When does God put souls into bodies?

[OzSpen]

Is there evidence that most of evangelical Christianity thinks the soul is imputed at birth, then? What's your point here?

I will refute the Traducian theory from Scripture.

All I'm saying is that I'm still awaiting your statistical evidence about 'most of evangelical Christianity'.

In this thread I haven't seen the Traducian theory presented with biblical evidence. So, what are you going to refute from Scripture where nil evidence has been provided?

 

[JLB]

I'm interested in what God's Word says. And Gen 2:7 and Heb 10:5 clearly indicate that God prepares a body BEFORE He imputes the soul.

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Genesis 2:7

This verse refers to Adam and no other person since him.

as it is written -

1 This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.
2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.
3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.
4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.
5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
6 Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh.
7 After he begot Enosh, Seth lived eight hundred and seven years, and had sons and daughters.
8 So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died.
9 Enosh lived ninety years, and begot Cainan.
10 After he begot Cainan, Enosh lived eight hundred and fifteen years, and had sons and daughters.
11 So all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years; and he died.
12 Cainan lived seventy years, and begot Mahalalel.
13 After he begot Mahalalel, Cainan lived eight hundred and forty years, and had sons and daughters.
14 So all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years; and he died.
15 Mahalalel lived sixty-five years, and begot Jared.
16 After he begot Jared, Mahalalel lived eight hundred and thirty years, and had sons and daughters.
17 So all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred and ninety-five years; and he died.
18 Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and begot Enoch.
19 After he begot Enoch, Jared lived eight hundred years, and had sons and daughters.
20 So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years; and he died.
21 Enoch lived sixty-five years, and begot Methuselah.
22 After he begot Methuselah, Enoch walked with God three hundred years, and had sons and daughters.
23 So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years.
24 And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.
25 Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and begot Lamech.
26 After he begot Lamech, Methuselah lived seven hundred and eighty-two years, and had sons and daughters.
27 So all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years; and he died.
28 Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and had a son.
29 And he called his name Noah, saying, "This one will comfort us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord has cursed."
30 After he begot Noah, Lamech lived five hundred and ninety-five years, and had sons and daughters.
31 So all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years; and he died.
32 And Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Genesis 5:1-32


Every other person after Adam was begotten through natural child birth.

Adam, and only Adam was created from the dust of the ground.

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Genesis 2:7


Genesis 2:7 only refers to Adam.

Adam became a living being, when God breathed the breath of life into him.

A living [human] being is spirit, soul, and body.

Not just a soul.


JLB

 

[chessman]

I would look at your translation and go to an authority on the original language. The KJV got it right in this case.

Luke 1:15~~King James Bible
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(out of) his mother's womb.

It's not my translation, it's the Lexham English Bible who's editors are authorities on the original language, just as the NASB translators are and the KJV translators were too.

I agree, the KJV got it right. Although they choose not to insert (out of) into it for some reason as your translation does.

But just look at the next use of the same word by Luke:

Luke 1:26
Now in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee named Nazareth,
Was Gabriel sent from God to Galilee, just as John came from Elizabeth's womb? There's nothing about the verse in the KJV that supports a post birth filling of John with the Holy Spirit.

 

[chessman]

I never said "after birth".

But you agreed with someone who did:

When do you think God imputes the soul to the body?

The moment you take your first breath

Kinda makes sense.

 

[Deborah13]

Job 33:4 "The Spirit of God has made me (asah- human being, And the breath [neshemah] of the Almighty gives me life.

asah does not mean human being. asah = to do, make
Job 33:4 "The Spirit of God has made [asah] me. And the breath [neshemah] of the Almighty gives me life.
H6213 = asah, a primitive root; to do or make It is a verb.
‘ā·śā·ṯə·nî- In this case in the past tense form.

Correct. God does not impute souls to animals.

I don't believe he imputes soul to humans, He imputes spirit.

