A Response to Mythbuster

When I first began this blog, I discovered almost immediately the necessity to monitor comments. The first comment posted (which I later deleted) was filled with unnecessary language as well as made absolutely no sense relative to my entry. So I have the capability of deciding whether to permit a comment or not.

Some blogger named “Mythbuster” attempted to post a comment to my March 12 entry in this blog. I decided to block the comment for one primary reason: most folks do not often view comments. Comments get lost in the “blog shuffle”. This comment demanded a reply and such a reply would also be lost in a simple comment. I believed this specific “comment” needed more visibility than a simple comment.

So, first, I am posting the comment in its entirety. Then, I will step through it paragraph by paragraph and attempt to address “Mythbuster”’s statements.

For starters, there was no word for embryo in ancient Greek or ancient Hebrew. For that matter, there was no word for abortion either, even though abortions were taking place during that period in history.

Furthermore, if we look more closely at the Bible we see passages which actually show that God does not consider an embryo/fetus to be a human life.

Take, for example, Exodus 21:22-25 which shows that a woman's health is more important than that of a fetus.(22)If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. (23)And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, (24)Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (25)Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.This clearly states that if a woman suffers a miscarriage due to two men fighting but she is not harmed then her husband can take the other man to court, but if she is also harmed the punishment must fit the crime.

In Leviticus 27:6, God commands that a monetary value be placed on children who were no younger than one month old. Any younger than that and they had no value.

In Numbers 3:15, God commands that a census be taken, but only of those one month old and above. Those younger than that, including fetuses, were not counted.

Even in Genesis 2:7 we see that God did not consider Adam to be a "living soul" until God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life".

I could go on but I think these examples state it best. Either human life does not begin at conception or God's words clearly contradict themselves and therefore could not be from an omnipotent being.

I do not want to be repetitive but I am going to respond to these statements one paragraph at a time by first repeating each paragraph.

For starters, there was no word for embryo in ancient Greek or ancient Hebrew. For that matter, there was no word for abortion either, even though abortions were taking place during that period in history.

Mythbuster is referring to my comment attached to Luke 1:36. This is what I said:

"And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has conceived a son" (not an embryo, or a blob of cells, but a SON; Luke 1:36).

Unfortunately, he misses my point. Whether Greek or Hebrew had a word for embryo is not the issue. The fact is the angel has confirmed Elizabeth conceived a son (huion in the Greek) and not some impersonal entity. The conception resulted in a male human. If that was not the angel’s intention, the statement could have read “has conceived an it” (auto in the Greek). In this verse, “son” (huion) is the direct object of the verb “conceived”.

Concerning the Old Testament passages I quoted (the Hebrew passages of which there are many more), my point, again, is not the absence of the word “fetus” or “embryo” in Hebrew but the use of the personal pronoun translated by such words as “me” and “you”, not “it”.

Were abortions taking place at that time? Almost certainly they were. But that does not justify abortion. Since the eating of the fruit of the tree in the Garden of Eden, man has been and is a sinner. Abortion has been and continues to be a sin no matter in what era it was or is practiced.

Furthermore, if we look more closely at the Bible we see passages which actually show that God does not consider an embryo/fetus to be a human life.Take, for example, Exodus 21:22-25 which shows that a woman's health is more important than that of a fetus.(22)If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. (23)And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, (24)Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (25)Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.This clearly states that if a woman suffers a miscarriage due to two men fighting but she is not harmed then her husband can take the other man to court, but if she is also harmed the punishment must fit the crime.

When I read this text it does not “clearly state” what Mythbuster is claiming. There have been debates on this passage among Christian scholarship but I believe the passage is better understood quite differently. Verse 22 states one side of the problem while verses 23-25 give us the other side. Using the English Standard Version, let me look at those two divisions.

“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine.”

So, in this case you have some men fighting and during the fight they strike a pregnant woman who goes into labor. The result: the child (children) is born with “no harm”, i.e., the child was not injured by the men in this fight. The woman’s husband imposes a fine on them for hurting his wife and the judges demand the payment.

“But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

This is case 2. The pregnant woman is struck and goes into labor. However, the child is born with problems (“there is harm”). In that case, what is the penalty to be assessed those who struck the woman? It is the “lex talionis”, the law of retaliation. If that child has lost an eye, the men will lose an eye. If that child has lost a foot, the men will lose a foot. If that child has lost its life, well, you get the picture.

