When does God put souls into bodies?

[Brother Mike]

Nope.


When I say "human" I mean the joining of body with soul/spirit, as we see in Gen 2:7.

[QUTOE]Each seed produces after it's own Kind. Human seed only produces humans and tomato seeds produce tomatoes. Despite just being a seed, it's still human or tomato after it's own kind.

As I've said, the 9 month gestation period is God's plan for preparing a body for the soul/spirit.

Again, where is the evidence that God reversed His order for the first and Last Adam?


Yes, the embryo will need a spirit in order to be a "living soul". Until then, it is biological or physiological life.[/QUOTE]

Human is still human, no matter seed, or fully grown. If a seed will become something after it's kind, then it's that thing. Some here were concerned about your comments.

The soul is just the mental responders that connect to the brain. Our personality, emotions, will. James said the Word is able to save our soul, be transformed by the renewing of our mind (soul) Paul said we believe even to the saving of the soul.

It would appear the soul is always in a constant state of change, or should be as it's conformed to our spirit that is born again.

It's hard to separate Soul in scripture at times. It can mean a whole person as in who they are, or it can mean their soul.

Adam was a living soul. God walked with Adam, Adam learned, his soul expanded.

God formed the spirit in man............... When? At conception? James seems to denote this.

My concern was the comment John not being human as a baby. Having spirit, soul does not denote human, but the seed of the same kind. If God planed an put the spirit in, or planed to put the spirit in at 8 months 2 weeks before birth, sill human, still God's plan to use the Human.

As for spirit and Adam, the Hebrew did not have a good word for spirit, it's also translated breath.

As for Soul as in the will, and emotions, no scripture saying God puts a soul in us. Could be there by default and human flesh is more spiritual in nature having also a soul by default.

No point in going back and forth on that.

Blessings FreeGrace.

 

[FreeGrace]

X is better than Y because of (Z) ???

Huh??

Older

is better than newer because of (all the attempts to water down the Word)? Hmm???

I'm sorry it seems you're not following. The only point is that since 1/3 of the translations use "miscarry" I haven't made up anything. Was the rebellion of 1/3 of the angels just a small little bump or a significant event?

Do you really think the NASB, ESV, LEB, HCSB, and others like them were attempting to water down the Word? I don't. But if you do, do you have evidence of it?

My comment was a general one, indicating that newer editions tend to have been changed as liberalism invades.

I did not say, nor imply, nor think that the KJV or the other translations from centuries past you mentioned were less accurate than todays. I simply showed that the English word for miscarry/miscarriage has an etymology that has changed since the KJV used the word. During that century it didn't necessarily mean that the baby died. It simply meant it wasn't carried full term. A miss carraige. But not necessarily a death.

I'm not concerned with how the KJV rendered the word. Only with the Hebrew word and what it meant back when Moses wrote it. And 1/3 of English translations support my view of Gen 2:7; that the "living soul" is created when God puts the soul/spirit into a prepared body.

I don't think He reversed (or REVERSED) the order.

Please explain this. In both Gen 2:7 and Heb 10:5 we see a body prepared BEFORE the soul is put into it. Yet, the prevailing view today is that the soul is in the fertilized egg. That is a reversal of order. Because neither a fertilized egg, zygote, embryo, or fetus is a prepared human body.

I simply think that a child is prepared for it's soul much earlier than you, evidently. You even said yourself that it could be just before birth.

But not "much earlier". I do view late term abortion as murder because it is very possible that the soul is put into the fetus during the last trimester. But there is no reason for the soul to be in the womb any time before that.

I just think it's likely a few months before you do and has nothing to do with it's needing some air in it's lungs.

I think the issue is viability. Why would God put a soul into a structure that isn't prepared for life apart from mom?

You've done nothing to counter the arguments against your view; 1) that the Holy Spirit filled John (Luke 1:15) and Jeremiah (Jer 1:5) while in the womb, or 2) that Jacob's hand grabbed Easu (Gen 25:25), or 3) God nits people together in the womb (Psalm 139:13), etc.

Nowhere did it say that the Holy Spirit filled John. It did mention Elizabeth. That one fetus grabbed another's hand does not prove or mean that they had souls. And "knitting" people together in the womb is God's plan for HOW a body is prepared for the soul, which is the same order as Gen 2:7 and Heb 10:5.