What??! Jesus had a fully human body. And not "just for His blood". Apparently you hold to some mystical view about His blood. Well, the phrase "blood of Christ" is used in Scripture figuratively for the death that He died on behalf of mankind. There is no spiritual significance to the fluid that ran through His arteries and veins.

I have know idea what you mean by mystical blood. What did I say that would lead you to that interpretation.
Hebrews 10:5
Body and blood of sacrificial animals vs Body and blood of Christ give for us.
There are many reason He had a body prepared for Him but in this scripture I see a teaching about His one work at the cross being the true sacrifice rather than the body and blood of bulls and goats.
I don't see anything about housing His soul. Not that it didn't just that I can't see how it supports your OP.

Well, this comports exactly with Phil 2:6-8
6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God athing to be grasped, 7but
emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

It seems you are disregarding His physical body. He had one, for sure. Nail and spear scarred, even in His resurrection body.

I am not even close to disregarding His body and blood in Hebrews 10:5. I state that is exactly what that scripture is about, His physical body and His physical blood vs the physical bodies and physical blood of bulls and goats.

 

[Deborah13]

The Blood of Christ points to His total work on the cross. His literal blood did not pay for the sins of the whole world. His substitutional spiritual death paid for the sins of the world.

He was still alive and full of blood when He said," It is finished."

It was His soul that paid the price,"My God,my God, why have you forsaken Me?"

90% od Christians or better have never heard of Christs Substitutionary spiritual death. If the physical death(which was horrible for our Lord) paid for our sins, we would not physically die.And if it was His literal Blood that paid for the sins of the world, God would of just put Him on the alter and sacrificed Him like the animals in the OT. And if the OT sacrifices pointed to His physical death, those animals would have been nailed to a cross.His physical death has great importance but it did not provide salvation for men. His spiritual death did. He saved us from our spiritual death.

Gen 2:17~~New American Standard Bible
but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

But look at the YLT's version. You will see 2 deaths in their translation. And in the original Hebrew there are 2 deaths in this verse. Adam died spiritually the instant He ate of the fruit. He physically died many years later.

Gen 2:17~~Young's Literal Translation
and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'

Psalm 22:1 (NASB95)
1 My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?

Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning.....

Mark 15:33 notes The 3 hours of darkness when the Father had to forsake the Son because He had the sins of the world laid upon Him. For He is Holy and can have no part of sin, Psalm 22:3.This is Christs substitutionary spiritual death. He was alive when He said,"It is finished" and He still had a lot of blood and serum in Him when they pierced His side after He was dead. John 19:34


Isaiah 53:11As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.

My post was not to set doctrine of any kind.
Just my interpretation of what Hebrews 10:5 actually says, not what it spiritually means.
What do you believe it actually says, in the simplest terms? Do you see anything there about His body being prepared to house His soul after He was born?

 

[gr8grace3]

It's not my translation, it's the Lexham English Bible who's editors are authorities on the original language, just as the NASB translators are and the KJV translators were too.

I agree, the KJV got it right. Although they choose not to insert (out of) into it for some reason as your translation does.

But just look at the next use of the same word by Luke:

Luke 1:26
Now in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee named Nazareth,
Was Gabriel sent from God to Galilee, just as John came from Elizabeth's womb? There's nothing about the verse in the KJV that supports a post birth filling of John with the Holy Spirit.

Brother, there is no Greek word "ek", which means "out of" in Luke 1:26. We just have the English word "from" in both verses.
Luke 1:26 is ~~
apo 0575 ---- ---- gen -- prep--- from 11

Luke 1:15 is~~
ek 1537 ---- ---- gen -- prep--- out of 19

And I did not mean "your" translation. I did mean by the translations that we all use. I prefer the NASB, but from my studies they got it wrong. Like the KJV of Rom 8:1. Rom 8:1 NASB got it right.

 

[Deborah13]

I must disagree. the body, does it have a mind that without the spirit that works? the trinity are three separate persons that have a unity in thought and function at times. we don't work like that.

