,
or you're determined to remain locked in to the KJV rendering of the verse and completely
disregard the consistent usage of the word that meant he was a "holy one" and not
a "holy thing".
With that single-minded an approach, I'm unsure how honest and fair a dialogue we can
have here. Seems we can't agree on the most basic elements of "what it says",
which would be the foundation of later discussion of contents which is where we are
trying to get eventually.
Of course, it is possible that God called JTB a babe because He knew JTB would be born and do something for God, but I agree with Galen that God knows the future.
For the sake of discussion, let's suppose we all agree that God exists and knows the future.
What's the DIRECT relevance of that to the discussion at hand?
(Feel free to lay as lengthy a foundation to get there, but please end with a direct answer
to that, since it relates to why you're bringing it up.)
Are you trying to suggest, imply or otherwise talk around what it means to be called
a baby in Luke 1?
Please just say whatever it is outright if you have an opinion or comment.
Are you trying to suggest that John wasn't REALLY a baby when he was CALLED a baby?
In the bible God has always been willing to work around some human practices. Example: multiple spouses. Jacob, David, and Elkanah had difficulties with their spouses, but there is no indication that any of them were penalized for having them. Solomon's wives were an issue to God only because they led him to worship other gods.
We still haven't established a foundation for discussion on this subject yet,
and you're still bringing in irrelevant topics. Now I can't even find the pretext.
Kindly hold off on that until we have a basis for discussing it.
The subject will still be there later when there's a less-inappropriate time to
invoke it.
How do you know God isn't willing to work around abortion? Could you look Abigail's friend in the eye and call her a murderer?
I could look Abigail's friend in the eye and say
"Friend of Abigail?
We're not ready to discuss your situation yet. I'll be happy to address it directly
once more proximate subject have been covered.
No point in discussing Trigonometry when arithmetic and algebra haven't
been covered yet, since those form the foundations for discussing Trigonometry.
Likewise, your topic is dependant upon EARLIER topics we haven't covered yet."
=========
So, JohnIam,
is there hope of you continuing with the more basic discussion on terms and
definitions first, or will you remain content to formulate all terms as they please
you, irregardless of the sense carried by them or evidence to the contrary?
Your last post seemed to indicate the latter, but the former would be much
In the latter years of LCM's reign, he softened on this subject. Instead of yelling 'it's not murder' he would say it in a slightly 'fatherly' fashion (as if) and add, " It's not always right! ! ! ! But, it's not murder".
God is smarter than all of us. He manages to have all the bases covered.
I also remember VPW saying, "The things people call a great sin are never mentioned in the Bible. While the things that are mentioned in the Bible are never considered sin'. Or something like that. I think his point was this; people blow things up to be sin when they aren't and ignore the priorities of God's Word and never consider that to be sin.
Be nice to me;
I'm in a perpectual state of dormant mental awareness.
Down at the Ford plant, there is a string of frames with motors and partial shells rolling down the line. Everyone calls them cars even though they aren't fully assembled. Once that frame was placed on the assembly line, a simple part was given an identity. It becomes a car destined for Mrs. Jones. If it gets pulled off the line because of a defect, it changes its identity and becomes scrap and they assign a new frame with the identity of Mrs. Jones' car.
When is the soul added to the baby? Or do you consider the soul to be the frame on which the rest of the baby is being built? Can it be called a baby without having a living soul?Can't God identify the fetus as being a baby even when it doesn't have a living soul?
Can a person be in two places at one time? Jesus was in the grave, but he was also visiting those kept in captivity. Both his body and his soul are identified as him.
So a body can be identified as a person without there being a living soul present.
Maybe calling John a babe is s figure of speech, calling a part (The body), as if it were the whole.
If a woman lost her baby in a miscarriage such as the one described , she would be hurt she would be sad she would feel a loss. she would onder and grieve maybe forever.