You keep claiming Christians that think God imputed a soul prior to birth are claiming a reversal of order (soul before body).

Because they are, whether they acknowledge that or not.

I'm not claiming that at all. I deny that. The only folks I know of that do that are the LDS or others similar.

Please, then, tell me the order for both Gen 2:7 and Heb 10:5. And if God puts s soul/spirit into a fertilized egg, which is NOT a prepared body, explain how that isn't a reversal of Gen 2:7 and Heb 10:5.

 

[FreeGrace]

As I've said, the 9 month gestation period is God's plan for preparing a body for the soul/spirit.

Again, where is the evidence that God reversed His order for the first and Last Adam?

He didn't. Your view is mine. God prepares the body before putting in the soul/spirit. But the prevailing view today is that a fertilized egg (UN-prepared body) has the soul/spirit. So that is what is reversed.

Human is still human, no matter seed, or fully grown. If a seed will become something after it's kind, then it's that thing. Some here were concerned about your comments.

Their concern comes from emotions, or politics; not from God's Word.

The soul is just the mental responders that connect to the brain.

Many will disagree with you. The soul is the real you; immaterial. And when the soul is joined to a body, you have a real live human being.

Our personality, emotions, will. James said the Word is able to save our soul, be transformed by the renewing of our mind (soul) Paul said we believe even to the saving of the soul.

Please explain how this refutes the OP.

It would appear the soul is always in a constant state of change, or should be as it's conformed to our spirit that is born again.

Where does it "appear: that the soul is always in a constant state of change? Certainly our bodies are in a constant state of change. That is quite apparent and easily demonstrable.

It's hard to separate Soul in scripture at times. It can mean a whole person as in who they are, or it can mean their soul.

Sure.

Adam was a living soul. God walked with Adam, Adam learned, his soul expanded.

Adam became a living soul ONLY AFTER God prepared a body first. Gen 2:7 And his soul did not expand. His learning expanded. His knowledge expanded.

God formed the spirit in man............... When? At conception? James seems to denote this.

How so. I do not see it. If this refers to Jams 2:26, his point is that when the soul/spirit leaves the body, that is called death. Even when the body can be kept biologically alive on life support machines.

My concern was the comment John not being human as a baby. Having spirit, soul does not denote human, but the seed of the same kind. If God planed an put the spirit in, or planed to put the spirit in at 8 months 2 weeks before birth, sill human, still God's plan to use the Human.

As for spirit and Adam, the Hebrew did not have a good word for spirit, it's also translated breath.

As for Soul as in the will, and emotions, no scripture saying God puts a soul in us. Could be there by default and human flesh is more spiritual in nature having also a soul by default.

No point in going back and forth on that.

Blessings FreeGrace.[/QUOTE]

 

[FreeGrace]

I think Randy Alcorn, the popular Christian writer, and author of the exhaustive book, Heaven, said this, on p.110:
"Gen 2:7 says, "The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being". The Hebrew word for "living being" is nephesh, often translated "soul". The point at which Adam became nephesh is when God joined his body (dust) and spirit (breath) together. Adam was not a living human being until he had both material (physical) and immaterial (spiritual) components. Thus, the essence of humanity is not just spirit, but spirit joined with body. Your body does not merely house the real you - it is as much a part of who you are as your spirit is."

And Gen 2:7 shows God's order: prepared a body before putting the breath into the body.

Or, another way to ask, is this: which came first, the fully developed nostrils, or the breath?

That should end all argument. But it won't.

<sigh>

 

[Deborah13]

Because a 1 celled zygote isn't prepared for anything, except much further division of cells until there is an actual human body that IS prepared for life outside the womb.

Why not? What is your reasoning for this statement. A zygote is the body of a human being, I proved that fact with scientific evidence and definitions. That zygote body in the womb is perfectly prepared for the environment that it is living in and will continue to be prepared as the environment changes around it, whether it is in the womb or outside the womb.
So why do you believe that it is not prepared for soul/spirit?

Your answer of Adam first being created as a fully grown body is irrelevant seeing that is not how anyone else was/is created. Even Eve was created from another living human being's body, just as we are, and so was Jesus.