An image is not exactly the same as the real thing or capable of the same things. Only that we are a three part being rather than a two part being.

remember that greek is very different in that it doesn't translate well from the Hebrew. ie ruach=pneuma. pneuma means wind or air. the Hebrew word for air isn't ruach.pone also translate to ruach as well. pone is the word for spirit. either way a good question for stovebolts.

If we are going to discuss the grammar further than the scriptures as they relate to this OP we will probably need to do that in another thread.
It's interesting though that Young's translates ruach as spirit in the Zechariah scripture that JLB posted and I responded to.

 

[FreeGrace]

FG,

The biblical evidence for the Traducian theory with answers to some objections is in Henry C Thiessen's Lectures in Systematic Theology, pp, 165-167, for which there is access online. See HERE. That will get us started with the biblical evidence until I'm able to interact further.

I'll just say that the argument from "species" is extremely weak on its face, given that the "idea of a species implies the propagation of the entire individual out of it". Seems the very foundation is based on an "implication" only.

I'll offer what Scripture says, which trumps any systematic theology in print.
Eccl 12:7 then the dust [biological life] will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit [soul life] will return to God who gave it.
Isa 42:5 Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath [neshemah] to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk in it,
Job 33:4 "The Spirit of God has made me (asah- human being, And the breath [neshemah] of the Almighty gives me life.

These verses state that God gives the soul, and receives it back again. Traducianism cannot be true. God alone is Creator of everything, including the soul. Esp the soul. Man was created to propogate the human race, which is the biological life. But God gives the soul, and man "becomes a living soul". Gen 2:7

 

[FreeGrace]

All I'm saying is that I'm still awaiting your statistical evidence about 'most of evangelical Christianity'.

Does most of evangelical Christianity view abortion or a miscarry as a death of a human being? yes or no.

In this thread I haven't seen the Traducian theory presented with biblical evidence. So, what are you going to refute from Scripture where nil evidence has been provided?

The OP is what needs to be refuted. And it is correct that there is no biblical evidence to support the Traducian theory.

The OP stands until it is refuted by Scripture. But I don't see how, since the OP is based squarely on Scripture, not emotions or politics.

 

[FreeGrace]

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. Genesis 2:7
This verse refers to Adam and no other person since him.

Sure. There were no human beings before Adam. So God used available materials, the dust of the ground, which I like to call a dirt pile. But whatever. After creating Adam, who was created to propagate the human race via a 9 month gestation period after conception, the rest of the human race is propagated in the SAME ORDER as Adam was: prepared body (biological life) FIRST, and THEN the created soul was imputed to the body, and "man became a living soul". iow, no human being until a prepared body received a soul.

as it is written -
Genesis 5:1-32
Every other person after Adam was begotten through natural child birth.
Adam, and only Adam was created from the dust of the ground.

What are you trying to prove? It's the ORDER that I've pointed out that is what is significant; the ORDER of WHEN the soul is imputed into a body. There is nothing in Gen to indicate that God REVERSED His order of how He created Adam.

btw, I never claimed that anyone else's biological life was created the way Adam's was. That would be a ridiculous claim.

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. Genesis 2:7

Yes, in black and white. God's ORDER is: prepare a body FIRST, and THEN impute a soul into it.

Just the same for the Last Adam as well: Heb 10:5

Genesis 2:7 only refers to Adam.

Why is this being brought up? Of course it does. Why would anyone think I was making any other point on that?

Adam became a living being, when God breathed the breath of life into him.

Sure. WHEN He breathed into the biological life the soul life, which is WHEN "man became a living soul". Not before.

A living [human] being is spirit, soul, and body.
Not just a soul.

Is there a point to any of this?

 

[FreeGrace]

It's not my translation, it's the Lexham English Bible who's editors are authorities on the original language, just as the NASB translators are and the KJV translators were too.

