Abortion...I would call this a theological issue

[Green Cochoa]

4 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Exodus 21:22 "If people are fighting with each other and happen to hurt a pregnant woman so badly that her unborn child dies, then, even if no other harm follows, he must be fined. He must pay the amount set by the woman's husband and confirmed by judges. (Exo 21:22 CJB)

No death penalty here. 

That, I think, is the biggest question here.  There is an obvious difference between receiving capital punishment and being fined.  If the fine were applied to the loss of the fetus, it shows clearly a distinction between a fetus and a post-birth infant.  The death penalty was administered only for serious crimes like murder, rape, and rebellion.  Killing did not incur such punishment, and the distinction between killing and murder is fairly clear in the Bible.  The KJV, unfortunately, mistranslated the sixth commandment.  It should have read "Thou shalt not murder."  The Hebrew word was translated as some form of murder, slay, or manslaughter in virtually every other instance, with the commandments being the exceptions in the rendering of "kill."  Other Hebrew words meaning "kill" are used to command such actions.  Obviously, God would not both command killing and condemn it as sin.  The Hebrew must be carefully studied, therefore, and understood on this point.  There are at least six words for killing in the Old Testament, each with its own meaning.  "Ratsach" is the one used for "murder."  God never commanded nor permitted this.

[Robert]

9 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

You make it appear that you believe only one sin exists: murder.

That's the context that we are discussing, or did you forget?

[Robert]

10 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

That, I think, is the biggest question here.  There is an obvious difference between receiving capital punishment and being fined.  If the fine were applied to the loss of the fetus, it shows clearly a distinction between a fetus and a post-birth infant.  The death penalty was administered only for serious crimes like murder, rape, and rebellion.  Killing did not incur such punishment, and the distinction between killing and murder is fairly clear in the Bible. 

Let's return to earth...let's return to logic & reason instead of hyperbole. 

Ex 21:22 “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide." NASB

“Now suppose two men are fighting, and in the process they accidentally strike a pregnant woman so she gives birth prematurely." NLT

The death penalty wasn't administered because it was an accident. You can't accidentally rape or murder

When a woman goes to an abortion clinic to terminate the life within her womb - she and the doctor are planning a murder.  That's premeditated and both the doctor and the woman should face a judge for such a heinous crime. 

 

 

 

. 

 

[Green Cochoa]

4 hours ago, Robert said:

That's the context that we are discussing, or did you forget?

Perhaps you were the one forgetting what you had posted. . . .

16 hours ago, Robert said:

Abortion is not murder.  Therefore it’s not sin. 

Let's see.  Rape is not murder.  Therefore it's not sin.  --Robert's logic

You may have been trying to depict my views in an ugly, straw man, fashion, but your Scripture-less sarcasm discredits your message, and illustrates more clearly where your logic may lead.

If the ones fighting who hurt the woman causing her to abort the baby were fined, obviously they had committed a wrong.  If they were punished with death, obviously they had committed a murder.  Both would be sins, don't you think?  Or is something a sin only if it's "murder"?

…which brings us back to the question of whether or not a miscarriage is "murder."  Would you go so far as to say, at the least, that it is a "sin"?

[Robert]

57 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

If the ones fighting who hurt the woman causing her to abort the baby were fined, obviously they had committed a wrong.  If they were punished with death, obviously they had committed a murder.  Both would be sins, don't you think?  Or is something a sin only if it's "murder"?

What you are endeavoring to imply is that the infant's life is less important and therefore abortion is not murder.  Shame! Perhaps this is how human nature justifies the unthinkable - that is, the murder of the unborn in the safety of its mother's womb!

Anyway, if you would but read my replies, I said: "The death penalty wasn't administered because it was an accident".  

 

 

[Green Cochoa]

25 minutes ago, Robert said:

What you are endeavoring to imply is that the infant's life is less important and therefore abortion is not murder.  Shame! Perhaps this is how human nature justifies the unthinkable - that is, the murder of the unborn in the safety of its mother's womb!