The difference between Him and us is that it was the power of the Holy Spirit that cause/stimulated Mary's egg to begin to grow rather than a human sperm cell. God/man.
But Adam and Jesus were never the same.
1Co 15:45 so also it hath been written, `The first man Adam became a living creature/soul/nephesh,' the last Adam is for a life-giving spirit/pnuema,

 

[Deborah13]

OK, if one believes that the moment of conception creates a living human being, meaning complete with soul/spirit or whatever one would like to call it, WHY would God REVERSE that order for everyone except the first and Last Adam, per Gen 2:7 and Heb 10:5?

Where does Hebrews 10:5 say, God prepare Jesus' body for a soul/spirit?
Please show me with the words in that verse or any of the verses around it.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

 

[WIP]

One thought that has been rattling around my brain as I have been following this thread is this. Does a human body have to be 100% complete in form and totally independent of the mother in order to be considered by God to be prepared for the soul? There seems to be some scientific evidence that suggest babies can recognize certain sounds like language related sounds. The one study I read indicated that babies seem to recognize the language of their parents but not another language. How they came to that is beyond my understanding.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"Because a 1 celled zygote isn't prepared for anything, except much further division of cells until there is an actual human body that IS prepared for life outside the womb."

Why not? What is your reasoning for this statement.

I gave my reason with my statement. The 9 month gestation is to PREPARE the body for life outside the womb.

A zygote is the body of a human being, I proved that fact with scientific evidence and definitions.

It is wrong. I'll prefer to believe Gen 2:7. A prepared body BEFORE the breath of life.

Which came first: nostrils or breath of life?

[QUTOE] That zygote body in the womb is perfectly prepared for the environment that it is living in and will continue to be prepared as the environment changes around it, whether it is in the womb or outside the womb.[/QUOTE]
No zygote is prepared for life outside the womb. Are you serious?

So why do you believe that it is not prepared for soul/spirit?

See above.

Your answer of Adam first being created as a fully grown body is irrelevant seeing that is not how anyone else was/is created.

My point was/is about the ORDER; nostrils before the breath of life. Your view has it backwards, breath of life before nostrils. How can one not see that?

Even Eve was created from another living human being's body, just as we are, and so was Jesus.

You're not making any point here.

The difference between Him and us is that it was the power of the Holy Spirit that cause/stimulated Mary's egg to begin to grow rather than a human sperm cell. God/man.

Missing the whole point. Heb 10:5 is about preparing a body for Jesus.

But Adam and Jesus were never the same.

Why in the world would anyone think that was my point? Or that I said so.

It isn't about them being the same. It is about the ORDER that is THE SAME.

 

[FreeGrace]

Where does Hebrews 10:5 say, God prepare Jesus' body for a soul/spirit?
Please show me with the words in that verse or any of the verses around it.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

OK, let's do this carefully. Note these EXACT words in v.5: "a body hast thou prepared me".

Your KJV is rather rusty. Let's do the NASB, which reads much more smoothly:
Heb 10:5 -
Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, “Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, But a body You have prepared for Me;

It could not be more clear than that. God the Father prepared a body for Jesus to become humanity.

Just as God prepared a body (formed man from the dust of the ground) BEFORE He breathed into its nostrils.

Which came first: nostrils or breath of life? That ends all argument. Or should.

 

[FreeGrace]

One thought that has been rattling around my brain as I have been following this thread is this. Does a human body have to be 100% complete in form and totally independent of the mother in order to be considered by God to be prepared for the soul?

Good question. That is my understanding, from both Gen 2:7 and Heb 10:5. The order is nostrils before breath of life.

There seems to be some scientific evidence that suggest babies can recognize certain sounds like language related sounds. The one study I read indicated that babies seem to recognize the language of their parents but not another language. How they came to that is beyond my understanding.

These studies don't prove that a soul exists in the developing fetus. And no study has shown that fetuses understand words, any more than any newborn understands or comprehends words. That comes with time. And development.

 

[Deborah13]

I'm sorry it seems you're not following. The only point is that since 1/3 of the translations use "miscarry" I haven't made up anything.
My comment was a general one, indicating that newer editions tend to have been changed as liberalism invades.
I'm not concerned with how the KJV rendered the word. Only with the Hebrew word and what it meant back when Moses wrote it.

