Biblically, life begins at birth

[Panache]

it would appear from that passage that the soul is formed prior to entering the body and that it enters the body post conception.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? It says "before I formed you." There is no "you" in a lifeless clump of cells right? So it must be saying "before I formed your soul." How can one know a soul that has not yet been formed? This can only be a reference to divine foreknowlege, which gives no indication as to the moment of ensoulment.

 

[mac]

How did you arrive at that conclusion? It says "before I formed you." There is no "you" in a lifeless clump of cells right? So it must be saying "before I formed your soul." How can one know a soul that has not yet been formed? This can only be a reference to divine foreknowlege, which gives no indication as to the moment of ensoulment.

Well, to begin with, in Jeremiah we are not talking about either a body being formed from dust, nor an immaculate conception. So, we have to assume at least the organic portion of the "you" was created through good old fashioned shagging. This means that "I formed you" describes adding the soul to the existing flesh that was created through the previously mentioned shenanigans. While there is absolutely no way I can say that happened at conception, I can be relatively sure that "in the womb" means before birth.

But....let's assume I'm completely wrong. How does Jeremiah support your proclamation that "Biblically, life begins at birth."?

 

[Panache]

Well, to begin with, in Jeremiah we are not talking about either a body being formed from dust, nor an immaculate conception. So, we have to assume at least the organic portion of the "you" was created through good old fashioned shagging. This means that "I formed you" describes adding the soul to the existing flesh that was created through the previously mentioned shenanigans. While there is absolutely no way I can say that happened at conception, I can be relatively sure that "in the womb" means before birth.

But....let's assume I'm completely wrong. How does Jeremiah support your proclamation that "Biblically, life begins at birth."?

It doesn't, which is why I didn't try to use it in support of my proclamation. It says nothing whatsoever about when life begins. Look at the context. The point of the passage is to say that Jeremiah did not gain his status as a prophet by hard work and dedication in prophecy school, or by making the right choices in life. His birth, life and prophetic work was planned by God since before he was even concieved. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the moment of ensoulment.

If "I formed you" describes adding the soul to the organic material in the womb as you claim, then there was no Jeremiah formed before that for God to know. So why would He claim to know Jeremiah before He had formed a Jeremiah to know?

 

[mac]

It doesn't, which is why I didn't try to use it in support of my proclamation. It says nothing whatsoever about when life begins. Look at the context. The point of the passage is to say that Jeremiah did not gain his status as a prophet by hard work and dedication in prophecy school, or by making the right choices in life. His birth, life and prophetic work was planned by God since before he was even concieved. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the moment of ensoulment.

If "I formed you" describes adding the soul to the organic material in the womb as you claim, then there was no Jeremiah formed before that for God to know. So why would He claim to know Jeremiah before He had formed a Jeremiah to know?

Obviously, he knew the soul before it was in the body. Since it is the soul that returns to heaven (not the body), the soul constitutes the person as far as God is concerned.

 

[Panache]

Obviously, he knew the soul before it was in the body. Since it is the soul that returns to heaven (not the body), the soul constitutes the person as far as God is concerned.

And how did He know the soul if He had not yet formed it?

 

[Fletch]

So animals have possesion of God's breath?

God can breath life into anything,

And how did He know the soul if He had not yet formed it?

As an eternal being, He sees all things--beginning, middle and end--as an instantaneous whole. He knows the end of time before He set time in motion. He knew you before you were conceived, just as He knows the unborn children of your unborn children.

He is God, you know. He can do whatever the hell He wants.

 

[mac]

And how did He know the soul if He had not yet formed it?

Saying that he knew him before leads me to beleive that formed you is the process of combining soul and body, because like you said, it makes no sense otherwise.

 

[Panache]

Saying that he knew him before leads me to beleive that formed you is the process of combining soul and body, because like you said, it makes no sense otherwise.

That still doesn't make sense. Why would He say "formed you" if Jeremiah had already been formed? Shouldn't He have instead said "I knew you before I placed in this body?" The Hebrew word here is yatsar. Strong's Number 3335 Hebrew Dictionary of the Old Testament Online Bible with Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon, Etymology, Translations Definitions Meanings & Key Word Studies - Lexiconcordance.com which means to form, fashion, make, etc... It has no connotation of putting something already made into something else already made.

The only way it makes sense for God to say "I knew you before I made you" is if God had some sort of foreknowledge of who Jer would be once He was made. Much like a potter might know every detail of a vessel he plans to shape, before he has shaped it.

For a potter to say "I knew what I was going to make before I made it", gives no indication as to what point the vessel was actually shaped.