Anyway, if you would but read my replies, I said: "The death penalty wasn't administered because it was an accident".  

Well, if it was an accident, it wasn't murder.  The death penalty was for murder, not for involuntary manslaughter.  Read up on this in the Book of Numbers.  However, the loss of a fetus was not murder for other reasons, namely because it was not yet, Biblically speaking, possessed of a soul. Remember, the definition of the Hebrew "nephesh" (soul) is "that which breathes."  Fetuses who haven't taken their first breath yet do not count as their own persons yet.  Yes, they are alive.  But they have not reached the point of separation as their own person from their mother.

[Outta Here]

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

 

[Green Cochoa]

3 minutes ago, Aubrey said:

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

 

All of the Scriptures work together in a beautiful whole.  This verse is very relevant to this discussion, so thank you for bringing it in.  Let's take a closer look at that.

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, see, as soon as the voice of your salutation sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

No mention is made in that passage of Jesus.  Elizabeth says "as soon as the voice of your salutation sounded in my ears…"  She does not say "when the Messiah entered the room."  In fact, the Messiah was not there.  The Bible and Ellen White are clear that Jesus did not come to earth until He was born in Bethlehem. 

Hebrews 10:5 says "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me."

God and Christ knew from the beginning of the apostasy of Satan and of the fall of Adam through the deceptive power of the apostate. The plan of salvation was designed to redeem the fallen race, to give them another trial. Christ was appointed to the office of Mediator from the creation of God, set up from everlasting to be our substitute and surety. Before the world was made, it was arranged that the divinity of Christ should be enshrouded in humanity. "A body," said Christ, "hast thou prepared me." But He did not come in human form until the fullness of time had expired. Then He came to our world, a babe in Bethlehem (Review and Herald, Apr. 5, 1906). {LHU 74.6} 

These things are a mystery to us.  We cannot, perhaps, properly comprehend them.  Thankfully, it is not necessary to understand all of the details.  We have no need to get caught up in questions regarding how many chromosomes Christ had.  It suffices me to know that He came, lived a perfect life as my example, and took my death penalty upon Himself so that I may choose His gift of salvation in place of death.

[Green Cochoa]

"A body hast thou prepared me."  The Greek word for "body" (Gr. 4983) is the same Greek word used to distinguish between "body" and "soul" (Gr. 5590) in Matthew 10:28 where Jesus taught us not to fear those who kill the body but who cannot kill the soul.  Obviously, then, this "body" is separate from the concept of "soul," and one might even call it a "soulless body."  Before birth, this is the Bible's depiction of the fetus--a "body."  When it is born, and takes its first breath, it becomes "a living soul."  "Murder" entails the killing of a soul (Heb. nephesh) (see Numbers 35:11, 30).

[Robert]

1 hour ago, Green Cochoa said:

....the loss of a fetus was not murder for other reasons, namely because it was not yet, Biblically speaking, possessed of a soul. Remember, the definition of the Hebrew "nephesh" (soul) is "that which breathes."  Fetuses who haven't taken their first breath yet do not count as their own persons yet.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI

 

[Outta Here]

Interesting analysis. Thanks for sharing, while it certainly doesn't feel right to me (having reared two children of my own), it's worth studying, IMO. 

[Robert]

41 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

"A body hast thou prepared me."  The Greek word for "body" (Gr. 4983) is the same Greek word used to distinguish between "body" and "soul" (Gr. 5590) in Matthew 10:28 where Jesus taught us not to fear those who kill the body but who cannot kill the soul.  Obviously, then, this "body" is separate from the concept of "soul," and one might even call it a "soulless body."  Before birth, this is the Bible's depiction of the fetus--a "body."  When it is born, and takes its first breath, it becomes "a living soul."  "Murder" entails the killing of a soul (Heb. nephesh) (see Numbers 35:11, 30).

