When the soul enters the body
An interesting philosophical discuss revolves around the issue of when a human becomes a real person. You could argue that it is not until 18 in a legal sense, as this is the age you can vote, but I guess most people would say an earlier age. How about 10, when you are judged capable of telling right from wrong?
One thing that sets us apart from the beasts is our self-awareness. Perhaps we are only really us once we become self-aware, at 15 to 24 months.
Earlier still? Back in the womb, perhaps, when the brain forms:
Traditionally the "quickening" has been considered the important moment. This is when the mother first feels something move
Twenty three weeks is consider the age of viability, which fits with the above; babies born after this time have a fair chance of surviving.
The fact that babies can survive after such an early birth makes the birth itself a dubious cut-off point. There is a huge developmental difference between a baby born at 23 weeks and one born at full term, and the former will have to spend a long time in an artificial womb (which is what a neonatal intensive care unit effectively is).
It is a question that has no simple answer; the reality is probably that it is an on-going process, and any arbitrary cut-off will be unsatisfactory.
That is a big step to getting abortion illegal, and furthermore ensuring it never gets legalised in the future.
What is interesting to me is how these Christians twist the Bible to serve their needs. This is a web site about creationism first and foremost, but those same people who reject evolution because it contradicts the Genesis account are happy to ignore what the Bible says when it comes to abortion.
However, this relies on a mistranslation. If the woman miscarries, the man who hit her is fined, but not punished as though this was an actual person, as the anti-abortionists would have us believe. The "life for a life" sentiment is for the mother not the unborn. The mother is a person, and the normal rules apply. the unborn is not a person; the mother receives some financial compensation only.
God brings Adam to life by breathing on him, giving him life.
Several times in the Bible the expression "giving up the ghost" is used when someone dies. In Hebrew, it actually says dying breath. For the Biblical author, breathing was what defined life; when the breath was gone, life was gone (eg see discussion here).
For Biblical translators, they equated the dying breath with the spirit (or ghost). When you give your last breath, your soul comes out with it; the reverse of what happened to Adam. But this happened to people who were born of the womb too, not just Adam (Genesis was written before the concept of the spirit had been devised).
In fact the English word "spirit" comes from the Latin for breath, "spiritus". In Greek the word "pneuma" means breath, but also means spirit (we get words like pneumatic and pneumonia from it). See also this concordance relating breath to spirit for the Hebrew word "ruach".
It is a fact that in the ancient world breath and spirit were literally synonymous.
The Holy spirit that hovers above the waters right at the start of Genesis? That is the breath of God. So no wonder Adam comes alive when God breathes on him! But the breath is also the spirit, and at that moment Adam also receives a spirit.
A couple more illustrative verses:
We lose sight of this because we have separated breath and spirit into two different concepts, but that is just our modern perspective. To the ancients, they were the same. While you breathed you had a spirit; when you died, you let out your dying death, and your spirit departed - you gave up the ghost.
Now I appreciate the Bible is not explicit, but the natural consequence of this is that the spirit enters the body when the baby takes his first breath.
The first one is interesting as it gets translated two quite different ways.
It is tempting to just quote the first, and say that the Psalmist refers to a sin perpetrated be his mother and/or father when he was conceived. However, I think the real point here is that the Psalmist is saying that he is so wicked that he must have been made that way. Christian will often say man has a sinful nature, and the Psalmist here is saying that he has a downright wicked nature.
Surely no one can believe he was actually sinning from the moment of conception?
This is about the physical body developing in the mother. We all know that happens. It does not indicate that the foetus had a spirit while this was happening.
This refers to a time before conception. Either you have to claim that babies have spirits even before they are conceived or this verse cannot support the claim that the foetus is alive.
This is a story about a woman pregnant with twins who kick a lot. It would seem that the Christian belief is that these unborn babies are actually fighting each other in the womb, one trying to dominate the other in anticipation of the day that they will rule separate nations. A rather simpler explanation is that this was God telling her she had twins, so expect a lot of kicking, and by the way, this is what I foretell for them.
I have to acknowledge this is the best one. However, the Bible makes it clear that this was an exception:
Some commentary on that verse, both from here.
I presume people already appreciate Jesus' situation was unique.
At best verse in Luke supports the claim that the soul enters the body at some point during pregnancy; it offers no support to the claim that a fertilised egg has a soul.
It would seem as if God is responsible for whether a foetus miscarriages or not. Estimate vary from 30% to 50% of preganancies ending in miscarriage (the vast majority without the mother realisibng she was pregnant). All those poor innocent babies he chooses to murder...