 

[mac]

That still doesn't make sense. Why would He say "formed you" if Jeremiah had already been formed? Shouldn't He have instead said "I knew you before I placed in this body?" The Hebrew word here is yatsar. Strong's Number 3335 Hebrew Dictionary of the Old Testament Online Bible with Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon, Etymology, Translations Definitions Meanings & Key Word Studies - Lexiconcordance.com which means to form, fashion, make, etc... It has no connotation of putting something already made into something else already made.

To form, fashion, or make does not rule out adding a soul to flesh in order to complete the mortal person in the whole sense. If the soul is biblical personhood, and the soul pre-exists the flesh...then it makes perfect sense that God (who hangs out with souls) new the Jeremiah that he would know. Jeremiah's soul.

The only way it makes sense for God to say "I knew you before I made you" is if God had some sort of foreknowledge of who Jer would be once He was made. Much like a potter might know every detail of a vessel he plans to shape, before he has shaped it.

For a potter to say "I knew what I was going to make before I made it", gives no indication as to what point the vessel was actually shaped.

You argument makes sense, but doesn't rule out mine. Neither of us can know what God knows, so it's possible either or both of us (at least partially) are right.

 

[Panache]

To form, fashion, or make does not rule out adding a soul to flesh in order to complete the mortal person in the whole sense. If the soul is biblical personhood, and the soul pre-exists the flesh...then it makes perfect sense that God (who hangs out with souls) new the Jeremiah that he would know. Jeremiah's soul.



You argument makes sense, but doesn't rule out mine. Neither of us can know what God knows, so it's possible either or both of us (at least partially) are right.

To make necessitates that the object to be made not be made yet prior to the making. To claim that there was a Jeremiah already made for God to know before Jeremiah was made is absurd.

My argument doesn't require redefining yatsar to mean something else.

 

[Peter Grimm]

From Exodus:

22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

 

[Panache]

From Exodus:

22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Do a word study on yatsa. "gives birth prematurely" means "miscarries"

 

[Panache]

[SUP]"23[/SUP] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," Romans 3:23

Has a fertilized egg sinned, or is Romans 3 in error?

 

[Peter Grimm]

Do a word study on yatsa. "gives birth prematurely" means "miscarries"

Why does Exodus say to take "life for life" if not to acknowledge the life of the unborn child?

 

[Panache]

Why does Exodus say to take "life for life" if not to acknowledge the life of the unborn child?

Obviously it is acknowledging the life of the woman who was attacked in the first place. Otherwise, the rest of it doesn't make sense.

"But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Babies don't have teeth.

It looks like you are using NIV. Take a gander at footnote e on that page.

The most clear and obvious interpretation of the passage is that if a woman is struck so that she miscarries, the offender must pay a fine. If she is struck so that she dies, the offender is put to death. If she is struck so that she loses a tooth, the offender will have a tooth removed, etc...

 

[Peter Grimm]

Obviously it is acknowledging the life of the woman who was attacked in the first place. Otherwise, the rest of it doesn't make sense.

"But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Babies don't have teeth.

It looks like you are using NIV. Take a gander at footnote e on that page.

The most clear and obvious interpretation of the passage is that if a woman is struck so that she miscarries, the offender must pay a fine. If she is struck so that she dies, the offender is put to death. If she is struck so that she loses a tooth, the offender will have a tooth removed, etc...

That's one possible interpretation.

However, note that the Bible is quoting from the Code of Hammurabi, written 1780 B.C. "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"

It's a notion that for every wrong done there should be an equal compensating measure of justice.

I would argue the Bible is not literally referring to teeth, but rather citing the most famous code of law at the time and its underlying philosophy of just compensation.

The woman's life is not being discussed, rather the damage done to her unborn child. If the child is born prematurely but survives, the offender pays a fine. If the child is miscarried, the offender is put to death.


Exodus: 22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

 

[Panache]

That's one possible interpretation.

However, note that the Bible is quoting from the Code of Hammurabi, written 1780 B.C. "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"

It's a notion that for every wrong done there should be an equal compensating measure of justice.

I would argue the Bible is not literally referring to teeth, but rather citing the most famous code of law at the time and its underlying philosophy of just compensation.

The woman's life is not being discussed, rather the damage done to her unborn child. If the child is born prematurely but survives, the offender pays a fine. If the child is miscarried, the offender is put to death.


Exodus: 22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

I was with you right up until the end there. You are absolutely right about the Bible referencing the Code of Hammurabi, but not just for the bit about an eye for an eye. The laws regarding compensation for misscarriage are straight out of Hammurabi's code, article 209:

"209. If a man has struck a free woman with child, and has caused her to miscarry, he shall pay ten shekels for her miscarriage. "

And the bit about what to do if the woman also dies? You guessed it. 210:

"210. If that woman die, his daughter shall be killed. "

Code of Hammurabi

Just as you said, the Bible is 'citing the most famous code of law at the time and its underlying philosophy of just compensation."

