Bible tells us life begins in the womb

[thyrodandstaff]

thyrodandstaff

These Deuterocanonical books are: Tobit, Judith, First and Second Maccabees, The Book of Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus (NOT to be confused with Ecclesiastes, which is accepted as canonical by all Christian churches).

Ecclesiastes 11:5

11:5 Just as you do not know how the life breath enters the human frame in the mother’s womb, So you do not know the work of God, who is working in everything.

Here the Bible states that life begins in the womb, and both Catholic and Protestants have this book in their Bibles.

All those pro-choice Catholics should be reminded of this before election day!

 

[Kasama]

There are a few more:

catholic-voter.com/Pages/Bible.htm

 

[Megan7]

thyrodandstaff

These Deuterocanonical books are: Tobit, Judith, First and Second Maccabees, The Book of Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus (NOT to be confused with Ecclesiastes, which is accepted as canonical by all Christian churches).

Ecclesiastes 11:5

11:5 Just as you do not know how the life breath enters the human frame in the mother’s womb, So you do not know the work of God, who is working in everything.

Here the Bible states that life begins in the womb, and both Catholic and Protestants have this book in their Bibles.

All those pro-choice Catholics should be reminded of this before election day!

Thanks!

 

[GratefulFred]

Thanks, Kasama, for the link. I will pass it along. Catholics, other Christians, and Jews need to be reminded what the Bible tells us.

Because so many Americans want to ignore religious teachings, I am looking for solid sources to support what I understand:

From the moment of conception, there is new life with all the DNA and chromsomes of a separate human being, neither the mother, nor the father.

This new life begins to grow immediately and is innocent. This new life deserves protection and the mother deserves support. Fathers should be held accountable.

 

[Kasama]

Thanks, Kasama, for the link. I will pass it along. Catholics, other Christians, and Jews need to be reminded what the Bible tells us.

Because so many Americans want to ignore religious teachings, I am looking for solid sources to support what I understand:

From the moment of conception, there is new life with all the DNA and chromsomes of a separate human being, neither the mother, nor the father.

This new life begins to grow immediately and is innocent. This new life deserves protection and the mother deserves support. Fathers should be held accountable.

Your welcome, that is one of my favorite sites. Check out the video section.

Catholic-Voter.com

 

[chosen_people]

thyrodandstaff

These Deuterocanonical books are: Tobit, Judith, First and Second Maccabees, The Book of Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus (NOT to be confused with Ecclesiastes, which is accepted as canonical by all Christian churches).

Ecclesiastes 11:5

11:5 Just as you do not know how the life breath enters the human frame in the mother’s womb, So you do not know the work of God, who is working in everything.

Here the Bible states that life begins in the womb, and both Catholic and Protestants have this book in their Bibles.

All those pro-choice Catholics should be reminded of this before election day!

כַּאֲשֶׁר אֵינְךָ יוֹדֵעַ מַה-דֶּרֶךְ הָרוּחַ, כַּעֲצָמִים בְּבֶטֶן הַמְּלֵאָה: כָּכָה, לֹא תֵדַע אֶת-מַעֲשֵׂה הָאֱלֹהִים, אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה, אֶת-הַכֹּל.

Well for those who can read and understand the Hebrew, what it actually says is:
“Just as you do not know the way of the wind,nor the nature of the embryo in a pregnant stomach, so can you never know the work of God Who makes everything.”

 

[Nita]

כַּאֲשֶׁר אֵינְךָ יוֹדֵעַ מַה-דֶּרֶךְ הָרוּחַ, כַּעֲצָמִים בְּבֶטֶן הַמְּלֵאָה: כָּכָה, לֹא תֵדַע אֶת-מַעֲשֵׂה הָאֱלֹהִים, אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה, אֶת-הַכֹּל.

Well for those who can read and understand the Hebrew, what it actually says is:
“Just as you do not know the way of the wind,nor the nature of the embryo in a pregnant stomach, so can you never know the work of God Who makes everything.”