Or maybe not. The ancient Hebrews would not have considered them individuals because they did not have breath/spirit. It is just the modern Christian, who ignores what the Bibles say, and so has to content with this dilemma.
This is an article by Henry Morris III, of the Institute for Creation Research. The point of the article is to establish that plants are not alive. His argument is that they are not "chay", the Hebrew for alive, and then gives some characteristics of "chay". One in particular is of interest:
A foetus does not have independant movement, and so is not "chay", and would not be considered alive (in this Hebrew sense of the word anyway). There is, then, an important difference in quality between the foetus (not chay) and the adult (chay) for the Biblical authors.
Again and again the Bible is telling us that a baby does not have a spirit, is not a proper person, until it takes its first death. Christians choose to ignore what their holy book says because it does not coincide with their opinion on abortion.
One thing that sets us apart from the beasts is our self-awareness. Perhaps we are only really us once we become self-aware, at 15 to 24 months.
Earlier still? Back in the womb, perhaps, when the brain forms:
Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration.http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise
Traditionally the "quickening" has been considered the important moment. This is when the mother first feels something move
Twenty three weeks is consider the age of viability, which fits with the above; babies born after this time have a fair chance of surviving.
The fact that babies can survive after such an early birth makes the birth itself a dubious cut-off point. There is a huge developmental difference between a baby born at 23 weeks and one born at full term, and the former will have to spend a long time in an artificial womb (which is what a neonatal intensive care unit effectively is).
It is a question that has no simple answer; the reality is probably that it is an on-going process, and any arbitrary cut-off will be unsatisfactory.
Abortion
Now let us throw religion into the mix. The Christian Right have decided that abortion is wrong (personally, I am not sure either way; as I said, there is no simple answer). Having decided abortion is wrong, they then need to twist the Bible to rationalise their opinion, and to force it on others. They have been fairly successful in the US; abortion is still legal, but the foetus now has rights too, as of 2003.That is a big step to getting abortion illegal, and furthermore ensuring it never gets legalised in the future.
What is interesting to me is how these Christians twist the Bible to serve their needs. This is a web site about creationism first and foremost, but those same people who reject evolution because it contradicts the Genesis account are happy to ignore what the Bible says when it comes to abortion.
Scripture
The Bible has little to say directly. A verse in Exodus appears to offer some support to anti-abortionists:Exodus 21:22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm,[d] then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
However, this relies on a mistranslation. If the woman miscarries, the man who hit her is fined, but not punished as though this was an actual person, as the anti-abortionists would have us believe. The "life for a life" sentiment is for the mother not the unborn. The mother is a person, and the normal rules apply. the unborn is not a person; the mother receives some financial compensation only.
Life and Breath
To the ancient peoples, life and breath were one and the same.Genesis 2:7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
God brings Adam to life by breathing on him, giving him life.
Several times in the Bible the expression "giving up the ghost" is used when someone dies. In Hebrew, it actually says dying breath. For the Biblical author, breathing was what defined life; when the breath was gone, life was gone (eg see discussion here).
Genesis 25:8-9 Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people. And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah
Genesis 35:29 And Isaac gave up the ghost, and died, and was gathered unto his people, being old and full of days: and his sons Esau and Jacob buried him
Genesis 49:33 And when Jacob had made an end of commanding his sons, he gathered up his feet into the bed, and yielded up the ghost, and was gathered unto his people
For Biblical translators, they equated the dying breath with the spirit (or ghost). When you give your last breath, your soul comes out with it; the reverse of what happened to Adam. But this happened to people who were born of the womb too, not just Adam (Genesis was written before the concept of the spirit had been devised).
In fact the English word "spirit" comes from the Latin for breath, "spiritus". In Greek the word "pneuma" means breath, but also means spirit (we get words like pneumatic and pneumonia from it). See also this concordance relating breath to spirit for the Hebrew word "ruach".
It is a fact that in the ancient world breath and spirit were literally synonymous.
The Holy spirit that hovers above the waters right at the start of Genesis? That is the breath of God. So no wonder Adam comes alive when God breathes on him! But the breath is also the spirit, and at that moment Adam also receives a spirit.
A couple more illustrative verses:
Job 33:4 The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.
Ezekiel 37:5 This is what the Sovereign Lord says to these bones: I will make breath[a] enter you, and you will come to life.
We lose sight of this because we have separated breath and spirit into two different concepts, but that is just our modern perspective. To the ancients, they were the same. While you breathed you had a spirit; when you died, you let out your dying death, and your spirit departed - you gave up the ghost.
