When is it a Person, when is it Alive.

[WordWolf]

vpw put forth the erroneous, self-serving doctrine that a baby, before it is born,

is not actually a person. He said it was a THING, a POTENTIAL person,

"until it takes its first breath." This allowed him to have twi'ers counsel women

to have abortions whenever twi found it inconvenient for them to carry to term.

Almost all of it was based purely on vpw's exposition-what he called

"private interpretation." The only verse he EVER used on the subject was

Luke 1:35.

We should all be aware by now that whenever vpw based a doctrine on a single verse,

A) it was self-serving and benefited him

B) it was based on a misreading of the verse (or a deliberate error)

King James Version, Luke 1:35

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

NIV, Luke 1:35

"The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.

So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."

NASB, Luke 1:35

"The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God."

ESV, Luke 1:35

"And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;

therefore the child to be born will be called holy--the Son of God."

CEV, Luke 1:35

"The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come down to you, and God's power will come over you. So your

child will be called the holy Son of God."

Then there's the less literal versions.

The only one who mentions a "thing" is the KJV.

In fact, even the NEW KJV says....

NKJV, Luke 1:35

"And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God."

Last time I studied this in the Greek, I found the most literal word-for-word translation for that phrase

matches the NIV and the NKV.

The word "hagion" in the Stephens Text (per the Gordon Ricker-Berry Interlinear) is what the KJV

renders "holy THING."

That's a little odd, since the plural of this word is what's rendered "SAINTS" in the Epistles in the KJV,

the "holy ones".

This "thing" thing is ERROR.

Actually, back in twi-timeframes, I was going verse-by-verse through the Greek on much of the New

Testament. (I had the time.) I did look at this verse, Luke 1:35. It is true that the English calls Jesus

"that holy thing". It also says "replenish" in Genesis, which has nothing to do with the Hebrew meaning

of the word, "to fill". So, we look at the Greek. The most literal Greek I got from Luke 1:35 in that

verse, from the phrase "holy thing", which was the Greek word "hagion", was "Holy One."

That's because the plural of that word, "oi hagioi", is translated as "the saints."

(My Bullinger's Critical Greek Lexicon notes that thus noun was used for "the saints" 61 times, and

"saint" in the singular once.)

This happens in the openings of several Church Epistles, like Romans 1:7, where the word "saints"

in

"to all those who are in Rome beloved of God called saints", the word "saints" is "hagiois".

So Jesus, at the time of "the Annunciation" (Gabriel visiting Mary) was referred to as a "hagios",

and I NOW am referred to as a "hagios". Either we are both a "thing" or we both are NOT.

Basic English places a noun as a person, place or thing. Since I am a person, I am not a "thing",

since I can't be both "person" and "thing" under basic definitions.

(Unless one wants to split hairs and go into different specialist vocabularies in an effort to obscure

the subject, anyway.)

Therefore, since I'm a person or a "holy one" in that expression, so was he.

That's using simple Bible cross-checking: the meaning in Luke 1:35 must agree with ALL usages in Scripture.

=======================================

In other words,

to any REASONABLE standard, it's clear that Jesus was not called a "holy thing" or any other kind

of "thing" anywhere except in the King James Version, and certainly not in the Greek texts from which

the KJV was translated.

Jesus was called a "holy one" there, to be most direct and most literal.

So, twi had/has no basis from Scripture for claiming a person begins only at the moment of birth.

So, does the Bible have anything to say on when an unborn fetus officially becomes a

"baby" or a person? Actually, it does-and it's well short of the 9 months vpw claimed...

[WordWolf]

KJV:

"Luke 1:41

"And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost"

Luke 1:44

"For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."

(Greek word 'brephos', which is also rendered "infant" or "young child" elsewhere.)

John was not born yet, but he was considered a babe/baby.

What month was he at?

Well, according to Gabriel, 6 months.

Luke 1:36.

"And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren."

So, John the Baptist, at 6 months if not sooner, was considered a baby, which is some 3 months before

"first breath" on the average.

That's "sometime before nine months".

Further,

at 6 months, there was some specificity in that he responded to Mary, and his response

somehow indicated a distinction between normal fetal movement and this SPECIFIC reaction.

That was in Luke 1:41, as description, and NOT simply a report of Elizabeth's opinion.

