When Is a Baby, a Baby: At Conception or at Birth?

C McC Mc Posts: 3,626

Let's settle it once and for all. We have been dancing around it for a while, here in CD. Is the answer to the above question biblical or a social-societal issue? Whose business is it anyway?

God knows many things men don't. Can the Jeremiah text be used for all undeveloped tissues with in a woman?

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”  New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. (1995). (Je 1:5).

What say ye? CM

Comments

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,737
    edited May 7

    What say ye? CM

    I suggest to understand words and statements and passages within their context.

    There may be some passages in OT Law in which situations of "fetus/unborn" are compared to same situations of "newborn/child" and where one could from that context see whether such situations are treated exactly the same or are treated differently. I would think that if they are treated the exactly the same, there would be no essential difference between the status of a fetus and a newborn baby; if they are treated differently, there would seem to be an essential difference in status between fetus and newborn baby, with the difference perhaps even stated in the context.

    Has someone here ever done a study on this matter, perhaps even found such possibly relevant passages in Scripture (OT or NT)?

  • LamechLamech Posts: 23

    God made man in His own image, forming him from the dust of the Earth, breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and "Man became a living soul."

    And no human has come into life from any other system, except Jesus, the Messiah of God.

    THAT life has come down from Adam through generation to generation, till it produces the next generation.

    Fifty years from now, some will cry "I tried to see my Doctor, but he is overcome with patients; where are all the doctors?"

    Another will complain "I tried to make an appointment with an attorney, but none is available; where are all the attorneys?"

    Yet another will cry "I tried to enroll my child in school, but they had no teachers to teach her; where are all the teachers?

    Then my boss called me and said "Stay home today, I heard on the news we are going to be under attack from a foreign army." I asked "Where are all our defenders of our great nation?"

    Then a voice will respond from heaven.....

    "YOU ABORTED THEM."

    The question of "when does life begin in the process of human replication" is a very simple one; "it began in Eden's Garden, thousands of years ago, and has never been interrupted between that introduction, and our own introduction to the next generation."

    Beginning with the union of two gametes; i.e., One egg + 1 sperm; develops to a Zygote, then to a Blastocyst, to an Embryo, to a Fetus, and is finally born into an uncaring world.

    Life did not "BEGIN" at any step within the process; It began with the living egg and the living sperm of the parents, developed in accord with its nature as designed by GOD from its DNA, and every step in the process dealt only with living material and design.

    And no scientist can duplicate the process other than taking an already provided Human gamete and adding an already provided human gamete from the opposite gender, to begin an already determined process, to fruition.

    In the nineteen-sixties, the medical world produced the "Morning after pill," and Women went berserk; they shouted one to another, "MEN WANT ONLY ONE THING" and set about to provide that "THING;" and they then began to rely upon ABORTION as a Birth-Control device, because it was too much trouble to go to the drug store for "the PILL."

    We now rely upon prayer, to correct the glitch in the system,never once admitting to "baby-Murder." But God is warning us, now with a virus, sometimes with an insect, sometimes with an Army, Play-time is over.


    Then there is the problem of Homosexuality, rampant in our nation, and approved by some of the voters to run for President of this great GOD-FEARING nation. Do you see a certain hypocrisy developing here?

    But look out folks, It gets worse -  "Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin." [Heb 12:4]

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,737

    @Lamech posted:

    God made man in His own image, forming him from the dust of the Earth, breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and "Man became a living soul."

    Man became a living human being when "breath of life" (breath which provides life) was introduced into the situation / process of the making of man. The forming of man's body was not the step which made man a living human being. Only with the breath introduced by God's working did that lifeless human body become ea living soul.

    Life did not "BEGIN" at any step within the process; It began with the living egg and the living sperm of the parents, developed in accord with its nature as designed by GOD from its DNA, and every step in the process dealt only with living material and design.

    This statement is self-contradictory: The first sentence is in accordance with the truth from Genesis => "life did not begin at any time within the process" !! The next sentence flat out contradicts the first sentence and the truth from Genesis, because it claims that they very first steps in the process of the growing of the body is the beginning of the living human being.