Heb 7:9 And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

 

[Green Cochoa]

As I earlier posted the definition for the Hebrew word for "soul" (nephesh), which has to do with "breath" as well, here is the definition for the Greek equivalent, psyche.

Lexicon Results

Strong's G5590 - psychē

ψυχή

Transliteration psychē		Pronunciation psü-khā' (Key)
Part of Speech feminine noun		Root Word (Etymology) From ψύχω (G5594)
TDNT Reference 9:608,1342	Vines View Entry

Outline of Biblical Usage

1. breath

   1. the breath of life

      1. the vital force which animates the body and shows itself in breathing

         1. of animals

         2. of men

   2. life

   3. that in which there is life

      1. a living being, a living soul

2. the soul

   1. the seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions (our heart, soul etc.)

   2. the (human) soul in so far as it is constituted that by the right use of the aids offered it by God it can attain its highest end and secure eternal blessedness, the soul regarded as a moral being designed for everlasting life

   3. the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death (distinguished from other parts of the body)

Notice two things: 

1) Again, the emphasis is on "breath."

2) The "soul" is differentiated from "the body" by definition.

[Robert]

Quote

"the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death "

The soul is " the seat of the feelings, desires, affections..."  When the body dies the soul ceases to exist.  You can't have one without the other - they are inseparable. 

This idea that you are presenting is pagan.  

Paganism perverts the spiritual.  Pagans view the body as evil, but the soul as good.  So to them when the body died the soul lived on for it was immortal.

 

 

[Robert]

25 minutes ago, Aubrey said:

 "it certainly doesn't feel right to me"

I would say that your gut feeling is a good indicator.  Be very careful what you accept as truth.

[Robert]

2 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

Fetuses who haven't taken their first breath yet do not count as their own persons yet. 

http://www.str.org/articles/does-a-fetus-have-a-soul#.V73dsPkrJpg

[Gregory Matthews]

Robert said below:

In an earlier post, Green had quoted from Strong's (Read that post if you wish to read the entire citation.).  Robert takes issue with a part of what Green had quoted from Strong's, which he is entitled to do.  add, some would argue that Robert is correct in suggesting that a specific part of Strong's is wrong.

But, in the quotation below, Robert states that the idea that Green is presenting is pagan.  That implies that Green agrees with that specific part of Strong's and therefore Green is supporting a pagan idea.  That is a false  leap of logic.     Green clearly intended to support an aspect of his position with the citation from Strong's.  In an effort to be intellectually honest, he included more of what Strong said than a smaller amount which supported his position.  He should be commended for this.   In short, there is no warrant to imply that Green is supporting a pagan idea.

NOTE:  Carried out to a logical conclusion, one might argue, as Robert has done, that Strong was presenting a pagan idea.  That may have been a personal belief of strong.  But, that is not the only logical conclusion that one might make as to what Strong said.  It is also possible that regardless of any personal belief that Strong may have hade, he was simply presenting a Hebrew/Biblical version that did NOT include the pagan aspects of this belief.  

In short, Green was much more correct and Biblical than Robert has been.

 

This idea that you are presenting is pagan.  

Paganism perverts the spiritual.  Pagans view the body as evil, but the soul as good.  So to them when the body died the soul lived on for it was immortal.

 

 

[Robert]

19 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

In short, Green was much more correct and Biblical than Robert has been.

Perhaps Green should be a lobbyist for the abortion industry?  That industry would love to have someone champion their cause...their justification in the termination of a soulless life.   He is, after all, crafty with the way he perverts the Scriptures.

 

[Green Cochoa]

In actual fact, the Bible can be its own expositor for the meaning of soul.  Strong's is not required.  It does, however, require some diligence in study.  See 2 Timothy 2:15.

Psalm 49:15 says "But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah."

Compare that with this:

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:  It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:  It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. . . . Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. (1 Corinthians 15:42-44, 50)

Our "natural body," evidently, need not be the same as our soul, for we will give it up in exchange for a "spiritual body," an incorruptible one.