Furthermore, Mythbuster said this passage shows a “woman's health is more important than that of a fetus.” Somehow that is supposed to prove that “God does not consider an embryo/fetus to be a human life.” As I have stated in other blog entries, there are cases when one must choose the life of the mother over the life of the unborn child. For example, a tubal pregnancy will result in the death of both mother and child if the child is not removed. In order to save the life of the mother, the child’s life must be ended before birth. The LIFE (not health) of the mother, in this case, is of more value than the LIFE of the unborn child. But that statement does not lead to the conclusion that I do consider the unborn child to be anything less than a human life and neither does God.

On to his next example:

In Leviticus 27:6, God commands that a monetary value be placed on children who were no younger than one month old. Any younger than that and they had no value.

If you read the entire chapter it becomes apparent the discussion concerns giving a monetary offering in place of an actual dedication of a person to the Lord. The NIV renders part of verse 2 as “If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate persons to the Lord by giving equivalent values…”. Following this are the various equivalent values for individuals. We find the following values:

- males, over 60 years: 15 shekels
- females, over 60 years: 10 shekels
- males, 20-60: 50 shekels
- females, 20-60: 30 shekels
- males, 5-20: 20 shekels
- females, 5-20: 10 shekels
- males, 1 month – 5 years: 5 shekels
- females, 1 month – 5 years: 3 shekels

Dedicated service to the Lord is valued more for those who are more capable of serving him, i.e., those in the 20-60 years of age. Those younger are of less value in terms of service as are those much older. Serving males are of more value than serving females.

Given the infant mortality rate was quite high, it isn’t surprising no equivalent value was placed on a one month old. Is Mythbuster implying that God does not believe an individual is a living human being until they are at least one month old?

In Numbers 3:15, God commands that a census be taken, but only of those one month old and above. Those younger than that, including fetuses, were not counted.

Mythbuster is attempting to use the same argument on Numbers 3:15 as he did in Leviticus 27:6. So there is no need to repeat what I said relative to that verse. In the Numbers passage, the Levites are being counted for service in the ministry. The census taken does not include those under one month which, again, is not surprising given the infant mortality rate. Once more I would ask Mythbuster if he is inferring that God does not consider an individual a living human until they are one month of age?

One additional note, though. If Numbers 3:15 implies God does not consider those under one month to be a living human, then God must not consider those under 20 years to be human either (see Numbers 1:3 for the counting of people in all tribes but Levi, the tribe being counted in Numbers 3).

Even in Genesis 2:7 we see that God did not consider Adam to be a "living soul" until God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life".

I’m assuming Mythbuster is implying life does not begin until the “fetus” takes a breath. Otherwise, I see no reason for even referring to this verse.

First, anyone who believes in the creation account (and I suspect Mythbuster does not which makes his using this text curious at best), understands the creation of Adam and Eve was a unique event. Obviously neither could be born in some normal way. In reality, this is the “which came first, the chicken or the egg” question. The answer: the chicken. God created Adam and Eve as adults. Therefore, using their “births” as a model for typical human births is illogical.

Second, Mybuster may consult his Hebrew and note that Genesis 2:7 reads “breathed into his nostrils the BREATH OF LIVES”. Sometimes Hebrew uses plural words to indicate majesty. Perhaps that’s what is happening here. But perhaps the plural is referring to the two lives God breathed into Adam: physical life and spiritual life. Adam’s heart was not beating prior to this act. Adam’s brain was not functioning prior to this act. Adam was not moving his arms or his legs prior to this act. In ONE ACT, Adam became a physical and spiritual being, i.e., a living soul.

Wow, that sounds like what happens at conception to me! The heart of the unborn is beating before the mother even realizes she’s pregnant. Physical life is present at conception because conception results in continual growth. Physical life exists for that child before it ever takes its first breath of air because it has already received the breath of God at its conception.

Now to his conclusion:

I could go on but I think these examples state it best. Either human life does not begin at conception or God's words clearly contradict themselves and therefore could not be from an omnipotent being.

Nothing Mythbuster has said or any passage he has quoted proves human life does not begin at conception. Perhaps he should go back and examine the passages I quoted. Interestingly, he never addressed them other than his comment on the word “embryo”.

Second, he has offered no proof that God’s Word “clearly contradict themselves”. I’m a bit perplexed how he could draw such a conclusion.

Finally, he claims if God’s words do contradict themselves then God could not be an omnipotent being. I’m sorry but that logic does not follow. God could be an all powerful (omnipotent) LYING being in which case His words could consistently contradict themselves. The correct conclusion would be if God’s word clearly contradict themselves He, therefore, is not a God of truth or He is not an omniscient (all knowing) God.

My suspicion is Mythbuster has grabbed a selection of “pro-death” arguments he has found at some web site and plastered them together to form his comment. I’ve seen these before. Nevertheless, I feel sorry for him and those like him who continue to fight for the “right” to murder unborn children for any case and at any time. May the Lord convict his heart and save his soul.