    A further point to consider: Has a stillborn been a living being that was killed ?? Why is a stillborn considered "dead born" (in other languages, for example in German, it is even termed that way - "totgeboren"). In other words, the stillborn is not considered to have been a living human person who has died, but is dead born because of the fact that it never took a breath !

  • LamechLamech Posts: 23

    Wolfgang Posts: 2,519 12:24PM Flag

    @Lamech posted:

    God made man in His own image, forming him from the dust of the Earth, breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and "Man became a living soul."[/quote]

    Wolfgang posted: Man became a living human being when "breath of life" (breath which provides life) was introduced into the situation / process of the making of man. The forming of man's body was not the step which made man a living human being. Only with the breath introduced by God's working did that lifeless human body become ea living soul.[/quote]

    @Lamech:That is precisely what I said. "Man became a living soul AFTER God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life."

    @Lamech posted:"Life did not "BEGIN" at any step within the process; It began with the living egg and the living sperm of the parents, developed in accord with its nature as designed by GOD from its DNA, and every step in the process dealt only with living material and design.

    Wolfgang posted:This statement is self-contradictory: The first sentence is in accordance with the truth from Genesis => "life did not begin at any time within the process" !! The next sentence flat out contradicts the first sentence and the truth from Genesis, because it claims that they very first steps in the process of the growing of the body is the beginning of the living human being.[/quote]

    @Lamech:The active word here is "Within." Forming the body is NOT "Within" the process, it begins all that follows; therefore, it is the first step of the process. There is also a last step, called "Birth." All else is "WITHIN" the process. Forming begins it, birthing ends it, Everything in between builds upon the pattern laid down by God's instruction to " Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

    Wolfgang posted:A further point to consider: Has a stillborn been a living being that was killed ?? Why is a stillborn considered "dead born" (in other languages, for example in German, it is even termed that way - "totgeboren"). In other words, the stillborn is not considered to have been a living human person who has died, but is dead born because of the fact that it never took a breath !

    Lamech: If it did not live, how did it attain size and shape prior to being "stillborn?"

    The people who develop words to suggest events, may be ignorant of many aspects of said events. Therefore, to suggest a "stillborn" is dead born because it never took a breath, overlooks the simplest fact, that almost all newborns never "took a breath" prior to being born.

    That first "breath of life" may be prior to the babe leaving the womb, but mostly it is the process of passing through the birth canal that "massages" the new-to-be-born to the extreme that the first breath becomes a reaction to the birthing activity itself. Either way, it does not change anything in my post.

  • C McC Mc Posts: 3,626

    At what stage does human life begin?

    1. Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception? "Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote." "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
    2. Zygote. ... So, a zygote is formed from the union of two gametes, and is the first stage in a human organism's development. Zygotes are produced by fertilization between two haploid cells, the ovum and the sperm cells, which make a diploid cell. Diploid cells have copies of both parents' chromosomes and DNA.
    3. Zygotefertilized egg cell that results from the union of a female gamete (egg, or ovum) with a male gamete (sperm). In the embryonic development of humans and other animals, the zygote stage is brief and is followed by cleavage, when the single cell becomes subdivided into smaller cells.
    4. Zygote in unicellular whereas embryo is multicellular. 2. Zygote is termed as a zygocyte in medical terms while the embryo is termed as a diploid eukaryote. ... So zygote is the first stage in the development of a new organism while embryo is the stage that follows next.

    Stages of human development

    1. Zygotic stage: The zygote is formed when the male gamete (sperm) and female gamete (egg) fuse. Blastocyst stage: The single-celled zygote begins to divide into a solid ball of cells. Then, it becomes a hollow ball of cells called a blastocyst, attaching to the lining of the mother's uterus.
    2. In overview, fertilization can be described as the following steps:
    • Sperm Capacitation. ... 
    • Sperm-Zona Pellucida Binding. ... 
    • The Acrosome Reaction. ... 
    • Penetration of the Zona Pellucida. ... 
    • Sperm-Oocyte Binding. ... 
    • Egg Activation and the Cortical Reaction. ... 
    • The Zona Reaction. ... 
    • Post-fertilization Events.

    3. Pregnancy doesn't start the day you have sex — it can  up to six days after sex for the sperm and egg to join and  a fertilized egg. Then, it can  three to four days for the fertilized egg to completely implant itself in the lining of the uterus.