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28)

Jesus made it pretty clear that the soul was something that transcended the body.  If killing the body does not kill the soul, why should we assume they are inseparable?  If I am a pagan for seeing a distinction between soul and body, it would appear Jesus was a pagan too.  Since that cannot have been the case, perhaps Robert's definition for pagan should be updated.

[Robert]

17 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28)

Jesus made it pretty clear that the soul was something that transcended the body.  If killing the body does not kill the soul, why should we assume they are inseparable?  If I am a pagan for seeing a distinction between soul and body, it would appear Jesus was a pagan too.  Since that cannot have been the case, perhaps Robert's definition for pagan should be updated.

Here Jesus is speaking of the first and second deaths. 

When you die everything ceases to exist.  That's because all three components, "body, soul and spirit" are interdependent. One cannot exist without the other.  

“I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die (the 1st death), yet shall he live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die (the 2nd death)." John 11:25,26

In the first death the unbeliever will be raised again to meet the "curse of the law". This is known as the 2nd resurrection. Hence the unbeliever will be restored to his previous, fallen condition.  All three components will once again be functioning. 

However, the 2nd death is goodbye to life forever with no possibility of a resurrection. Naturally then, in the 2nd death, both soul and body are forever gone.

[Robert]

14 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

Jesus made it pretty clear that the soul was something that transcended the body. 

David said: "His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish." Ps 146:4

According to your quote, the soul is "the seat of the feelings, desires, affections"..i.e.,mortal men's thoughts.  These perish.

So the soul cannot survive without the body to support it.   The soul perishes, but in the  2nd resurrection God restores fallen men's body, spirit and soul in order to meet the judgment.

[Robert]

It appears that Green is not the originator of what he has been presenting:

http://joeschwartz.net/life.htm

[Robert]

Counterpoint:

http://www.pregnantpause.org/abort/pcbible.htm

[Robert]

The "breath" argument

The "breath" argument is really the key point. The position of the Biblical pro-choicers is that the Bible equates life with breath, and as a person does not begin breathing until they are born, therefore they are not a living person, or not a person in some "Bibical sense", until they are born.

They quote several Biblical passages where life is connected with breath, such as:

 

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

-- Genesis 2:7 (KJV)

 

The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.

-- Job 33:4 (KJV)
[Poppy mis-cites this as "Job 33:44"]

Or in Ezekiel's vision of the valley of dry bones, when the bones come to life:

... and the breath came into them, and they lived ...

-- Ezekiel 37:10 (KJV)

But are such verses using breath as a criterion or definition of life? Or simply as a symbol or metaphor for life?

It is certainly interesting that, for example, God gave life to Adam by "breath[ing] into his nostrils the breath of life". But if we are to understand this as a literal, physical event and not simply as a metaphor, we must first ask, exactly what does it mean? When I read those words it brings to my mind a mental picture of God kneeling beside a lifeless Adam giving mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. But clearly this is a naive picture: God does not have a human-like body to perform such a procedure. Presumably we would have to understand this to mean that he caused the man to begin breathing. But once we say that, we realize that God must surely have done many other things for Adam to come to life -- he would have had to start the heart pumping, the kidneys purging, brain waves going, DNA replicating, etc, etc. (Unless we are to take it that the act of breathing somehow caused all these other life processes to begin also, without any further action on God's part.)

The obvious alternative understanding of this verse is that the Bible is using the word "breath" here simply as a symbol or an example of life processes. The point of the selection is that God caused the man to begin living. A full explanation of all the life processes this involved would have been long and tedious³ and beside the point.

The "breath argument" makes much of the fact that there are several places in the Bible where God brought someone to life or brought them back to life in a miraculous way, and it is described in terms of God "breathing into them" or "giving them breath". But this glosses over the fact that there are also a number of places in the Bible where God gives someone life and it is described in different terms. Surely the best known miraculous life-giving in the Bible is the resurrection of Lazarus:

 

When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face. Jesus said to them, "Take off the grave clothes and let him go."