I expect there's any number of women who've carried a baby for the usual 9 months who

could attest to them reacting to stimuli and expressing approval or disapproval

in the last trimester.

=============================

So, what do we know?

We know that, sometime before they take their first breath, they are a baby.

We know that, sometime before 9 months, they are a baby.

We know that, at the 6th month, they are a baby.

We do NOT know if that is the beginning of them being called a baby,

or if there's some timeframe before that where the term begins to be applied.

We know that a baby is capable of responding to stimuli in the last trimester

and is capable of having EMOTIONS (like "joy".)

We do not know when that begins, but we know it applies in the last trimester.

That's hardly the precise, unambiguous answer we modern folk would like,

but it is certainly informative, and it definitely contradicts what vpw/twi

said/say. Even so, some people will refuse to see it no matter what

BECAUSE vpw taught one thing, so the Bible is not allowed to contradict

vpw no matter what.

[teachmevp]

After listening to Alex Jones, around 8-31-15, last week. VP was full of it, those babies were indeed fighting for their life?

[Twinky]

VPW also used this verse to support his claim:

Ex 21:22: If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

VPW said that if she miscarried as a result of the fighting (striving), then the punishment was only a fine. If it had been a person, it would have had a life and the penalties for the taking of a life would have applied [death or banishment]. He glossed over or rather ignored the "no further mischief" aspect.

But look at this same verse in other translations. Several look at this as meaning simply "premature birth" and some go on to talk about premature birth with no further injury (mischief) - ie, death of the child/ren or the mother. The commentaries on this Biblehub link are interesting, especially Gill's commentary (at the bottom of the page).

[TLC]

Life is in the blood, according to Leviticus.

I don't know that science has yet discovered exactly what it is in the blood, but it won't be a surprise if they do some day.

This site proposes life begins when there is blood in the fetus:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when3.htm

Interesting possibility, it seems.

Edited January 24, 2016 by TLC

[waysider]

Ever read Leviticus 17 in its entirety? The context is talking about eating the flesh of sacrificial animals and animals that are being eaten for sustenance. Nowhere does it say that human life exists in the blood. Maybe it does exist there. Maybe it doesn't. I don't know. Either way, Leviticus 17:11 isn't saying what so many have concluded.

[MRAP]

As I recall Wordwolf, veep's justification for aborting was that the child (unborn) did not qualify as a "person" until it had "breathed" = breath life.

I beleived that crap for years and eventually decided it "was" crap. It was that part of twi dogma that made me question the rest of their teachings, aside from the other reasons I decided to leave twi.

Yes, I know I am off thread but despite what any of us rationalize about the topic of abortion, my opinion is based on science of which I have a master's degree, yet, that means nothing, numerous discertations abound on the issue above my pay grade.

Back to the point: vpw only used the breath verse to justify abortion, though he did not "mention" abortion, only that with that breath, life begins. Word play, in my opinion.

In accordance with GSC rules, we are not to get into political issues: this thread really brushes that line, excellent discussion.

[WordWolf]

As I recall Wordwolf, veep's justification for aborting was that the child (unborn) did not qualify as a "person" until it had "breathed" = breath life.

I beleived that crap for years and eventually decided it "was" crap. It was that part of twi dogma that made me question the rest of their teachings, aside from the other reasons I decided to leave twi.

Yes, I know I am off thread but despite what any of us rationalize about the topic of abortion, my opinion is based on science of which I have a master's degree, yet, that means nothing, numerous discertations abound on the issue above my pay grade.

Back to the point: vpw only used the breath verse to justify abortion, though he did not "mention" abortion, only that with that breath, life begins. Word play, in my opinion.

In accordance with GSC rules, we are not to get into political issues: this thread really brushes that line, excellent discussion.

That line of "reasoning" was what was used to belittle abortion,

and was useful when trying to pressure a woman to have an abortion

to remain in a program. The bludgeon that was used on her was the

idea that she made a commitment to God Almighty when she agreed to

enter the program, and to back out was to wuss out on God Almighty,

and a later bludgeon was that people who did that were dung and

trash and worthless.

[Raf]

MRAP, you were nowhere near a rule violation and never strayed from the topic.

[WordWolf]

Someone brought up this subject...