    • How old does a fetus have to be to be considered alive? Where is the baby? Isn't it's one that's outside, detached, and breathing on its on. CM


  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,737

    The people who develop words to suggest events, may be ignorant of many aspects of said events.

    Well, was it ignorance that caused the writer of Gen to state that what God had made and formed (a human body) only BECAME A LIVING SOUL when breath was given to it by God (that is, when breathing had occurred?

    Why does Scripture speak of "THE BREATH of life" but not of "the body of life"??

    Therefore, to suggest a "stillborn" is dead born because it never took a breath, overlooks the simplest fact, that almost all newborns never "took a breath" prior to being born.

    According to Gen, a LIVING SOUL (a living human being) is BREATHING ... no breath, no living human being. So, yes, all newborn BECOME living souls when they take their first breath.

    Now, just to clarify, I did not write Scripture .... I am just reading it.

  • JustinGatlinJustinGatlin Posts: 7

    John the Baptist, as a conscious, worshiping human being, experienced joy and recognition at the presence of Jesus. How can that be reconciled with the idea he was not alive?

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,737

    @JustinGatlin John the Baptist, as a conscious, worshiping human being, experienced joy and recognition at the presence of Jesus. How can that be reconciled with the idea he was not alive?

    Does a fetus have breath of life before birth? Was the fetus in Elizabeth's womb a conscious worshiping human being (approx. 6 months into the pregnancy)? What happens normally and naturally if the baby's birth occurs prematurely at such early stage?

    As for the record in Lk 1:41, we should note what the text actually says:

    Lk 1,41, 44   (AV)

    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:

    ...

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

    Did the babe hear what Mary way saying? Or did Elisabeth hear the salutation? The verse is not about the babe hearing Mary's voice and understanding what she said, but about Elisabeth and her reaction, and it - as an effect of Elisabeth's reaction reports that "the babe leaped in her womb". It is common knowledge that during pregnancy, a pregnant woman can experience that the fetus at times will react to her movements, emotions, etc.,

    For example, note that prior to birth, normally the fetus will be turn its position in the womb in preparation for birth ... while we describe this in active voice as "the baby turned", in reality the baby was turned (passive) by whatever natural process the woman's body undergoes in order to prepare and accommodate the birth.

    Thus, Lk 1:41 reports not John the baptist living as a human person in Elisabeth's womb and hearing and understanding Mary's words and then doing a leaping dance, but speaks about Elisabeth and her reaction to Mary's salutation, including the fetus moving inside of her.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,054

    @Wolfgang posted:

    Did the babe hear what Mary way saying? Or did Elisabeth hear the salutation? The verse is not about the babe hearing Mary's voice and understanding what she said, but about Elisabeth and her reaction, and it - as an effect of Elisabeth's reaction reports that "the babe leaped in her womb". It is common knowledge that during pregnancy, a pregnant woman can experience that the fetus at times will react to her movements, emotions, etc.,

    For example, note that prior to birth, normally the fetus will be turn its position in the womb in preparation for birth ... while we describe this in active voice as "the baby turned", in reality the baby was turned (passive) by whatever natural process the woman's body undergoes in order to prepare and accommodate the birth.

    Thus, Lk 1:41 reports not John the baptist living as a human person in Elisabeth's womb and hearing and understanding Mary's words and then doing a leaping dance, but speaks about Elisabeth and her reaction to Mary's salutation, including the fetus moving inside of her.

    In my view, the challenge to your interpretation, Wolfgang, is that the text says the child didn't just move or reposition; it says the child leaped "for joy" (Luke 1.44), which to my reading reports the child's movement as a response to Mary's greeting. In your view, how could Elizabeth's child have moved in this scene as part of a "natural process [a] woman's body's undergoes in order to prepare and accommodate [a] birth" AND STILL have done so "for joy"?

    As for your suggestion that Elizabeth's child might have reacted to his mother's "movements, emotions, etc." again I think the text challenges your point of view. The text says the child leaped in response to the sound of Mary's greeting, not as a consequence of his mother's reaction to that greeting.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,737
    edited July 8

    @Bill_Coley

    In my view, the challenge to your interpretation, Wolfgang, is that the text says the child didn't just move or reposition; it says the child leaped "for joy" (Luke 1.44), which to my reading reports the child's movement as a response to Mary's greeting. In your view, how could Elizabeth's child have moved in this scene as part of a "natural process [a] woman's body's undergoes in order to prepare and accommodate [a] birth" AND STILL have done so "for joy"?