Now I appreciate the Bible is not explicit, but the natural consequence of this is that the spirit enters the body when the baby takes his first breath.
What the Christians say
Christians dredge up all sorts of nonsense from their holy book to support their claims. Here are a few verses I have seen cited.The first one is interesting as it gets translated two quite different ways.
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
It is tempting to just quote the first, and say that the Psalmist refers to a sin perpetrated be his mother and/or father when he was conceived. However, I think the real point here is that the Psalmist is saying that he is so wicked that he must have been made that way. Christian will often say man has a sinful nature, and the Psalmist here is saying that he has a downright wicked nature.
Surely no one can believe he was actually sinning from the moment of conception?
Psalm 139:13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
This is about the physical body developing in the mother. We all know that happens. It does not indicate that the foetus had a spirit while this was happening.
Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew[a] you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
This refers to a time before conception. Either you have to claim that babies have spirits even before they are conceived or this verse cannot support the claim that the foetus is alive.
Genesis 25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the Lord.
23 And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
This is a story about a woman pregnant with twins who kick a lot. It would seem that the Christian belief is that these unborn babies are actually fighting each other in the womb, one trying to dominate the other in anticipation of the day that they will rule separate nations. A rather simpler explanation is that this was God telling her she had twins, so expect a lot of kicking, and by the way, this is what I foretell for them.
Luke 1:41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
I have to acknowledge this is the best one. However, the Bible makes it clear that this was an exception:
Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
Some commentary on that verse, both from here.
"Shall be filled with the Holy Ghost - Shall be Divinely designated to this particular office, and qualified for it, from his mother's womb - from the instant of his birth. One MS., two versions, and four of the primitive fathers read εν τῃ κοιλιᾳ, In the womb of his mother - intimating that even before he should be born into the world the Holy Spirit should be communicated to him. Did not this take place on the salutation of the Virgin Mary? - and is not this what is intended, Luke 1:44? To be filled with the Holy Ghost, implies having the soul influenced in all its powers, with the illuminating, strengthening, and sanctifying energy of the Spirit."
"and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb; or "whilst in his mother's womb", as the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions render it: like Jeremiah, he was sanctified, set apart, and ordained to be the prophet of the Highest, before he came out of his mother's womb; and was then under such an influence of the Spirit of God, as to leap in it for joy, at the salutation of the mother of Christ to his, Luke 1:41 and very early appeared to have the extraordinary gifts and graces of the Holy Ghost, qualifying him for his work,"
I presume people already appreciate Jesus' situation was unique.
At best verse in Luke supports the claim that the soul enters the body at some point during pregnancy; it offers no support to the claim that a fertilised egg has a soul.
Further thoughts
It is interesting to read this:Exodus 23:26 “There shall be no one miscarrying or barren in your land; I will fulfill the number of your days.”
Hosea 9:14 “Give them, O Lord-- what wilt Thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.”
It would seem as if God is responsible for whether a foetus miscarriages or not. Estimate vary from 30% to 50% of preganancies ending in miscarriage (the vast majority without the mother realisibng she was pregnant). All those poor innocent babies he chooses to murder...
Or maybe not. The ancient Hebrews would not have considered them individuals because they did not have breath/spirit. It is just the modern Christian, who ignores what the Bibles say, and so has to content with this dilemma.
This is an article by Henry Morris III, of the Institute for Creation Research. The point of the article is to establish that plants are not alive. His argument is that they are not "chay", the Hebrew for alive, and then gives some characteristics of "chay". One in particular is of interest:
Life has independent movement.
This may seem like either an obvious point or an irrelevant one. However, one of the descriptive terms that the Creator applied to living creatures was “movement.” The Hebrew word is ramas, used 17 times in the Old Testament—never about plants or vegetation of any kind. Living things move.
And living things eat plants! Plants do not travel from one location to another, except on the backs of animals, blown on the wind, or transported by men. They are “rooted.” They do not have the power of ramas. Living things have the ability to move independently, but plants do not.
A foetus does not have independant movement, and so is not "chay", and would not be considered alive (in this Hebrew sense of the word anyway). There is, then, an important difference in quality between the foetus (not chay) and the adult (chay) for the Biblical authors.
Again and again the Bible is telling us that a baby does not have a spirit, is not a proper person, until it takes its first death. Christians choose to ignore what their holy book says because it does not coincide with their opinion on abortion.
Comments
Post a Comment