Glad to see you consider the NASB translators to be authorities. Let's look at Ex 21:22, and the problem of 2 men fighting and one of them accidently strikes a pregnant woman, so that she "loses her fruit" as some translations render it. But the NASB and several others render the word "miscarry", which clearly indicates a dead fetus. And what is the penalty for causing a miscarriage? It is a civil fine, not a capital punishment, which is "eye for an eye, life for a life". If God considered a fetus to have a living soul in it, and the fetus was considered to be a living human being, then the one who caused the miscarriage should have suffered under capital punishment; life for a life. But not so.

 

[FreeGrace]

But you agreed with someone who did:

Whatever. My point is the soul is imputed near birth; on either side is fine with me.

The main point being that there is no justification to believe that God imputes a soul into a fertilized (and therefore unprepared body) egg.

For both the first and Last Adam, God prepared a body first. Gen 2:7 and Heb 10:5 says so.

 

[FreeGrace]

asah does not mean human being. asah = to do, make
Job 33:4 "The Spirit of God has made [asah] me. And the breath [neshemah] of the Almighty gives me life.
H6213 = asah, a primitive root; to do or make It is a verb.
‘ā·śā·ṯə·nî- In this case in the past tense form.

I never said that asah meant "human being". I can't imagine where one would think I did.

I don't believe he imputes soul to humans, He imputes spirit.

Well, most translations have "man became a living soul. As I said previously, the words for soul and spirit can and do overlap in both the OT and NT. So I think you're issue is a semantic one.

I have know idea what you mean by mystical blood. What did I say that would lead you to that interpretation.

Your comment that Heb 10:5 only referred to His blood, or something like that. As if His blood had some special power.

Hebrews 10:5
Body and blood of sacrificial animals vs Body and blood of Christ give for us.
There are many reason He had a body prepared for Him but in this scripture I see a teaching about His one work at the cross being the true sacrifice rather than the body and blood of bulls and goats.
I don't see anything about housing His soul. Not that it didn't just that I can't see how it supports your OP.

The point of Heb 10:5 is the ORDER in which the Son of God was born. A body was prepared for Him. That strongly indicates that a body was prepared BEFORE He entered it. Which is the exact same ORDER as we find for the first Adam in Gen 2:7. Body first, and THEN the soul.

I am not even close to disregarding His body and blood in Hebrews 10:5.

I never said to disregard anything, much less His body and blood, for heaven's sake.

I state that is exactly what that scripture is about, His physical body and His physical blood vs the physical bodies and physical blood of bulls and goats.

Just focus on the ORDER, which was my point. Same as that of the first Adam.

 

[gr8grace3]

My post was not to set doctrine of any kind.
Just my interpretation of what Hebrews 10:5 actually says, not what it spiritually means.
What do you believe it actually says, in the simplest terms? Do you see anything there about His body being prepared to house His soul after He was born?

Simplest terms. I think we both agree that a body has to house the soul?

Heb 10:5~~New American Standard Bible
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 does NOT say," When He was conceived or in the womb, He says......."

 

[chessman]

Brother, there is no Greek word "ek", which means "out of" in Luke 1:26.

I meant 1:27. Something is going on with my phone editor today and it's acting weird.

But a better, more related example of the same word being used is:

Luke 6:42Prep
GRK: τὴν δοκὸν ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ
KJV: first the beam out of thine own eye,

Luke 6:42Lexham English Bible (LEB)
42 How are you able to say to your brother, “Brother, allow me to remove the speck that is in your eye,” while you yourself do not see the beam of wood in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the beam of wood from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother’s eye!​

My point is, that the word in the KJV or in the LEB or in the GRK simply means from (out of), origin.
If the beam was in the eye of the hypocrite prior to removal from the eye, then the Holy Spirit was in John prior to removal from the womb.