The only reason the older translations used the word 'miscarry' is because they were looking at the Talmud and Targums for help with definitions of words. Which was a huge mistake in this case.
What you propose to be the interpretation of this scripture is the interpretation that is found in the TALMUD. You know, that book of oral law that was written by the Pharisees/Rabbis. The same ones Jesus had to keep correcting their interpretations and additions to Moses' Law.
Abortion brought the scripture to the forefront because it was being used to support abortion. So the interpreters took another look at it.
How do we KNOW that 'miscarry' was incorrect? Because of how that word is used in hundreds of other scriptures and not once is it used for a child that has not been born alive. And the word that is used for a child that leaves the womb dead is not the same Hebrew word.
I already pointed this out to you, and @Oz did too, with the supporting scriptures and the Strong's numbers.
Exo 23:26 there is not a miscarrying [shakol] and barren one in thy land; the number of thy days I fulfil:
Shakol is the word Moses used for a miscarriage.
Where do you see that Moses used that word in Exodus 21:22?

One has to be careful with the Talmud, it is not God's Word. The Pharisees/Rabbis are not perfect and their interpretations are not perfect and their oral laws are not found in the Law of Moses. If one is not careful they will have you disobeying God if you light your furnace, that blew out during the night, to stay warm on the Sabbath.
So we look to God's Word and compare it to the teachings of others, such as Christian commentaries and if one chooses the Jewish commentaries such as the Talmud. That's exactly where this interpretation of Exodus 21:22 comes from, given by RaMBaM, Rashi, and others.

 

[Brother Mike]

He didn't. Your view is mine. God prepares the body before putting in the soul/spirit. But the prevailing view today is that a fertilized egg (UN-prepared body) has the soul/spirit. So that is what is reversed.


Their concern comes from emotions, or politics; not from God's Word.


Many will disagree with you. The soul is the real you; immaterial. And when the soul is joined to a body, you have a real live human being.


Please explain how this refutes the OP.


Where does it "appear: that the soul is always in a constant state of change? Certainly our bodies are in a constant state of change. That is quite apparent and easily demonstrable.


Sure.


Adam became a living soul ONLY AFTER God prepared a body first. Gen 2:7 And his soul did not expand. His learning expanded. His knowledge expanded.


How so. I do not see it. If this refers to Jams 2:26, his point is that when the soul/spirit leaves the body, that is called death. Even when the body can be kept biologically alive on life support machines.

My concern was the comment John not being human as a baby. Having spirit, soul does not denote human, but the seed of the same kind. If God planed an put the spirit in, or planed to put the spirit in at 8 months 2 weeks before birth, sill human, still God's plan to use the Human.

As for spirit and Adam, the Hebrew did not have a good word for spirit, it's also translated breath.

As for Soul as in the will, and emotions, no scripture saying God puts a soul in us. Could be there by default and human flesh is more spiritual in nature having also a soul by default.

No point in going back and forth on that.

Blessings FreeGrace.

[/QUOTE]

Well, I pulled straws over this matter in many threads. The soul is connected to the brain, it's who we are, and it can grow and mature as James said that the Word can save your soul and get it in line with God's Word. The Word divides what is in your spirit and soul (Heb 4:12)

so despite some might not agree with me, some do. It makes it one of those things that makes you neither right or wrong depending on what side you take.

My concern is that lots of folks are posting against you, when you Normally are pretty spot on scriptural and the fact about You said you Believed (not that it was fact but you believed) that John was not yet human, though produced of the same seed as human.

That makes it sort of sound like the argument abortionist use, which can't be what you intended.

There is no scripture exactly at what point there is a soul. The bible uses Soul as also people. We know the soul can be vexed, or the soul can be happy. It changes depending on the information it gets and how it handles that information.

I think the way you posted things did not come out exactly like you believe.

Be blessed.

 

[FreeGrace]

The only reason the older translations used the word 'miscarry' is because they were looking at the Talmud and Targums for help with definitions of words. Which was a huge mistake in this case.

What is the source for this?

What you propose to be the interpretation of this scripture is the interpretation that is found in the TALMUD. You know, that book of oral law that was written by the Pharisees/Rabbis. The same ones Jesus had to keep correcting their interpretations and additions to Moses' Law.
Abortion brought the scripture to the forefront because it was being used to support abortion. So the interpreters took another look at it.
How do we KNOW that 'miscarry' was incorrect? Because of how that word is used in hundreds of other scriptures and not once is it used for a child that has not been born alive. And the word that is used for a child that leaves the womb dead is not the same Hebrew word.
I already pointed this out to you, and @Oz did too, with the supporting scriptures and the Strong's numbers.