    Where did I say that child moved in that scene as part of a process of preparing and accommodating birth ??? I spoke of this process as an illustration that even though people speak in active voice about that (the babe turned), the reality is that the fetus did so not because of some own conscious decision but was turned (passive voice) due to natural process in the woman's body to prepare for birth.

    As for the baby "leaped for joy", the verse does not say that the baby heard Mary's greeting, rather Elisabeth clearly says that Mary's greeting sounded in her ears.

    Lk 1,44

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

    Thus I conclude from the text details and observations of what can happen during pregnancy in regards to a fetus moving (such as is described at times as kicking, leaping, etc.), that in the situation at hand the babe in her womb moved/ leaped as Elisabeth (not the babe) heard Mary's greeting. It seems clear that Elisabeth was rather joyful at that moment, and it would very possible that her reaction and emotional response triggered the babe's leaps.

    The text says the child leaped in response to the sound of Mary's greeting, not as a consequence of his mother's reaction to that greeting.

    Actually, the text says that Elisabeth said "the babe leaped in my womb for joy" !!! This statement is how Elisabeth described what was happening in her body.

    SImple incident from own personal experience: => When my wife was pregnant with our son (7th month), I was gone for almost a week to a conference, and as I was returning and she met me at the airport, when she saw me come out of customs, the babe "moved joyfully in her womb", s0 her words when we hugged a few moments later. Now, it should be as plain as anyone's nose on their faces, that the babe in her womb had no clue whatever (visible or audible) what exact moment I came into my wife's view at the airport sliding door of the customs area opening. And yet, the babe "kicked" / "moved joyfully" in the words of my wife ... What happened? Obviously the reaction of joy of my wife triggered the babe to move.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,054

    @Wolfgang posted:

    Where did I say that child moved in that scene as part of a process of preparing and accommodating birth ??? I spoke of this process as an illustration that even though people speak in active voice about that (the babe turned), the reality is that the fetus did so not because of some own conscious decision but was turned (passive voice) due to natural process in the woman's body to prepare for birth.

    I misread your previous post. My apologies. You did in fact deploy the imagery of a "natural process [a] woman's body's undergoes" as an example, not as the specific means of the child's movement in the Mary and Elizabeth scene.

    But the larger point remains unchallenged. Your view is that when Elizabeth tells Mary the child in her womb "leaped for joy" when the sound of Mary's greeting reached Elizabeth's ears, the child didn't leap - even though that's what the text says - but rather moved as the result of forces beyond himself.


    As for the baby "leaped for joy", the verse does not say that the baby heard Mary's greeting, rather Elisabeth clearly says that Mary's greeting sounded in her ears.

    Elizabeth tells Mary that the child "leaped for joy" when she (Elizabeth) heard Mary's greeting. In my view, Luke wants us to know that the child took the action (it is the child who "leaped," not Elizabeth) in response to Mary's greeting. I don't see how the language of the scene can be interpreted differently.


    Thus I conclude from the text details and observations of what can happen during pregnancy in regards to a fetus moving (such as is described at times as kicking, leaping, etc.), that in the situation at hand the babe in her womb moved/ leaped as Elisabeth (not the babe) heard Mary's greeting. It seems clear that Elisabeth was rather joyful at that moment, and it would very possible that her reaction and emotional response triggered the babe's leaps.

    You're of course welcome to conclude whatever you choose to conclude about the cause of the child's leaping. And in fact, you might be right: The action could have been the result of Elizabeth's reaction. But that's not what the text says. The text says the child - not Elizabeth - "leaped for joy" when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting.

    And we should not overlook the words "for joy." Elizabeth tells Mary not only that her child moved ("leaped"), but ALSO that he leaped "for joy." Why does Luke include that detail in his description of the child's movement if he doesn't want us to know that it explains why the child moved?

    You're free to interpret those words differently, but I think it's incumbent upon you to acknowledge that they in fact say the child leapt, and did so "for joy."


