We know the LORD's sequence; He pre-existed His body of flesh. But we do not know the order [if any, as it may be simultaneous] that the LORD created Adams constituent parts.
My point hasn't been when God created the soul. It is when He combined the immaterial soul with the material body. And Gen 2:7 shows the order of preparing a body before joining to it the immaterial soul.
He could have created his soul and spirit when He formed Adam from the dust but before He breathed into him, or He could have created his soul and spirit when He breathed into Him, or He could have done all three at the same time
But non of which matters, since the issue is when man became "a living being". Or a living human being. Neither the formed body alone nor the immaterial breath of life are a human being. Only when they are combined. And James 2:26 informs us that when the soul leaves the body, the human being is considered dead. Even if on life support machines to keep the organs functioning for donation.
The "and" 's in Gen 2:7 are not necessarily sequential - they could be simultaneous; but I will leave that up to the Hebrew language experts.
But they gave us the order of preparing a material body and THEN breathing in the immaterial part, and THEN the declaration that "man became a living being.
So, neither the material or the immaterial alone is a human being. And because we know that all will be resurrected, all souls will exist in eternity in a body.
The Son of God [the Last Adam] existed before His body, but you are saying Adam's body came before His soul.
Not actually. I am only noting the order of WHEN the soul (immaterial part) is combined or joined to the body (material part). Whether God has already created all souls for all of humanity is not part of my view here. It doesn't matter when He creates the soul.
However, the opposing view has it that conception is WHEN a living human being is created. That the soul is created at conception. Where is that even hinted at in Scripture?
Am I missing something, as these are not the same order. Are you referring to something else being the same order?
The order that I speak of is WHEN God joins the material with the immaterial.
Who told you that? Perhaps you are unaware of the purpose.
Please explain the purpose, then, of putting a soul into a fertilized egg.
I said this:
"f he thought that human life began at conception, why didn't he wish for a miscarriage or abortion?"
Could be any of a thousand reasons, bu I am not all knowing.
I don't see any. His focus was on dying early. He was one of God's "showcases" to Satan. He was blameless and upright, feared God and shunned evil. I don't think he was ignorant of things. I think he knew full well when human life begins. And that is precisely what he expressed in his desire to have died before what he was experiencing.
And their struggle [perhaps abnormal in its nature or frequency] troubled Rebekah enough that she inquired of the LORD. I am guessing about the nature of her question, but this seems reasonable.
This verse is just a distraction from the order of WHEN God combines the material with the immaterial, which results in a living human being.
We see the order in the first Adam in Gen 2:7 and in the Last Adam in Heb 10:5. This has not been explained otherwise, nor refuted.
Like the Bereans, I have searched the Scriptures daily (diligently) to see whether "these things" be true, and I have found them to be unrefuted in Scripture.
The fact that "these things" are contrary to popular opinion does not sway me. Scripture sways me. Until I see Scripture that sways me away from my view, there is no reason to change.
Recall how unpopular Martin Luther was when he realized the truth of Romans and justification was by faith!! He was heavily persecuted for going against the popular opinion of the day. Yet, he was right. His opponents were wrong.
When someone can show me from Scripture that my view is wrong, I will definitely recant. But just providing verses that refer to a growing fetus as a "child" or has been named proves nothing other than the natural fact that we naturally expect the fetus to be birthed as a human being. Naming a baby before birth doesn't prove it has a soul. But we do expect that when it is born, it will be human, of course.
Does a fertilized egg look human? No. Does an ambryo look human? No. In fact, in the early stages of development, a human embryo can look rather similar to any number of animal embryos.
I will repeat: I am not in favor, and in fact oppose, the casual ending of physiological or biological life in the womb. Therefore, I am opposed to any casual approach to abortion.
Let me ask you or anyone on this thread: if your wive's life is in high danger of dying during childbirth, and there is a choice to end the pregnancy or let her deliver and die, what would you do?