OK. Let's leave out Ex 21:22. So, what Scripture clearly indicates that God puts souls into zygotes, embryos or early fetuses?

Your view still has the problem of REVERSING the ORDER found in Gen 2:7 and Heb 10:5, which is prepared body before soul. Period.

If the first and Last Adam had a prepared body before the soul, so does everyone else. There is no reason for reversing that order.

And there is no Scripture either saying or suggesting the order was reversed from the first and Last Adam to everyone else.

So, even apart from Ex 21:22, your view isn't supported from Scripture.

 

[chessman]

Huh??

It's called logic.​

X is better than Y beacuse of _Z___.

It's validity as an argument all hinges on what X, Y and Z are.

For example:

The NASB translation is a better translation for me to study God's Word than the Textus Receptus 1550 because I don't read Greek.

Versus:

"Older translations are better than newer translation because they have not been watered down."

Your logic is not valid unless you can show that the newer translations you speak of have been watered down. I can show you that I don't read Greek.

I'm sorry it seems you're not following.

I would be able to follow your logic if you could provide any evidence that translations like the NASB, ESV, etc. have actually been watered down.

The only point is that since 1/3 of the translations use "miscarry" I haven't made up anything.

The majority of the 1/3 that do use "miscary" were using it to convey their Century's meaning.
Which has changed over time. Thus the updates.

Was the rebellion of 1/3 of the angels just a small little bump or a significant event?

irrelevant.

I'm not concerned with how the KJV rendered the word.

okay, but then why did you mention it?

Only with the Hebrew word and what it meant back when Moses wrote it.

oh, well that's easy. It simply meant come out.

And 1/3 of English translations support my view of Gen 2:7; that the "living soul" is created when God puts the soul/spirit into a prepared body.

I agree.

Please explain this. In both Gen 2:7 and Heb 10:5 we see a body prepared BEFORE the soul is put into it.

Nobody disagrees with that. In fact Jesus came into His body ~9 months before He was born.

Luke 1:31 (NASB) And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. ​

Yet, the prevailing view today is that the soul is in the fertilized egg.

you mean like 99/100?

That is a reversal of order. Because neither a fertilized egg, zygote, embryo, or fetus is a prepared human body.

There's that bad logic again. Your statement would be logical if you had evidence that a fertilized egg was not in fact prepared.

I do view late term abortion as murder because it is very possible that the soul is put into the fetus during the last trimester.

Clinical records of 87 patients, who all had second-trimester rupture of membranes between 14 + 0 and 24 + 6 weeks of gestation treated January 1998 to July 2005 were reviewed regarding perinatal outcome. This study is based on 25 surviving infants.​

Results
13 of these 25 infants died in the hospital.​

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378378208001710

But there is no reason for the soul to be in the womb any time before that.

I can think of at least four:
1. To develope as a human in stature and knowledge. Just as Jesus did.
2. To get to know his/her mother. Just as Jesus did.
3. To grow nostrils by 8 weeks.
4. To accept the knitting that God does while in the womb.

Why would God put a soul into a structure that isn't prepared for life apart from mom?

Because God said so, that's why.

Nowhere did it say that the Holy Spirit filled John.

Wrong.

Luke 1:15 (NASB) For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb.​

That one fetus grabbed another's hand does not prove or mean that they had souls.

No, just that they had hands and feet and personality. BTW, Jacob grabbed Esau's foot, not his hand.
(Unless the KJV says hand, I didn't check.)

 

[FreeGrace]

Well, I pulled straws over this matter in many threads. The soul is connected to the brain, it's who we are, and it can grow and mature as James said that the Word can save your soul and get it in line with God's Word. The Word divides what is in your spirit and soul (Heb 4:12)[/QUOTE]
I'm well aware of the difference between soul and spirit. Although there are verses that interchange these words.

My concern is that lots of folks are posting against you, when you Normally are pretty spot on scriptural and the fact about You said you Believed (not that it was fact but you believed) that John was not yet human, though produced of the same seed as human.

The basis for my view is taken directly from both Gen 2:7 and Hebn 10:5, where the order for the first and Last Adam is the same: body BEFORE soul. There is no reason for God to reverse that order for everyone else.

That makes it sort of sound like the argument abortionist use, which can't be what you intended.

I already addressed that. I can't help what nutjobs do with Scripture. Even Satan abused Scripture when he tried to tempt Jesus.

There is no scripture exactly at what point there is a soul.