I do not know Hebrew, but I do know that “ruah” is also translated “spirit” (as well as “wind”).

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Judges 13:7

‘Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean, for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from womb to the day of his death.’"

This is from the KJ version. RSV uses birth.

Psalm 58:3

3 The wicked go astray from the womb, they err from their birth, speaking lies.

RSV

 

[Oldtimer_7]

One thing that I have tried to understand in my denomination is when and why the wording of the Apostles Creed was changed from “the quick and the dead” to “the living and the dead.” I recently spoke at a church that used the older text in English, which brought the question back to mind. Quickening usually occurs around the fourth month, not at conception. Any ideas or comments?

 

[chosen_people]

Judges 13:7 This is from the KJ version. RSV uses birth.

Psalm 58:3 RSV

The wicked are “estranged” from the womb (in Hebrew “זרו”) not led astray. It is the action of the mother’s feelings toward her unborn child. Again faulty translation.

 

[ahs]

One thing that I have tried to understand in my denomination is when and why the wording of the Apostles Creed was changed from “the quick and the dead” to “the living and the dead.” I recently spoke at a church that used the older text in English, which brought the question back to mind. Quickening usually occurs around the fourth month, not at conception. Any ideas or comments?

Not “quickening”, but “quick”. It refers to the living.

noun
15. living persons: the quick and the dead.
16. the tender, sensitive flesh of the living body, especially that under the nails: nails bitten down to the quick.
17. the vital or most important part.

 

[wes144]

I like the King James Version on this text as well as many others.
Ecclesiastes 11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.
Remember, Solomon, the wisest man that ever lived wrote Ecclesiastes which means “the Preacher”.

If the child doesn’t grow, it is not alive. There is no lull from conception through birth except when wicked hands of doctors that are supposed to “do no harm”, violate their Medical oath and the Commandments of God and kill the baby!

 

[Oldtimer_7]

AHS, we both agree that quick means living, but quick refers to those who have begun moving in the womb. In the Oxford English Dictionary, defination 4a says: “Quick with child, said of a female in the stage of pregnancy in which the motion of the foetus is felt. Now rare or obselete.” The earliest citation is from about 1450. From the numbers you use in your post, it looks like you have copied from some other source that goes into a good deal of detail. Not that I am challenging you or attempting a battle of definitions, but what is your source? Thanks in advance.

 

[Orianna]

thyrodandstaff

These Deuterocanonical books are: Tobit, Judith, First and Second Maccabees, The Book of Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus (NOT to be confused with Ecclesiastes, which is accepted as canonical by all Christian churches).

Ecclesiastes 11:5

11:5 Just as you do not know how the life breath enters the human frame in the mother’s womb, So you do not know the work of God, who is working in everything.

Here the Bible states that life begins in the womb, and both Catholic and Protestants have this book in their Bibles.

All those pro-choice Catholics should be reminded of this before election day!

Hmmmm… to be honest, this is stating that life does not begin in the wooden table, it begin is the mothers womb… surely, we all know that!

The bible verse was directed here at clarifying the mystery of God, the unknown that only He knows… it is presumptuous to state something beyond that obvious point… or that we now DO know this answer!.. stay humble, stay open to a further and unknown truth. In thinking you now understand the exact moment when life enters the womb, you actually prove the point of the prophet, i.e. only God knows!

 

[wes144]

My Source is the Bible. Just because a movement is not felt does not mean the child that is beginning to growis not alive. Logically the handwork of God in the womb

Here is a small sampling. Job 31:15 Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?
Ecclesiastes 11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.
Hoseah 12:3 He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God:
Luke 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
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.
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:
The bottom line is if there is any point after conception that the child is not alive it will naturally abort and the mother will no longer be pregnant.