What if she became angry at God? what if she began to doubt her minstry her family, what if began to feel her husband no longer loved her?
whatif the loss was so great she never fully recovered from the pain of the loss and lived in depression and guilt the rest of her life?
Is this not a sin? Is this not a wrong to one of God's beloved?
To turn this event in a persons life that brings sorrow and loss into well did she have a soul or not is rather twisted .
I do not think this is about who took a breath or abortion at all, I think it is about stealing and hurting Gods people and how to deal with it.
twi has everyoone convinced it MUST be about abortion what makes you so sure of that?
POND -I do not think this is about who took a breath or abortion at all, I think it is about stealing and hurting Gods people and how to deal with it.
twi has everyoone convinced it MUST be about abortion what makes you so sure of that?
Well, the topic is about what the bible says about abortion, and since that practice isn't mentioned in the bible, we are trying to determine if it can be classified as murder (a known sin). Are you saying that just because it may be in question as to whether abortion is murder, you have other biblical evidence that it is the sin of stealing and hurting God's people?
Since when did twi find any "evidence"? the word "research" is used like it must mean golden YET how much of a leap it is to assume it must mean an abortion.. or like an abortion?
Sure we can assume alot like woman even Had abortion in bibical times...no record of that
then leap to oh this verse must address abortion. What is happening is typical of twi "research find an idea like "breath life and body soul and spirt.. then dig and streeeeetch a verse to try to make it fit into what theory you made up in that so called research.
I think what no one has metioned yet is the cry of the soul of those who have miscarried and whether or not that "baby" will have eternal life or live in the kingdom. That is more to the point of what twi was saying.. not even the murder part of the situation but who will be included in the kingdom without this breath life vpw taught that even a cherished wanted child would never cut the mustard for eternal life if he/she did not take a breath outside of the womb.
this is a very radical conclusion and I see no base for it what so ever in scripture.
without twi link to this verse which has been noted as quite a stretch and typical of using one scripture to support another without any "evidence" what so ever that they have anything to do with one another.
it can stand alone and just what does it say to you?
Jeremiah 20: 14-18 has Jeremiah cursing a man for not aborting him – suggesting, IMO, a request by Jeremiah’s mother for an abortion that the fellow had declined or otherwise failed to perform.
Disclaimer: This position is utterly my own. I have not seen or heard it promoted, endorsed or even held by any Reformed theologian, orthodox exegete, Christian believer, or squalid heretic I have encountered.
The question is whether a fetus can have soul life without having breath life, or is it just growth life that we see before it takes its first breath, like the growth life of a plant. Calling it a babe seems to imply that there is already a soul present. Jeremiah 20: 14-18 speaks as though there was a soul present before birth.
Perhaps the soul life is there from conception and the breath life is supplied by the mother in utero.
...not even the murder part of the situation but who will be included in the kingdom without this breath life vpw taught that even a cherished wanted child would never cut the mustard for eternal life if he/she did not take a breath outside of the womb.
this is a very radical conclusion and I see no base for it what so ever in scripture....
I'm waiting to see if there's any basis for it, myself, but so far, a case for it is still pending...
The question is
whether a fetus can have soul life without having breath life,
or is it just growth life that we see before it takes its first breath, like the growth life of a plant.
Calling it a babe seems to imply that there is already a soul present. Jeremiah 20: 14-18 speaks as though there was a soul present before birth.
Perhaps the soul life is there from conception and the breath life is supplied by the mother in utero.
Jerry
Perhaps.
Sounds like someone missed the relevance of it-possibly due to cutting this post in half,
but it goes to the heart of the FOUNDATION of this subject.
I'm open to hearing support for various positions, but that means the support
Can something leap inside a womb due to knowledge of Christly things if it had no soul, or means of recognizing? Or is that one of those it happened to them but not to us like the first church could 'sit' but it is no longer available to us?