    Actually, the text says that Elisabeth said "the babe leaped in my womb for joy" !!! This statement is how Elisabeth described what was happening in her body.

    Here you choose to quote only the second half of Luke 1.44. The first half of the verse reports the cause of the child's leaping: "...when the sound of your greeting came to my ears...." (ESV) Elizabeth says the child leapt for joy when Mary's greeting reached her ears. The child leapt, and did so "for joy."

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,737
    edited July 8

    @Wolfgang Actually, the text says that Elisabeth said "the babe leaped in my womb for joy" !!! This statement is how Elisabeth described what was happening in her body.

    @Bill_Coley Here you choose to quote only the second half of Luke 1.44. The first half of the verse reports the cause of the child's leaping: "...when the sound of your greeting came to my ears...." (ESV) Elizabeth says the child leapt for joy when Mary's greeting reached her ears. The child leapt, and did so "for joy."

    The gospel text does state what Elisabeth said ... the gospel text as such does NOT teach or claim that the babe leaped for joy in the womb.

    I quoted the part that was relevant to clarifying WHO according to the gospel narrative actually SAID what you worded as "the text says". The gospel text does not state or teach that the babe in the womb acted because it heard something and made a conscious decision "to leap for joy". The gospel text states and teaches that Elisabeth in her words described what happened inside her when she heard Mary's greeting.

    Why did you eliminate my simple incident which I mentioned at the end of post which clarifies how the text about "babe doing something in the womb" is not ofi ts own conscious decision, but rather happens in reaction to something triggered by the pregnant woman.

  • JustinGatlinJustinGatlin Posts: 7

    I think careful analysis of the text is key here. Is "leaped" a word that is phenomenologically used, the way we describe a baby as "kicking"? It is only used in Luke 1:41, Luke 1:44 and Luke 6:23 in the NT. It is used 7 times in the LXX, but the relevant one is Jacob and Esau struggling in utero in Genesis 25:22. Clearly Rebekah took this as indications of their personality and when Jacob hung onto Esau's heel in birth, he was named "Supplanter" in response. So the only use of babies "leaping" in the Old Testament is used in a way that matches the idea that unborn children are human and conscious. This is also the use of the word in Rabbinic literature, which speculated about how children acted with intent even before their birth. Kittel explicitly says that there is "There is no lexical support for the view of E. Norden, Die Geburt des Kindes3 (1958), 104 that σκιρτάω is a Jewish Hell. term for the movements of an infant in the womb."

    The addition of the phrase "for joy" makes the case even simpler. "Baby" is the subject (notably to the idea of developing a biblical idea of the beginning of life, the same word for "infant" is used of the preborn John and the newborn Jesus in Luke 2:12). The verb is leaped and it is qualified with "in joy." The joy in this sense cannot grammatically refer to anyone except the baby. The plain reading of the text, which is help up under careful examination, is that when Elizabeth heard Mary's voice, John did too and leaped for joy at the same moment. Elizabeth was not just excited to see her cousin, as the following text indicates, it was the baby in Mary's womb that caused John's prophetic reaction. Your reading that "In response to Elizabeth's excitement over Mary's tissue that would become Jesus, the tissue that would become John leaped" is simply fanciful.

    Your entire interpretation, @Wolfgang , is built on a fallacy about the way words work. Jesus deliberately engages in wordplay in John 3 with a word that can mean either "wind" or "spirit." In the same way, "breath" and "spirit" are used in wordplay in the creation account, to show that the life was directly and intimately given from God. To make it into a literal definition of life tied to breathing, with no other evidence, reflects a pretty naive understanding of the languages.

    Secondarily, let's consider the science. It has been well established that babies can hear the noise around them in utero, As early as 24 weeks, babies turn their heads to sounds and a major study was done of adopted babies who were in Korea before they were born, were raised in a Nordic country and then tried to learn Korean when they were older. Amazingly, they learned Korean faster than their peers, when the only advantage they had was before their birth. So the scientific evidence supports the biblical text here.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,054

    @Wolfgang posted:

    The gospel text does state what Elisabeth said ... the gospel text as such does NOT teach or claim that the babe leaped for joy in the womb.