-- John 11:43-44 (NIV)

Note that there is no mention here of Jesus or God breathing into Lazarus -- Jesus simply spoke.

Or to take an Old Testament example:

 

Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man's body into Elisha's tomb. When the body touched Elisha's bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.

-- II Kings 13:21 (NIV)

Again, no mention of anyone breathing into this unnamed man. He touches the bones of Elisha, and he comes back to life.

Indeed there is not even a mention here of either of these men beginning to breath when they revive. Rather, we are told that they "came out" or "stood up on his feet", that is, they got up and started walking around.

Breath is certainly an obvious sign of life, and so it should come as no surprise that the Bible sometimes points out that someone was breathing as a sign that he is alive. But to say that this proves that the Bible equates breath with life, and that therefore life begins when a baby draws his first breath, is totally unjustified. I could list many passages like the above that point out that someone is moving as a sign that he is alive. Does this mean that the Bible equates movement with life, and that therefore life begins when the unborn child first moves?

While there are many places where the Bible speaks of life and breath together, I cannot find even one where it states that "life is breath" or any such thing. On the other hand, there are a few verses where the Bible does equate life with something else. Most of these are clearly intended to be symbolic or poetic, such as the numerous quotes in Proverbs that "wisdom is life" or Jesus' statements that "my words are life". Ignoring these, the only thing I can find explicitly equated with life in the Bible is ... blood. For example:

 

For the life of a creature is in the blood.

-- Leviticus 17:11 (NIV)

Does this mean that the unborn child acquires a soul with his first drop of blood? That happens within the first couple of weeks of pregnancy, well before most women even know they are pregnant.

[Robert]

Executive summary

The key to the Biblical pro-choice argument is the claim that the Bible equates "life" with "breath". Therefore, they say, the unborn child is not truly a living person until he begins breathing, which does not happen until after birth.

But this argument is sustained by selecting Bible verses that link life and breath, while ignoring Bible verses that link life with something other than breath. They make much of Genesis 2:7, which describes God breathing life into Adam, but simply ignore verses like John 11:43-44, which describe Jesus speaking life into Lazarus.

The most likely explanation of the verses they cite, given the full context with other verses, is simply that in these the Bible is using breath as an example or a sign or sometimes a metaphor for life, using one life process to represent them all. In other verses other examples or metaphors are used, such as movement or blood. Such a usage should come as no surprise. Suppose you were present when someone who was near death was revived. How might you describe it? You might point out that you could suddenly see him taking breaths, that he moved, or spoke. You might mention seeing the light return to his eyes, or the color return to his face. If it happened in a hospital with fancy equipment hooked up you might note that his brain waves had restarted or the monitor showed heartbeat. Et cetera. The fact that a doctor might say, "Look, he's breathing, he's alive" would hardly be reason to conclude that medical science has proven that breath is the single, identifying characteristic of life.

The Bible uses many metaphors for life. It is not clear that any one of them is more significant than the others, or is to be taken more literally than the others. The Biblical pro-choice argument is based entirely on taking a few verses that use one of these metaphors -- breath --simply not mentioning the others, and then claiming that this proves that "Biblical life" is synonymous with breath.

 

Conclusion

So where does all this leave us?

Anyone who was hoping for an explicit Biblical statement on abortion will be disappointed. The Bible just does not spell it out in so many words.

If we look for a Biblical statement defining life or soul in measurable terms, the only statements that could plausibly be taken as a direct connection are the verses connecting life with blood. Perhaps this means that life begins when the unborn child first has blood. (At the latest we would have to say it is when the heart begins to beat, which comes about 5 weeks into pregnancy.) This is interesting, perhaps, but I would be reluctant to use it in a debate; I think it is just too weak.

Barring some startling new observation, it seems that the Bible is not going to clearly tell us when human life begins. And so we must turn to other sources for an answer. The obvious source is science. And medical science has clearly said that by every criterion they can apply, human life begins at conception.