(Luke 1)
(and if someone says she had indigestion just go ahead and smack yourself for me)
Twi also taught that a disabled child or a child who died before they could confess Jesus is LORD they will be in the kingdom because of the parents BELIEVING for the child!
remember?
well then why would the cut off point be in the womb?
If the theory of a parent will cover for a dead infant or disabled child why would the same not be available for a miscarriage?
Is it to impy God can only heal a person after he/she takes a breath?
I thought we were going to hear how you view those Scriptures, Galen.
That IS what you volunteered for, when I asked and you responded,
right?
To my knowledge a fetus is developing bones and muscles and a nervous system all along. The body of the fetus moves, by kicking, twisting, turning and so forth from somewhere along the second trimester on.
So? I am sure that such is relevant though I don't see how.
A handicapped child might very well be born with the same parts amiss or lacking all together, a child that lives only a few hours by twi standard will go to eternal life by the parents Believing .
Achild burned or some other tragic accident would not have "parts" the parts have nothing to do with it Galen God gives us new bodies.
why if it was all about a PARENT believing for a baby to recieve eternal life, would it change just because a baby took a breath and a child in the stages of pregancy did not?
Why couldnt you use the same standard? a parents believing for the child to have eternal life?
because they have not taken a breath? seems rather stupid , when the only thing vpw said was needed was a parents believing. aparent could also believe that the still born or miscarred child could go to the kingdom as easy as that.
I know the verse about God breathing life into Adam in is that why every one thinks people must take a breath? to be able to go to the kingdom?
I do not believe it.. not for a minute people decide who is going to serve God and what if Mary said um no way God and freaked out and refused?
another woman would have been called to perform Gods plan. Like plenty throughout the ages have not refused Gods instruction.
sure it comes to when God created us but I thought we established THAT was before the foundation of the earth itself!!!
so if im pregnate with a child that is called before the foundation and abort the baby God just erases that child of his from eternal life?
I offer the following not as an answer but a point of consideration.------Lev. 17:1 states that the life of the flesh is in the blood.-----When a fetus is in the womb, the blood of the mother and fetus are seperated by the placenta which acts as a go-between to facilitate transfers of oxygen, nutrients, and waste. There is an internal passageway in the heart that allows for blood to circulate in the fetus while at the same time bypassing the still nonfunctional lungs. When birth takes place, this passageway is sealed due to pressure differences that take place at that time At this point an adult type of flow through the heart is established and the lungs switch from bypass to service mode. Perhaps this is yet another piece of the first breath thinking . --------
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
17
16
46
16
Popular Days
Aug 29
21
Sep 13
18
Sep 11
15
Sep 17
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Oakspear 17 posts
DrtyDzn 16 posts
pond 46 posts
VeganXTC 16 posts
Popular Days
Aug 29 2006
21 posts
Sep 13 2006
18 posts
Sep 11 2006
15 posts
Sep 17 2006
14 posts
Galen
I see no difficulty in saying that God knew each of us thousands of years ago, as He today still knows everyone who will be born in the future. He sees everything, everywhere, and knows already how close to Him your walk will be.
God took Moses [during one of his dark moments] and brought him forward in time to meet with Jesus, to give him 'hope'.
God did the same for Elijah.
God took Paul [during one of his dark moments] and brought him forward to see things] to give him hope.
God took Daniel forward to show him future events.
God took John [the revelator] forward to show him future events.
That being said, I see no connection between this ability of God's and when we become living souls.
I stand on the idea that to be a living soul we must breath air.
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Nice to see the hope for a dialogue here!
So, Galen,
in the last few pages, and especially this page(3), we were discussing
John the Baptist at 6 months, who was referred to as a baby.
He most certainly was not even expected to be born for another 3 months,
and certainly seems-in the womb as he is- to be far from taking any breath,
first or no.
How would you reconcile the account describing John the Baptist in
"the Visitation" with a "first breath" being the beginning of a soul?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
It seems that the biblical position, as WW so ably demonstrated, is that a baby in the womb, from at least 6 months onward is considered by God to be "a person".