According to the Code of Hammurabi, just compensation is money for miscarriage, and life for life if an actual person dies.

 

[Peter Grimm]

I was with you right up until the end there. You are absolutely right about the Bible referencing the Code of Hammurabi, but not just for the bit about an eye for an eye. The laws regarding compensation for misscarriage are straight out of Hammurabi's code, article 209:

"209. If a man has struck a free woman with child, and has caused her to miscarry, he shall pay ten shekels for her miscarriage. "

And the bit about what to do if the woman also dies? You guessed it. 210:

"210. If that woman die, his daughter shall be killed. "

Code of Hammurabi

Just as you said, the Bible is 'citing the most famous code of law at the time and its underlying philosophy of just compensation."

According to the Code of Hammurabi, just compensation is money for miscarriage, and life for life if an actual person dies.

Biblical law is hardly "straight out of Hammurabi's code."

In this instance, Hammurabi's law deals only with free women, whereas the Bible makes no such distinction. Hammurabi's code spells out the compensation to be ten shekels, the Bible states it should be up to the husband of the woman to determine the amount.

The point is that clearly, they differ.

The Bible references Hammurabi's Code as a literary device, not to imply a strict application of Hammurabi's law which it clearly contradicts. We are to understand that just compensation is required for crimes.

The use as a literary device is evidenced by how the Bible poeticizes the language: "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

The language is ordered in to eight symmetrical couplets.

Much in the same way that we today understand "eye for an eye" to mean more than just eyeballs, people of that time would have understood the passage to refer to the concept that punishment should fit the crime.

Thus, we should read the biblical passage for what it actually says. Murder and injury are dealt with in other parts of the book. This passage deals specifically with forced miscarriages, about which it states that a life should be taken for a life.

(Note also, the phrase "life for life" does not appear in Hammurabi's text, this is unique to the Bible. Clearly, the Biblical author wanted to emphasize this aspect of the crime.)

 

[Panache]

Biblical law is hardly "straight out of Hammurabi's code."

In this instance, Hammurabi's law deals only with free women, whereas the Bible makes no such distinction. Hammurabi's code spells out the compensation to be ten shekels, the Bible states it should be up to the husband of the woman to determine the amount.

The point is that clearly, they differ.

The Bible references Hammurabi's Code as a literary device, not to imply a strict application of Hammurabi's law which it clearly contradicts. We are to understand that just compensation is required for crimes.

The use as a literary device is evidenced by how the Bible poeticizes the language: "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

The language is ordered in to eight symmetrical couplets.

Much in the same way that we today understand "eye for an eye" to mean more than just eyeballs, people of that time would have understood the passage to refer to the concept that punishment should fit the crime.

Thus, we should read the biblical passage for what it actually says. Murder and injury are dealt with in other parts of the book. This passage deals specifically with forced miscarriages, about which it states that a life should be taken for a life.

(Note also, the phrase "life for life" does not appear in Hammurabi's text, this is unique to the Bible. Clearly, the Biblical author wanted to emphasize this aspect of the crime.)

You entirely missed your own point. The Code of Hammurabi was being referenced as a point of comparison.

The Hammurabi Code has three different amounts set for inducing miscarriage in three different types of women.

The penalty in Israel was issued in direct comparison as an amount determined by the husband and allowed by the court regardless of the typeof woman involved.

The Hammurabi Code then goes on to prescribe a penalty if the woman is killed.

The Bible gives a direct comparison for this as well. The penalty is necessary apart from regular old murder laws because women often died from an induced late term miscarriage from things like puerperal fever. Under normal circumstances, someone dying of illness would not be considered a murder. In this case it is.

 

[Peter Grimm]

You entirely missed your own point. The Code of Hammurabi was being referenced as a point of comparison.

The Hammurabi Code has three different amounts set for inducing miscarriage in three different types of women.

The penalty in Israel was issued in direct comparison as an amount determined by the husband and allowed by the court regardless of the typeof woman involved.

The Hammurabi Code then goes on to prescribe a penalty if the woman is killed.

The Bible gives a direct comparison for this as well. The penalty is necessary apart from regular old murder laws because women often died from an induced late term miscarriage from things like puerperal fever. Under normal circumstances, someone dying of illness would not be considered a murder. In this case it is.

Hammurabi's Code was only referenced in the bible as a literary device, because it was commonly known that "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" meant that for every wrong done there should be an equal compensating measure of justice.

That's really the extent of it.

One has to distinguish between the overarching philosophy in this case, with which the biblical account is in agreement, and the specifics, with which the biblical account diverges.

