[drbible1611]

Dilligent,

This very verse calls it a "work of God." Who are we to interrupt this work of God at any stage when the work is clearly began?

I don't disagree with you-read my conclusion.

However, I believe Scripture teaches that early on in gestation the baby is not a LIVING SOUL and on this occasion science/medicine appears to concur with what God said in Ezekiel 37.

[drbible1611]

Originally Posted by atlas

Dr.,



Well Dr. Ruckman disagrees with you brother. He wants to use gen 2:to apply to every child ever born.

The question to you is this.


Dose Gen. 2:7 apply to every person that has ever lived or dose it only apply to Adam?


Now you may or may not agree with Ruckman on this issue. This post is about what Ruckman believes and teaches. Now I say and have proved he takes Gen 2: 7 out of context. Now where do you stand on the issue of context of Gen. 2:7?




Atlas

You know brother I'm leaning towards disagreeing with Dr Ruckman on Gen 2:7, however, as we all know human beings are a trichotomy body(flesh), soul and spirit and Leviticus 17:11 CLEARLY says the LIFE of the FLESH is in the blood.

A person who is brain dead and is then resuscitated and placed on life support has LIFE in the FLESH because they have a working circulatory system-but are they still a LIVING SOUL?

I have resuscitated folk who have 'given up the ghost' I have actually heard them EXPIRE and they have then been placed on life support and their FLESH is clearly still ALIVE! but their soul has presumably gone??????????

[Just_A_Thought]

Originally Posted by atlas

Guys,


There is never a need to hide what any man believes on any issue.

You may hate me for this, but we need to expose false doctrine no matter who teaches it.

You all need to listen to this. This way I will not be accused of that I am taking him out of context.

http://sites.google.com/site/ruckmantruth/


Peter Ruckman teaches that life starts when a baby breaths open air out side of the mothers womb. This is not found anywhere in the Bible other than in the creation of the first man Adam, and God breathed into Adam. This has nothing to do with anyone of the birth of any person in the history of the world.



The Bible dose not say God breathed open air into Adam.

Now some of the folks here will not like me posting this link. I believe in the truth. I always have. if this is what Dr. Ruckman believes this why hide it. Why not post it for all to see.


Not one man on earth today or in the last 6000 years was made the 1st man Adam. Therefore Gen. 2:7 has nothing to do with when a man's life begins today. Gen. 2:7 has to do with Adam becoming a living soul. God did not make me out of dirt, he made Adam out of dirt. God did not breath into me the breath of life, no any other person alive on this earth today.

Dr. Ruckman is 100% wrong on this issue. I do not care if you like me or hate me for this post. If you are an honest man or woman you'll understand why I made this post any why I oppose Dr. Ruckman on this issue 100%.

I made this post on the topic, " When does a person become a living soul? " I am posting this again for all to read. Dr. Ruckman says a baby becomes a living soul when he gets slapped on the but takes his 1st breath. He dose not seem to acknowledge the fact that no other person other than Adam was made the way Gen. 2:7 describes Adam being made and coming to life.




Abortion is murder 100% of the time.

I do not care what Planned Parenthood, the ACLU or Dr. Peter S. Ruckman says about this issue.


Atlas

Thanks for the sound bite. I would not have believed this until I heard it.

[Just_A_Thought]

Originally Posted by drbible1611

I will post my thoughts on this thread instead of the other one I started because it was Dr Ruckman's position on abortion that pricked my interest.

1. IS ABORTION MURDER?

If abortion is indeed murder because a person becomes a LIVING SOUL at CONCEPTION then may I suggest that any woman that uses contraception, other than a barrier method, is a MURDERER.

Oral contraceptives do not simply prevent the release of an egg from the ovary but also alter the lining of the womb so that implantation of the embryo CANNOT occur and the embryo 'dies'.

Likewise an Intrauterine Device (IUD) prevents implantation of an embryo.

So I don't believe that a person becomes a LIVING SOUL at conception. At conception there is POTENTIAL LIFE-all of the 'ingredients' for the want of a better word are not present-YET!

Psalms chapter 139
13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Firstly, this portion of Scripture more than likely refers to the creation of Adam because he was made directly from the earth, however, there is an application to us. Our flesh has the same composition as the earth-carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, the various elements etc.

Secondly, notice that God saw our...SUBSTANCE, yet being UNPERFECT and that we were already conceived in the mind of God and our MEMBERS were written in a book, however...as yet THERE WAS NONE OF THEM.

So this passage would suggest to me that there is a time frame within the womb that a person is NOT a LIVING SOUL, but the potential for life is certainly there.

to be cont.

So because people use contraception it makes it not murder? Well, if everyone commits adultrey it must make it OK as well! This is very poor reasoning at best. By the way not all contraceptives stop the baby from feeding but do stop the egg before it all starts. If not then YES! It's murder! I know I am new to this forum and probably the most liberal one here too. Yet I even know this is not the case.

These verses prove both you and Ruckman wrong...

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:

Luke 1:44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

Both verses refering to John the Baptist. If he was not a living soul then why was he leaping in the womb. If John was not a living soul what was John doing leaping in her womb? Why was she filled with the Holy Ghost? The Holy Ghost was not there for an embroy but for a SOUL!

[Brother Tim]

Using the details of Luke 1, it can be seen that Mary's pregnancy had just begun when she visited Elisabeth. Elisabeth, prophesying by the Holy Ghost, called her "the mother of my Lord" (Luke 1:43). The LORD Jesus was not a potential being at that time, though His mother was certainly only weeks along, definitely well before the end of the first trimester.