What about the whole "Adam breathed in the breath of life and became a living soul" position? Keep in mind that Adam was not born, was never a fetus, so his first moment of personhood was when God breathed life into him. Also note that it says that God breathed into him "the breath of life". Is that different than just sucking in air? Is it literal or figurative? Did God literally blow air in his lungs? Or did God imbue Adam with life, figuratively called "breathing into him the breath of life"?
It also seems like we never fully explored the whole issue of different punishments for a woman "losing her fruit" and the killing of a free man. The killing of a slave does not appear to rate capital puinshment either.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Ok, I believe that, concerning the initial question on the table, the question as to what the Bible
says on the subject,
Again, the bible says nothing directly on the subject. It doesn't say abortion is or is not murder. There was no such surgical procedure at that time. You got me on the verses in Luke 1. So sometime between verse 35, where Jesus in utero is called a holy thing, and verse 41 where the babe leaped in Elisabeth's womb God considered John the Baptist in utero a babe.
Of course, it is possible that God called JTB a babe because He knew JTB would be born and do something for God, but I agree with Galen that God knows the future. In the bible God has always been willing to work around some human practices. Example: multiple spouses. Jacob, David, and Elkanah had difficulties with their spouses, but there is no indication that any of them were penalized for having them. Solomon's wives were an issue to God only because they led him to worship other gods.
How do you know God isn't willing to work around abortion? Could you look Abigail's friend in the eye and call her a murderer?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ok,
so you either insist on skipping the rather straightforward explanations- which I've run through more
than once- that showed that calling Jesus a "thing" lacked any merit,
or you're determined to remain locked in to the KJV rendering of the verse and completely
disregard the consistent usage of the word that meant he was a "holy one" and not
a "holy thing".
With that single-minded an approach, I'm unsure how honest and fair a dialogue we can
have here. Seems we can't agree on the most basic elements of "what it says",
which would be the foundation of later discussion of contents which is where we are
trying to get eventually.
For the sake of discussion, let's suppose we all agree that God exists and knows the future.What's the DIRECT relevance of that to the discussion at hand?
(Feel free to lay as lengthy a foundation to get there, but please end with a direct answer
to that, since it relates to why you're bringing it up.)
Are you trying to suggest, imply or otherwise talk around what it means to be called
a baby in Luke 1?
Please just say whatever it is outright if you have an opinion or comment.
Are you trying to suggest that John wasn't REALLY a baby when he was CALLED a baby?
We still haven't established a foundation for discussion on this subject yet,
and you're still bringing in irrelevant topics. Now I can't even find the pretext.
Kindly hold off on that until we have a basis for discussing it.
The subject will still be there later when there's a less-inappropriate time to
invoke it.
I could look Abigail's friend in the eye and say
"Friend of Abigail?
We're not ready to discuss your situation yet. I'll be happy to address it directly
once more proximate subject have been covered.
No point in discussing Trigonometry when arithmetic and algebra haven't
been covered yet, since those form the foundations for discussing Trigonometry.
Likewise, your topic is dependant upon EARLIER topics we haven't covered yet."
=========
So, JohnIam,
is there hope of you continuing with the more basic discussion on terms and
definitions first, or will you remain content to formulate all terms as they please
you, irregardless of the sense carried by them or evidence to the contrary?
Your last post seemed to indicate the latter, but the former would be much
appreciated at this time...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YIdon'tgotochurch
In the latter years of LCM's reign, he softened on this subject. Instead of yelling 'it's not murder' he would say it in a slightly 'fatherly' fashion (as if) and add, " It's not always right! ! ! ! But, it's not murder".
God is smarter than all of us. He manages to have all the bases covered.
I also remember VPW saying, "The things people call a great sin are never mentioned in the Bible. While the things that are mentioned in the Bible are never considered sin'. Or something like that. I think his point was this; people blow things up to be sin when they aren't and ignore the priorities of God's Word and never consider that to be sin.