In other words, the reference to Hammurabi's Code is not a vindication of Hammurabi's Code, it's simply a poetic and shorthand way of communicating a message: have the punishment fit the crime.

Beyond that, I think you're getting too specific with it... at least more so than was likely intended.

Your point about forced miscarriage causing puerperal fever, and therefore being classified as a separate crime, is interesting and plausible. However, it seems too speculative to me to accept at face value. Most likely, murder would still have been seen as murder.

The most direct reading of the passage in Exodus, based on the language used, seems to suggest that the crime in question is the damage to the unborn child. However, I will grant you that the wording is not clear enough to make that assertion 100% conclusive.

 

[Panache]

Hammurabi's Code was only referenced in the bible as a literary device, because it was commonly known that "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" meant that for every wrong done there should be an equal compensating measure of justice.

That's really the extent of it.

One has to distinguish between the overarching philosophy in this case, with which the biblical account is in agreement, and the specifics, with which the biblical account diverges.

In other words, the reference to Hammurabi's Code is not a vindication of Hammurabi's Code, it's simply a poetic and shorthand way of communicating a message: have the punishment fit the crime.

Beyond that, I think you're getting too specific with it... at least more so than was likely intended.

Your point about forced miscarriage causing puerperal fever, and therefore being classified as a separate crime, is interesting and plausible. However, it seems too speculative to me to accept at face value. Most likely, murder would still have been seen as murder.

The most direct reading of the passage in Exodus, based on the language used, seems to suggest that the crime in question is the damage to the unborn child. However, I will grant you that the wording is not clear enough to make that assertion 100% conclusive.

How can you read this:

"*22If 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.

*23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

*24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

*25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

And this

"209. If a man has struck a free woman with child, and has caused her to miscarry, he shall pay ten shekels for her miscarriage.


210. If that woman die, his daughter shall be killed. "

And not see a connection? Lots of Pentateuch laws were clearly modeled after the code of Hammurabi, and this is one of them.

 

[Peter Grimm]

How can you read this:

"*22If 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.

*23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

*24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

*25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

And this

"209. If a man has struck a free woman with child, and has caused her to miscarry, he shall pay ten shekels for her miscarriage.


210. If that woman die, his daughter shall be killed. "

And not see a connection? Lots of Pentateuch laws were clearly modeled after the code of Hammurabi, and this is one of them.

There are similarities, but there are substantial departures as well that pop out from that text. The author of Exodus was clearly familiar with Hammurabi's Code, but clearly differed in many areas.

Since differences are plain and evident, we can't superimpose the message from Hammurabi's Code to the Bible.

 

[Panache]

There are similarities, but there are substantial departures as well that pop out from that text. The author of Exodus was clearly familiar with Hammurabi's Code, but clearly differed in many areas.

Since differences are plain and evident, we can't superimpose the message from Hammurabi's Code to the Bible.

We can however establish a context for what it means for "fruit to depart from her." Given the striking similarity to Hammurai's Code, if the Exodus author had meant something other than miscarriage, they would have specified a distinction to set it apart.

A lack of such distinction suggests that the reader, being familiar with the well known code of Hammurabi would understand that the context being spoken of was the relatively common occurance of miscarriage rather than the almost non-existant occurance of trauma induced premature labour with no negative consequence to either mother or child.

 

[Peter Grimm]

We can however establish a context for what it means for "fruit to depart from her." Given the striking similarity to Hammurai's Code, if the Exodus author had meant something other than miscarriage, they would have specified a distinction to set it apart.

A lack of such distinction suggests that the reader, being familiar with the well known code of Hammurabi would understand that the context being spoken of was the relatively common occurance of miscarriage rather than the almost non-existant occurance of trauma induced premature labour with no negative consequence to either mother or child.

First, let's look at a more modern translation since neither of us are in the habit of calling children "fruit."

Here's the NIV translation. "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

If she gives birth prematurely but there is no injury, there is a fine. I think in this context, the text refers to injury to the child. You don't "give birth" to a miscarriage. You give birth to a living baby, so it is implied through the language that the child is fine.

If there is serious injury, the penalty is "life for life," which is a phrase unique to the Bible and not found in Hammurabi's code. It's meant that we should value the life and take life for life.

The author never specifically mentioned Hammurabi's Code. It simply steals the lines "eye for an eye" and "tooth for a tooth." If the specific ordinance were meant to be the read the same, wouldn't the author have just referred us to Hammurabi and pointed us to the specific code?

Also, in Hammurabi's Code, "eye for an eye" and "tooth for a tooth" are actually not found together. They are in separate ordinances, dealing with different things. This is further evidence that it is not the specifics of the rule that the Bible is teaching, but the general principle of equal repayment for ones crimes.

 

[Ikari]

I don't use religion to conclude that life begins at conception.