 

[Orianna]

My Source is the Bible. Just because a movement is not felt does not mean the child that is beginning to growis not alive. Logically the handwork of God in the womb

Here is a small sampling. Job 31:15 Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?
Ecclesiastes 11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.
Hoseah 12:3 He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God:
Luke 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
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.
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:
The bottom line is if there is any point after conception that the child is not alive it will naturally abort and the mother will no longer be pregnant.

These arguments make too many assumptions that is not in the text! Some of your scripture compilation refers to arguments that might be useful regarding reincarnation of souls, spirits in limbo before its chosen mother, the exceptional and holy vs. normal birth of Christ (how can the virgin birth of Christ be used to argue pro-life w/o addressing something is different about His birth?)… and yet these quotes are grouped as proof that life begins at conception.

Though I am a Catholic, I accept my knowledge and that of the wisest and most brilliant scholars is faulty, short in understanding, thus we must guard against using controversial or unclear writings to drive home points we believe in…, If there are many ways to read a passage, what we believe is only our interpretation and logical, critical analysis are necessary steps, for the sake of credibility.

Further, whereas in the times of Christ, no one understood the process of fertilization, meiosis, genetics, etc. only that from the womb comes life… the big question of pro-life, ‘WHEN does life begin?’ cannot be deciphered from those writings! Otherwise, the writing would have addressed this specifically. Rather, you have answered without footing for debate ‘WHERE does life begin?’

 

[ahs]

AHS, we both agree that quick means living, but quick refers to those who have begun moving in the womb. In the Oxford English Dictionary, defination 4a says: “Quick with child, said of a female in the stage of pregnancy in which the motion of the foetus is felt. Now rare or obselete.” The earliest citation is from about 1450. From the numbers you use in your post, it looks like you have copied from some other source that goes into a good deal of detail. Not that I am challenging you or attempting a battle of definitions, but what is your source? Thanks in advance.

I copied that from one of the online dictionaries…not webster but I don’t remember which it was. The reason it’s numbered that way is because it went through all the adj meanings first, etc…and got ot the nouns at that point. I only pasted the nouns. But just to give credit properly, here is the webster link and you can select whether you want the adj, verb, or noun meanings. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quick

 

[antunesaa]

One thing that I have tried to understand in my denomination is when and why the wording of the Apostles Creed was changed from “the quick and the dead” to “the living and the dead.” I recently spoke at a church that used the older text in English, which brought the question back to mind. Quickening usually occurs around the fourth month, not at conception. Any ideas or comments?

Are you suggesting the specious argument of defining an arbitrary moment when a human being starts to exist? If it were not for the pressure of having a justification for abortion, rational people would just state the obvious: the embryo is human and is a being, therefore is a human being. At least some abortion defenders say clearly that they weight the killing of a human being against the well-being of another human being and decide for the latter. You may think what you want about these people’s behavior, but surely they have a rational (although merciless) justification.

If I had to point out the major social problem in modern societies, I would not choose unemployment, or terrorism, or racism, or even war. I would pick abortion, that primitive and barbaric act that we practice at an industrial scale. We humans will pay a huge price for this overwhelming silent holocaust.

 

[antunesaa]

These arguments make too many assumptions that is not in the text! Some of your scripture compilation refers to arguments that might be useful regarding reincarnation of souls, spirits in limbo before its chosen mother, the exceptional and holy vs. normal birth of Christ (how can the virgin birth of Christ be used to argue pro-life w/o addressing something is different about His birth?)… and yet these quotes are grouped as proof that life begins at conception.

Though I am a Catholic, I accept my knowledge and that of the wisest and most brilliant scholars is faulty, short in understanding, thus we must guard against using controversial or unclear writings to drive home points we believe in…, If there are many ways to read a passage, what we believe is only our interpretation and logical, critical analysis are necessary steps, for the sake of credibility.