Be nice to me;
I'm in a perpectual state of dormant mental awareness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
Down at the Ford plant, there is a string of frames with motors and partial shells rolling down the line. Everyone calls them cars even though they aren't fully assembled. Once that frame was placed on the assembly line, a simple part was given an identity. It becomes a car destined for Mrs. Jones. If it gets pulled off the line because of a defect, it changes its identity and becomes scrap and they assign a new frame with the identity of Mrs. Jones' car.
When is the soul added to the baby? Or do you consider the soul to be the frame on which the rest of the baby is being built? Can it be called a baby without having a living soul?Can't God identify the fetus as being a baby even when it doesn't have a living soul?
Can a person be in two places at one time? Jesus was in the grave, but he was also visiting those kept in captivity. Both his body and his soul are identified as him.
So a body can be identified as a person without there being a living soul present.
Maybe calling John a babe is s figure of speech, calling a part (The body), as if it were the whole.
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
If a woman lost her baby in a miscarriage such as the one described , she would be hurt she would be sad she would feel a loss. she would onder and grieve maybe forever.
What if she became angry at God? what if she began to doubt her minstry her family, what if began to feel her husband no longer loved her?
whatif the loss was so great she never fully recovered from the pain of the loss and lived in depression and guilt the rest of her life?
Is this not a sin? Is this not a wrong to one of God's beloved?
To turn this event in a persons life that brings sorrow and loss into well did she have a soul or not is rather twisted .
I do not think this is about who took a breath or abortion at all, I think it is about stealing and hurting Gods people and how to deal with it.
twi has everyoone convinced it MUST be about abortion what makes you so sure of that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
POND -I do not think this is about who took a breath or abortion at all, I think it is about stealing and hurting Gods people and how to deal with it.
twi has everyoone convinced it MUST be about abortion what makes you so sure of that?
Well, the topic is about what the bible says about abortion, and since that practice isn't mentioned in the bible, we are trying to determine if it can be classified as murder (a known sin). Are you saying that just because it may be in question as to whether abortion is murder, you have other biblical evidence that it is the sin of stealing and hurting God's people?
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
Since when did twi find any "evidence"? the word "research" is used like it must mean golden YET how much of a leap it is to assume it must mean an abortion.. or like an abortion?
Sure we can assume alot like woman even Had abortion in bibical times...no record of that
then leap to oh this verse must address abortion. What is happening is typical of twi "research find an idea like "breath life and body soul and spirt.. then dig and streeeeetch a verse to try to make it fit into what theory you made up in that so called research.
I think what no one has metioned yet is the cry of the soul of those who have miscarried and whether or not that "baby" will have eternal life or live in the kingdom. That is more to the point of what twi was saying.. not even the murder part of the situation but who will be included in the kingdom without this breath life vpw taught that even a cherished wanted child would never cut the mustard for eternal life if he/she did not take a breath outside of the womb.
this is a very radical conclusion and I see no base for it what so ever in scripture.
without twi link to this verse which has been noted as quite a stretch and typical of using one scripture to support another without any "evidence" what so ever that they have anything to do with one another.
it can stand alone and just what does it say to you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Jeremiah 20: 14-18 has Jeremiah cursing a man for not aborting him – suggesting, IMO, a request by Jeremiah’s mother for an abortion that the fellow had declined or otherwise failed to perform.
Disclaimer: This position is utterly my own. I have not seen or heard it promoted, endorsed or even held by any Reformed theologian, orthodox exegete, Christian believer, or squalid heretic I have encountered.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
pond
The King james says my mother might have been my grave.
maybe he is talking about dying in the womb, maybe he is talking about never being born as the prophets often did because their life was so miserable.
but that is not in the record of the fruit departing used in these last few posts and that is the one i was referring to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VeganXTC
<_<
Edited by VeganXTCLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
The question is whether a fetus can have soul life without having breath life, or is it just growth life that we see before it takes its first breath, like the growth life of a plant. Calling it a babe seems to imply that there is already a soul present. Jeremiah 20: 14-18 speaks as though there was a soul present before birth.