    I quoted the part that was relevant to clarifying WHO according to the gospel narrative actually SAID what you worded as "the text says". The gospel text does not state or teach that the babe in the womb acted because it heard something and made a conscious decision "to leap for joy". The gospel text states and teaches that Elisabeth in her words described what happened inside her when she heard Mary's greeting.

    You seem to distinguish between what the text "states" and what it "teaches" or "claims." Help me understand why that distinction matters. The text states, teaches, and claims that Elizabeth told Mary her child leapt for joy in her womb when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting. What's more, at no point does the text dispute Elizabeth's contention. On what basis can you argue that Luke doesn't believe Elizabeth is telling the truth, or that the point of Elizabeth's claim is not that she thinks her child reacted to Mary's greeting?


    Why did you eliminate my simple incident which I mentioned at the end of post which clarifies how the text about "babe doing something in the womb" is not ofi ts own conscious decision, but rather happens in reaction to something triggered by the pregnant woman.0

    The example of your and your pregnant wife's encounter at an airport basically repeated the point you made earlier in the same post when of the movement of Elizabeth's baby you wrote, "It seems clear that Elisabeth was rather joyful at that moment, and it would very possible that her reaction and emotional response triggered the babe's leaps." Of your child's movement at the airport you wrote, "Obviously the reaction of joy of my wife triggered the babe to move." Because I saw no substantive difference between the point of your airport story and your conclusion about Elizabeth's child's leap for joy to which I had just at length responded, I saw no need to respond to it separately. [NOTE: The similarity of the two stories is made obvious by the fact that In each case you identified the cause of the child's movement with the same verb - "triggered."] By responding to the first story, I think I responded to the second story.

    And I must note that curiosity about my "elimination" of your airport story is rich coming from you, a poster who over the years and still to this day has never acknowledged, let alone addressed, countless questions and comments I left for you in my responses to your posts, even though I posed each of them to you multiple times.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,737
    edited July 9

    @Bill_Coley You seem to distinguish between what the text "states" and what it "teaches" or "claims." Help me understand why that distinction matters.

    Perhaps you will get the message from some examples?

    The Bible text says, there is no God

    Ps 53,1 (AV)

    The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: [there is] none that doeth good.

    The Bible text also says, Ye shall not surely die.

    Gen 3,4 (AV)

    And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

    I would hope you get the point of what the Bible says ....

    On what basis can you argue that Luke doesn't believe Elizabeth is telling the truth, or that the point of Elizabeth's claim is not that she thinks her child reacted to Mary's greeting?

    I consider what Luke wrote is the truth, just as I consider what may wife told me to be the truth. I consider what some make of it in their interpretation to be ideologically influenced error which leads to interpret literally what is not necessarily meant literally. Do you really think the babe literally LEAPED in the womb???? Take a leap and then think if that is what happened in the womb.

    Post edited by Wolfgang on
  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,737
    edited July 9

    Here are some questions for you advertisers of the idea that "a babe in the womb" (also called "fruit of the womb") is a (full functioning? consciously thinking?) baby:

    From what point in time from conception onward is the fetus a living human baby?

    Is a human being Biblically described and defined as a living being , a living soul, able to live on its own?

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,737

    @JustinGatlin wrote

    Your entire interpretation, @Wolfgang , is built on a fallacy about the way words work.

    Well, perhaps it is common for translators after school, college and a few decades of work experience to not know the way words work ? 😉

    Looking at your paragraph regarding the word "leap", you seem to think that the so-called "word studies" method (that is, checking the uses of greek words in NT and then concluding a meaning etc from that) to provide the answers you are looking for. What you don't seem to realize is the fact that the meaning of words is always determined by their immediate context. In particular, immediate context usually provides also the means to determine if a word is used in its lexical literal sense or as part of a figure of speech for emphasis. The same applies for correctly understanding grammatical points involved in a passage (tenses, voices, etc.)

    The word "leap" in the immediate context of "in my womb" shows without any further look at any other verse etc that the term is not used in its literal sense, as there is no possibility for any literal "leaping" in a woman's womb. Simple, plain and clear ... isn't it?

  • Life starts at conception and is a baby.

    The spirit is given at conception

    It would not grow if it didn't have a spirit, for the body without the spirit is dead.


    James 2:6 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Sign In or Register to comment.