Tertullian, Eastern Orthodox, many Lutherans and two more recent folks, W. Shedd (Reformed) and A. Strong (Baptist), all hold the view of Traducianism. This view denies the creation of the soul directly or immediately by God after the Fall. They believe it all happens as a genetic product of procreation. Human life is viewed as beginning in the womb at conception. This view makes no clear distinction between the origin of material and mortal, and the origin of immaterial and immortal.
The Creationist view holds that the soul of every human being is immediately created by God and joined with the mediately formed, material part of the human being. The difference between the two views is the time of ensoulment. Some Creationists hold that it occurs at conception, others at some point during the nine month gestation, others still at birth. Of those who have held this view, the most famous are Jerome, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Louis Berkhof and Charles Hodge.
This view does make the distinction between the origins of man's soul and body, and agrees it is impossible for a human being to generate a soul. It does not answer questions, such as when ensoulment takes place, and how God keeps from become an indirect/direct agent in imparting an untainted soul into a corrupt body, thus violating His own character.
Viewing the differences between biological and soul life answers these questions. Biological life issues from our parents at conception, soul life originates from God at birth. Following conception, biological life continues in two stages:
1. Gestational stage during the time in which a fertilized egg becomes a blastocyst, an embryo, and finally a fetus;
2. The human life stage from physical birth to physical death.
At the moment of conception, a mature female egg or ovum is fertilized by a male sperm. This egg is known as a zygote, and later splits or separates. Traducianists wrongly believe that this one fertilized cell begins human life. Obviously, the zygote does not possess all the informing genetic information necessary for the development of an embryo and subsequent human development. Potential, yes, but no guarantee that a person will develop.
After many splits, the zygote becomes a cell mass, or morula, capable of undergoing differentiation. The continued splitting becomes specialized cells, some for the placenta, others to become fetal membranes, others still become the embryo. The embyro alone is a potential human being. The zygote itself, then, is capable of biological possibilities, but two of its possibilities can in no way ever become potential human beings; only the embryo offers that possibility. Therefore, as the zygote may become placenta or fetal membranes, ensoulment cannot occur at this stage.
Originally posted by scottishinnzYour post is not connected to anything real. 'As it is written' references the Bible, which references God.
Many things are written. Like this;
jshlkjbvhwelrbgfierbffuihergubedfvhjtglUISzhgfzldszhfb.
doesn't make much sense though does it? And it certainly doesn't mean it's true.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThanks for the tour.
The pattern of God's creation here is delineated:
2:7
The the LORD God formed [yatsar] man of dust from the ground [biological life] and breathed [naphach] into his nostrils the breath of life [neshamat chayyim, soul life]; and man became a living being [nephesh chayya, literally a soul having life, or human life].
Naphach, or breathed into, resulte ...[text shortened]... rial and immaterial parts of man, the Author of the same, their final dispositions, etc.
The only problem I see is demonstrating that the unusual circumstances of Adam's creation --
being created spontaneously, rather than in utero -- calls for a comparison between the
two.
That is, we know two things. Adam was created with both a body and a soul and that they
appeared at the same time.
Why wouldn't the same be the case for a unborn fetus?
Do you see the difference of interpretation? You place the emphasis on the breath -- which
is not a bad emphasis given spirit-breath connection.
But, God created the body with the spirit at the same time, which calls for an analogue with
conception.
Do you have any other support for one reading as opposed to the other?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioWe're getting there.
Thanks for the tour.
The only problem I see is demonstrating that the unusual circumstances of Adam's creation --
being created spontaneously, rather than in utero -- calls for a comparison between the
two.
That is, we know two things. Adam was created with both a body and a soul and that they
appeared at the same time.
Why wouldn't the ...[text shortened]... eption.
Do you have any other support for one reading as opposed to the other?
Nemesio
Originally posted by scottishinnzGiven the forum, I feel that it is permissible to discuss theological topics irrespective of
It only goes to point out that the bible may not be a true reflection of events. The point is that I can write nonsense, and so can others.
belief. For example, you and I could engage in a debate of the theological significance
of the story of Pandora from the Greek Mythology.
Whether the Bible is a sack of nonsense or the Key to Wisdom, FreakyKBH is presenting
this material from the hermaneutic of a believer and, as such, I think it has merit. I
hope that the discussion can take place within the terms of that theological framework,
perhaps resulting in disagreement, but with the parties participating learning about their
perspective and those of others.
To simply say that the Bible is nonsense and therefore your position is nonsense is not
helpful; even if you believe this, it can be rewarding to learn how other people think:
hearing about their moral frameworks and the axioms upon which they rest them.
Nemesio
Originally posted by scottishinnzDon't be mad at me, but I fail to understand British humor.
Hey Nem,
Have you ever seem the comedy show 'Little Britain'? The title of this thread just reminds me of Tom Baker's commentary so much...
Britain, who is they? what for? and why?
That having been said, I've never been much attracted to comedies to begin with,
so the deficiency is probably on my part.
Sorry 🙁
Nemesio
Edit: Tom Baker? The guy from Doctor Who?
Originally posted by NemesioYep, it;s a sketch show by two british comedians, where they basically extract the urine out of the brits. Tom Baker, as you rightly point out is from Dr Who, is just the perfect voice over guy - a bit like your grandfather!!!
Don't be mad at me, but I fail to understand British humor.
That having been said, I've never been much attracted to comedies to begin with,
so the deficiency is probably on my part.
Sorry 🙁
Nemesio
Edit: Tom Baker? The guy from Doctor Who?
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou concede the 'may' part of the issue. For me, it comes down to statistics. I look at the statistical aspect of the sundry explanations of life's origins and attendant standards/values, and find only the Bible adequate in its explanation of/for the same.
It only goes to point out that the bible may not be a true reflection of events. The point is that I can write nonsense, and so can others.
You find any one, a few, or many of the sundry explanations outside of the Bible more plausible, statistically-speaking. I do not believe either the raw evidence, or the particulars support your belief, although it is easier to 'generally' argue the particulars of either to bolster or bust either of the views.
By 'generally,' I mean, without getting into the absolute details of any particular issue, one can skim the surface of the same, and generalize to a conclusion, albeit vauge, at best. The details, as this thread is dedicated on this topic, however, eliminate generalization, and thus force specific conclusions. The one caveat, not only for this topic, is the one studying must have the proper perspective: close-in, back off, constantly focusing in, and then stepping back to see the whole; first, not considering where it leads, and then considering where it leads.
By staying close-in, without a broader view, one loses context of not just the big picture, but how such minutae impacts and/or doesn't belong in the bigger picture. In a word: distortion.
While you may have more advanced understanding than those who lived 100-400 years ago, I doubt you would claim to have greater intuitiveness than the scientists who started the scientific revolution of that time. Most of them submitted to the authority (some even too far, in terms of poor understanding) of the Bible, and were more than able to reconcile the same with their understandings of the workings of nature.