I disagree. Gen 2:7 is clear enough for me. God prepared a body, that included nostrils BEFORE He breathed in the breath of life, which is when Adam became a living soul. And Jesus said that God the Father prepared a body for Him.

The bible uses Soul as also people. We know the soul can be vexed, or the soul can be happy. It changes depending on the information it gets and how it handles that information.

This doesn't disprove the order of body and soul.

I think the way you posted things did not come out exactly like you believe.
Be blessed.

I think it did. What was posted that isn't exactly like I believe?

 

[FreeGrace]

I would be able to follow your logic if you could provide any evidence that translations like the NASB, ESV, etc. have actually been watered down.

I can give 1 example: the new NIV removed gender when referring to God.

irrelevant.

1/3 of the angels rebelled and that is irrelevant? I don't think so.

Nobody disagrees with that. In fact Jesus came into His body ~9 months before He was born.

What verse says that?

Luke 1:31 (NASB) And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.

This verse does NOT say that Jesus "came into His body ~ 9 months before He was born.​

you mean like 99/100?

I'm pretty sure it isn't that high. But so what if it were? Do we determine doctrine and theology and meaning by popular vote?

There's that bad logic again. Your statement would be logical if you had evidence that a fertilized egg was not in fact prepared.

I'll be more clear. God breathed into a body that was prepared for the breath of life, which I believe is the soul. iow, Adam's physical body had a nostril. If you can show me where the nostril is located on a fertilized egg, then ok.

By "prepared body" should easily be understood as fully functional. What grows inside the womb isn't fully functional as a human being until near birth.

Clinical records of 87 patients, who all had second-trimester rupture of membranes between 14 + 0 and 24 + 6 weeks of gestation treated January 1998 to July 2005 were reviewed regarding perinatal outcome. This study is based on 25 surviving infants.

Results
13 of these 25 infants died in the hospital.​

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378378208001710

This demonstrates that 13 didn't have souls, and the other did.

I said this:
"But there is no reason for the soul to be in the womb any time before that."

I can think of at least four:
1. To develope as a human in stature and knowledge. Just as Jesus did.
2. To get to know his/her mother. Just as Jesus did.
3. To grow nostrils by 8 weeks.
4. To accept the knitting that God does while in the womb.

#1 is silly. The gestation period is designed to prepare the body for life outside the womb. You've compared apples to oranges.
#2 ditto. The fetus isn't "getting to know" his mother, cerrtainly not in any intellectual way.
#3 absurd.
#4 I do accept the knitting. And God's timing is 9 months.

I said this:
"Why would God put a soul into a structure that isn't prepared for life apart from mom?"

Because God said so, that's why.

Where did God say that?

Wrong.

Luke 1:15 (NASB) For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb.​

​

OK, corrected. But there is no indicate WHEN that occurred. It could have been just before birth. Neither of us has any proof that it was or was not earlier than that. So, checkmate.

 

[gr8grace3]

The only reason the older translations used the word 'miscarry' is because they were looking at the Talmud and Targums for help with definitions of words. Which was a huge mistake in this case.
What you propose to be the interpretation of this scripture is the interpretation that is found in the TALMUD. You know, that book of oral law that was written by the Pharisees/Rabbis. The same ones Jesus had to keep correcting their interpretations and additions to Moses' Law.
Abortion brought the scripture to the forefront because it was being used to support abortion. So the interpreters took another look at it.
How do we KNOW that 'miscarry' was incorrect? Because of how that word is used in hundreds of other scriptures and not once is it used for a child that has not been born alive. And the word that is used for a child that leaves the womb dead is not the same Hebrew word.
I already pointed this out to you, and @Oz did too, with the supporting scriptures and the Strong's numbers.
Exo 23:26 there is not a miscarrying [shakol] and barren one in thy land; the number of thy days I fulfil:
Shakol is the word Moses used for a miscarriage.
Where do you see that Moses used that word in Exodus 21:22?

One has to be careful with the Talmud, it is not God's Word. The Pharisees/Rabbis are not perfect and their interpretations are not perfect and their oral laws are not found in the Law of Moses. If one is not careful they will have you disobeying God if you light your furnace, that blew out during the night, to stay warm on the Sabbath.
So we look to God's Word and compare it to the teachings of others, such as Christian commentaries and if one chooses the Jewish commentaries such as the Talmud. That's exactly where this interpretation of Exodus 21:22 comes from, given by RaMBaM, Rashi, and others.