[pbiwolski]

Originally Posted by atlas

Peter Ruckman teaches that life starts when a baby breaths open air out side of the mothers womb.
Atlas

WRONG, atlas, no he does not.

You even quoted him...

"On the MP3 file at 29 seconds he says,
Quote:
I teach ta baby is not a living soul until it breaths

C'mon atlas, get it straight.

The trouble that you, and so many others, are having here is that you misquote Dr. Ruckman and then rail on him after doing so. (Go back and read you words and see if the quotes match.)

"He's 100% wrong (big and bold), wrong, wrong, wrong...blah, blah, blah"

No, atlas, you're 100% wrong! (but I won't put it in bold!)

What you suggest and what he said are two different things.

You said that he teaches that LIFE starts when a baby breathes...

No he does not.

Dogs and trees have LIFE, but they are NOT living souls.

The life of the flesh is in the blood...right??? Of course, but it does not say the life of the soul is in the blood (you understand there's a difference, don't you?).

Souls are a bodily shape (Rev. 6), but they are NOT the body. The unborn living baby in the womb is a body (flesh) with life in it, but it is not yet an eternal soul. It is not yet "self-sustaining," that is it is only alive (flesh) as its "host" (mother) is providing its life...

Dr. Ruckman teaches (and so do I) then that when someone aborts a living baby in the womb, they are not murdering a living soul. They are not sending the unborn baby to heaven, they are simply terminating the life that was in the flesh, life that when born would become a living soul. Never has he condoned or recommended abortion, but he teaches that it is not what everyone says it is.

You can run all kinds of scripture to say what you think refutes this, but you'll have trouble considering that the position is not saying the unborn baby is not living, as you falsely supposed.

[Brother Tim]

pbiwolski, aside from the fact that Dr. Ruckman's position was misquoted, you and he both appear to consider that abortion is not a moral crime because a living soul is not killed. Murder is taking a life, not taking a living soul. So I would say that even in your (incorrect) position that a baby becomes a living soul at birth, abortion, that is the taking of an innocent human life, is still murder.

While you are at it, since your take the counter-position to others here, could you answer my questions found in posts #12 and #13 found here: http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...5&postcount=12

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by pbiwolski

Souls are a bodily shape (Rev. 6), but they are NOT the body. The unborn living baby in the womb is a body (flesh) with life in it, but it is not yet an eternal soul. It is not yet "self-sustaining," that is it is only alive (flesh) as its "host" (mother) is providing its life...

Dr. Ruckman teaches (and so do I) then that when someone aborts a living baby in the womb, they are not murdering a living soul.

Regardless of what Ruckman teaches, this position is not clear from Scripture. It is at best conjecture. And it is not consistent with other Scripture.

We agree that a person is a tri-partate being -- body, soul, spirit.

David referred to himself at conception (Ps 51:5). If all three parts were not there, then how was David himself? I just don't buy your reasoning. We know children have a body, soul, and spirit. What business do we have correcting the Bible when it says an unborn baby is a child or an infant? It calls the unborn human a child in at least 25 verses and an infant in one. I'll stick with that.

[pbiwolski]

Your questions...

Some questions for those who see the soul entering the body at birth: (give references if possible)
1 ) When does the spirit get created? If at conception, why?

I would have to say at conception, although "created" would not be the right word. The scriptures are plenteous in connecting the spirit with our/God's breath and even wind. A few...

Job 27:3 All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils;
Job 33:4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
Job 34:14 If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath;
Ezek. 37:1-14 (spirit likened to wind/breath of God)
John 3:6-8 (spirit likened to wind)

(The "why?" is answered in question 3.)

2 ) If the body is without a soul, is it alive? If no, then when is a baby alive?

Yes, it (the body/flesh) is absolutely alive.

3 ) Does the spirit separate from the soul at any point?

Of course!

Ecc. 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Gen. 49:33 And when Jacob had made an end of commanding his sons, he gathered up his feet into the bed, and yielded up the ghost (spirit), and was gathered unto his people (soul).
Gen. 50:1 And Joseph fell upon his father's face (body), and wept upon him, and kissed him.

The soul does not need the spirit - the body does. As long as the baby is in the mother, it does not need "the spirit" (it's own), it exists off of its mother. Should mom "give up the ghost," there goes the life of the unborn baby.

Job 34:14-15 If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath; All flesh shall perish together, and man (the body) shall turn again unto dust.

When the child is conceived, the child receives its own spirit (the breath of life) and becomes a living soul.

4 ) If the pre-born child has no soul, then if death occurs in the womb, does the child cease to exist?

Yes. Please forgive the crude wording, but it is no more that a pile of meat and tissue - flesh. If you allow emotions and humanism to affect your understanding, you'll want to make those harmless unborn babies living in "a better place" (which can nowhere be proven with scripture).
__________________

[pbiwolski]

Originally Posted by Diligent

David referred to himself at conception (Ps 51:5). If all three parts were not there, then how was David himself?

Yep, you said it, "at conception."

Originally Posted by Diligent

I just don't buy your reasoning.

And now for YOUR reasoning...

Originally Posted by Diligent

We know children have a body, soul, and spirit. What business do we have correcting the Bible when it says an unborn baby is a child or an infant? It calls the unborn human a child in at least 25 verses and an infant in one. I'll stick with that.

Are you serious? This is your reasoning?

So what if the unborn is called a "child." I'll stick with it too! However, it proves nothing to convey a living soul in the womb as you suggest.

And c'mon, please don't accuse me (or others) of correcting the Bible with such a lame statement about "child/infant."
Check out II Kings 4. The "child" is dead and its flesh has gone cold, but its still a "child."