Further, whereas in the times of Christ, no one understood the process of fertilization, meiosis, genetics, etc. only that from the womb comes life… the big question of pro-life, ‘WHEN does life begin?’ cannot be deciphered from those writings! Otherwise, the writing would have addressed this specifically. Rather, you have answered without footing for debate ‘WHERE does life begin?’

I agree with the first part of your argument and also the last. But you seem to be too concerned about when life begins. Suppose the problem of mothers having unwanted babies didn’t exist; all babies engendered would be wanted by their mothers. Given our knowledge about the formation of new human beings, what moment would you pick for them to be truly human beings? If there is a truth, your best shot at finding it is if you’re unencumbered by considerations external to question at hand. When life begins should be independent of the opinion of third parties, right?

And your assumption about our own shortcomings does recommend an extremely careful approach to the most sensitive of issues - life itself - doesn’t it?

 

[Orianna]

Regarding the area we are in contention, when life begins, I am afraid that I must not be a very good catholic. I do not believe life begins at conception. I do believe it begins prior to birth and specifically when the soul of another being enters the womb of a woman. I believe this may be preordained, and most scripture suggests it is, though nothing states that another mother cannot be chosen should the first woman reject housing and nourishing the new life.

And as I read verses in the bible, I always seek any other possible clarification. None of the quotes used in support of pro-lifers have ever convinced me, without a shadow of a doubt, that another meaning just might have been intended by the author. My process of viewing things and formulating an opinion on the right to life or the right to choose, takes into consideration several factors:

1. The current knowledge at the time of the writings, which agreeably was quite lacking in the process of birthing a human or any animals. This limits the amount of affirmation available to be extracted regarding the big questions of ‘When life begins’. You cannot extract more information than the writer was capable of putting into sensible words at the time, agreed? The mistake most defenders of pro-life make is to take gigantic leaps of faith regarding what the authors could have been divulging on this matter, and ignore what was common knowledge for the disciples.
2. I have extensive scientific knowledge on the biological process. Including what occurs from meiotic divisions prior to ovum selection, follicular preparation prior to fertilization, the earliest combining of DNA from male and female (zygotes), the process of implantation, tissue development, organ development, etc. At which point does it become fate? There are plenty of eggs awaiting, when fertilization does not occur each month, has the woman sinned? This becomes a strange argument!
3. The acceptance of war killing by the average Christian, which is murder, i.e. taking another life. Our soldiers commit the sin, Thou Shalt Not Kill, every time. So even many women and children of our ‘enemies’ are slaughtered mercilessly. Where are the Christians of this country who are demanding our leaders stop the killing? You cannot fight for one life and not the other. Because, in God, even our enemies are our brothers. He loves all of us. How can we justify our acceptable actions of killing and instead tell a woman that those fertilized eggs are no longer a part of her body and she cannot control what happens next? The argument will be that we must kill them to save ourselves? Did Jesus partake in this action? Would a disciple kill his enemy rather than be killed? Of course not, because Christians were held to a higher standard than Hebrews. Not even a real threat in our homeland would justify this form of taking another life.

If instead we argue when the soul enters the womb there is now another human being inhabiting the woman’s body, there is a better chance for the right to life position to stand alongside a rational position that all killing is sinful. I say this because scientifically, it doesn’t make sense to determine new life in one cell. After first trimester offers a better argument for life. Many early writings have suggested, the formation of human organs has occurred, there is movement (quickening as in the scripture), and, this is in line with the stories of when a soul enters… and none of this contradicts the bible if you open your mind to interpretations that fit the scripture but different than what you came up with. Surely it makes more sense for the soul to enter after risk of miscarriage is so high?

Right to life without a stand against war is folly on mankind… or should I dare say womankind? No matter, the argument stands because the bible has not given a date… it is man that has decided this after the ability to perform abortions.

I hope this has done justice to your questions and I post this with the humility that even my understanding is far short of God’s knowledge of the matter… only He knows and pains over all kinds of human hand in killing.