Perhaps the soul life is there from conception and the breath life is supplied by the mother in utero.
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
I just read that passage.
And what???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I thought we were going to hear how you view those Scriptures, Galen.
That IS what you volunteered for, when I asked and you responded,
right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm waiting to see if there's any basis for it, myself, but so far, a case for it is still pending...
Perhaps.
Sounds like someone missed the relevance of it-possibly due to cutting this post in half,
but it goes to the heart of the FOUNDATION of this subject.
I'm open to hearing support for various positions, but that means the support
must be OFFERED first.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
Jeremiah 20: 17 "Because he slew me not from the womb: or that my mother might have been my grave, and her womb to be always great with me."
On first reading, I read this as meaning being slain in the womb, but I now see that it probably meant being slain after being born.
The speaker does seem to have an identity in the womb though. Why else would there be a grave, albiet his mother's womb.
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Can something leap inside a womb due to knowledge of Christly things if it had no soul, or means of recognizing? Or is that one of those it happened to them but not to us like the first church could 'sit' but it is no longer available to us?
(Luke 1)
(and if someone says she had indigestion just go ahead and smack yourself for me)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
Twi also taught that a disabled child or a child who died before they could confess Jesus is LORD they will be in the kingdom because of the parents BELIEVING for the child!
remember?
well then why would the cut off point be in the womb?
If the theory of a parent will cover for a dead infant or disabled child why would the same not be available for a miscarriage?
Is it to impy God can only heal a person after he/she takes a breath?
I do not think so..the promise is new body.
Edited by pondLink to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
To my knowledge a fetus is developing bones and muscles and a nervous system all along. The body of the fetus moves, by kicking, twisting, turning and so forth from somewhere along the second trimester on.
So? I am sure that such is relevant though I don't see how.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
A handicapped child might very well be born with the same parts amiss or lacking all together, a child that lives only a few hours by twi standard will go to eternal life by the parents Believing .
Achild burned or some other tragic accident would not have "parts" the parts have nothing to do with it Galen God gives us new bodies.
why if it was all about a PARENT believing for a baby to recieve eternal life, would it change just because a baby took a breath and a child in the stages of pregancy did not?
Why couldnt you use the same standard? a parents believing for the child to have eternal life?
because they have not taken a breath? seems rather stupid , when the only thing vpw said was needed was a parents believing. aparent could also believe that the still born or miscarred child could go to the kingdom as easy as that.
I know the verse about God breathing life into Adam in is that why every one thinks people must take a breath? to be able to go to the kingdom?
I do not believe it.. not for a minute people decide who is going to serve God and what if Mary said um no way God and freaked out and refused?
another woman would have been called to perform Gods plan. Like plenty throughout the ages have not refused Gods instruction.
sure it comes to when God created us but I thought we established THAT was before the foundation of the earth itself!!!
so if im pregnate with a child that is called before the foundation and abort the baby God just erases that child of his from eternal life?
I think not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I offer the following not as an answer but a point of consideration.------Lev. 17:1 states that the life of the flesh is in the blood.-----When a fetus is in the womb, the blood of the mother and fetus are seperated by the placenta which acts as a go-between to facilitate transfers of oxygen, nutrients, and waste. There is an internal passageway in the heart that allows for blood to circulate in the fetus while at the same time bypassing the still nonfunctional lungs. When birth takes place, this passageway is sealed due to pressure differences that take place at that time At this point an adult type of flow through the heart is established and the lungs switch from bypass to service mode. Perhaps this is yet another piece of the first breath thinking . --------
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Lev.17:11, not 17:1.(mistyped)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.