 

[JLB]

After creating Adam, who was created to propagate the human race via a 9 month gestation period after conception, the rest of the human race is propagated in the SAME ORDER as Adam was: prepared body (biological life) FIRST, and THEN the created soul was imputed to the body, and "man became a living soul". iow, no human being until a prepared body received a soul.

Man became a living being [soul] which is spirit soul and body.

That is a different meaning than soul.

A living being refers to a complete human being which is comprised of spirit soul and body.

As far as "putting a soul" into a human being, that idea is not found in scripture.

God forms the spirit within a man.

This is done at birth.

The "fetus" or undeveloped body is living and grows within the mothers womb because it is in fact "alive".

If a developing body of a human [fetus] were to die in the womb, it would not continue to develop or grow.

Therefore, according to scripture, for a body to be declared as living, it has to have a spirit within.

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2:26

A fetus or body of a human can not grow within the womb and be declared as alive without it's spirit within.


JLB

 

[chessman]

accidently strikes a pregnant woman, so that she "loses her fruit" as some translations render it. ... It is a civil fine, not a capital punishment,

True, but didn't you say accidently strikes a pregnant woman?
If a person accidently strikes another woman (pregnant or not) are you familiar with what God's punishment is?

12 “‘Whoever strikes someone and he dies will surely be put to death. 13 But if he did not lie in wait and it was an accident, I will appoint for you a place to which he may flee.​

Another civil penalty on a living, breathing person. Same as for a miss carriage.

the word "miscarry", which clearly indicates a dead fetus.

Not to me it doesn't. To me, miscarry clearly means the woman missed carry the baby to full term and it died.

then the one who caused the miscarriage should have suffered under capital punishment; life for a life. But not so.

What, caused the miscarriage by accident or by intentional murder of the baby?

If your idea was accurate, (the baby is merely a fetus until "just prior" to moving down the birth canal), then there should be no penalty whatsoever for accidently causing a miscarriage. But there is one called for by God. The key is was it an accident (which is what v22 is talking about).

 

[jasonc]

An image is not exactly the same as the real thing or capable of the same things. Only that we are a three part being rather than a two part being.


If we are going to discuss the grammar further than the scriptures as they relate to this OP we will probably need to do that in another thread.
It's interesting though that Young's translates ruach as spirit in the Zechariah scripture that JLB posted and I responded to.

I will ask you this. for in Him is the express image of the Godhead. ok what does that mean? jesus surely wasn't a three part being. he was both the Son of God and Man at the same time. and the bible does say he had a soul. so then I must ask if man on the earth in the Form of Jesus is a triparte entity.?

 

[Deborah13]

Glad to see you consider the NASB translators to be authorities. Let's look at Ex 21:22, and the problem of 2 men fighting and one of them accidently strikes a pregnant woman, so that she "loses her fruit" as some translations render it. But the NASB and several others render the word "miscarry", which clearly indicates a dead fetus. And what is the penalty for causing a miscarriage? It is a civil fine, not a capital punishment, which is "eye for an eye, life for a life". If God considered a fetus to have a living soul in it, and the fetus was considered to be a living human being, then the one who caused the miscarriage should have suffered under capital punishment; life for a life. But not so.

I think you are taking too many liberties with that scripture Ex. 21:22. That scripture never uses the word for miscarries, or a dead fetus/child. It gives no determination as to how far along the pregnancy is or the age of her fruit. I know the Jewish teaching on this and what the writings of both RaMBaM and Rashi say.
Here is a scripture that is clearly about miscarrying.
Exo 23:26 there is not a miscarrying [shakol] and barren one in thy land; the number of thy days I fulfil:
Now here is Ex 21:22, where do you see anything that says she miscarried. KJV and YLT
Exo 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit [yedled] depart [yatsa] from her, and yet no mischief [ason] follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Exo 21:22 `And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children [yedled] have come out, and there is no mischief [ason], he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges;
That word translated as miscarrying, shakol, actually means to bereave, have sorrow.