I think that there is a word that is more clear than shakol. näphel which comes from the verb nAphal.
Job 3:16~~New American Standard Bible
"Or like a miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, As infants that never saw light.

Ecc 6:3-5 NASB~~3 If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, “Better the miscarriage than he, 4 for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. 5“It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.

 

[JohnD]

OK, if one believes that the moment of conception creates a living human being, meaning complete with soul/spirit or whatever one would like to call it, WHY would God REVERSE that order for everyone except the first and Last Adam, per Gen 2:7 and Heb 10:5?

Are those reverse orders?

 

[Deborah13]

I said this:
"Because a 1 celled zygote isn't prepared for anything, except much further division of cells until there is an actual human body that IS prepared for life outside the womb."

So what?

It is wrong. I'll prefer to believe Gen 2:7. A prepared body BEFORE the breath of life.

Our bodies are not prepare like Adam's was, from the dust of the earth and fulling grown. When a child leaves the womb it is not fully grown.
Are you saying that a child does not have a soul until they are fully grown, like Adam was?
If you are going to compare us to Adam your comparison of the growth of the body is not comparable and neither is the material used to create the body.
Why would God have to breath into a person's nostrils, like He did Adam's, when they are already receiving the oxygen they need to live while in the womb.

That zygote body in the womb is perfectly prepared for the environment that it is living in and will continue to be prepared as the environment changes around it, whether it is in the womb or outside the womb.

No zygote is prepared for life outside the womb. Are you serious?

[/quote]
Please reread what I said. A zygotes body is perfectly prepared to live in the environment that it is in.
As it grows it's environment changes and eventually it's environment is no longer inside the womb but outside the womb. An how it receives the elements that it needs to live changes as it's environment changes.
You want environment to define what life is rather than the scientific definition or more importantly God's definition.
My point was/is about the ORDER; nostrils before the breath of life. Your view has it backwards, breath of life before nostrils. How can one not see that?[/quote]
Because after Adam and Eve, one does NOT need nostrils to receive the oxygen they need to live. So if all God did was breath air into Adam nostrils so he could live then that step is no longer needed any more than nostrils are.

Do you remember when I told you that you were focusing on the physical nostrils? Because that is your whole point, if one does not have physical nostrils then they are not a living being/soul. That is your whole premise stated in a nutshell.

Missing the whole point. Heb 10:5 is about preparing a body for Jesus.

For what reason does that scripture say it was prepared? Does it say for a soul?

It isn't about them being the same. It is about the ORDER that is THE SAME.

There isn't any order shown in Hebrews 10:5 for the body then soul.
Where is the scripture that says Jesus body was prepared for His Soul?

Brother Mike is correct when he says the soul is the mind, thoughts, feelings. Our English word psychology comes from the same Greek word - psuche/psyche
psychology
n.
1650s, "study of the soul," from Modern Latin psychologia, probably coined mid-16c. in Germany by Melanchthon from Latinized form of Greek psykhe- "breath, spirit, soul" (see psyche ) + logia "study of" (see -logy ). Meaning "study of the mind" first recorded 1748, from Christian Wolff's "Psychologia empirica" (1732); main modern behavioral sense is from early 1890s.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychology

You made your argument using Revelation 6:9 to refute his statement but it actually supports his statement.
Rev 6:9 And when he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls [psuche/psyche] of those slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony that they held,
Rev 6:10 and they were crying with a great voice, saying, `Till when, O Master, the Holy and the True, dost Thou not judge and take vengeance of our blood from those dwelling upon the land?'
By the very definition of soul they could not have a testimony or the feelings connected to crying out for revenge if they did not have memory, voices, and feelings, soul.
And don't try to say that they couldn't have voices if they didn't have a body with a mouth. They were also spirit and we don't have to use our mouths to communicate with God.
1Sa_1:15 And Hannah answereth and saith, `No, my lord, A woman sharply pained in spirit [ruach] I am , and wine and strong drink I have not drunk, and I pour out my soul [nephesh] before Yehovah;
Hannah's spirit was grieved and she told God her thoughts and feelings.

 

[chessman]

What grows inside the womb isn't fully functional as a human being until near birth.

Near birtht???? You ever raised a teenager? They're far from fully functional. Especially in the early morning.

But human they are.