The scriptures

Q: The scriptures: When does life begin?

A: From the moment of fertilization!

Psalm 139 v 14-16 "I will praise thee for I am fearfully and wonderfully made : marvelous are thy works, and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance (bone) was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being un perfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them" Authorized Version 1611

John Calvin's comments on these verses.

[Verse 15. ] That nothing is hid from God David now begins to prove from the way which man is at first formed, and points out God's superiority to other artificers in this, that while they must have their work set before their eyes before they can form it, he fashioned us in our mother's womb. It is of little importance whether we read my strength or my bone (AV reads : substance), though I prefer the latter reading. He next likens the womb of the mother to the lowest caverns or recesses of the earth. Should an artisan intend commencing a work in some dark cave where there was no light to assist him, how would he set his hand to it? In what way would he proceed? What kind of workmanship would it prove? But God makes the most perfect work of all in the dark, for He fashions man in the mother's womb. The verb rakam, which means weave together, is employed to amplify and enhance what the Psalmist had just said. David no doubt means figuratively to express the inconceivable skill which appears in the formation of the human body. When we examine it, even to the nails on our fingers, there is nothing that could be altered, without felt inconveniency, as at something disjointed or put out of place ; and what then if we should make the individual parts the subject of enumeration ? Where is the embroiderer who - with all his industry and ingenuity - could execute the hundredth part of this complicate and diversified structure?

[Verse 16. ] The embryo, when first conceived in the womb, has no form ; and David speaks of God 's having known him when he was yet a shapeless mass.....The argument is from the greater to the less. If he was known to God before he had grown to a certain definite shape, much less could he now elude his observation. He adds, that in thy book all my members were written ; that is, the whole method of his formation was well known to God. The term ' book' is a figure taken from the practice common amongst men of helping their memory by means of books and commentaries. Whatever is an object of God's knowledge he is said to have registered it in writing, for he needs no helps to memory. Interpreters are not agreed as to the second clause ( which in continuance were fashioned when as yet there was none of them ). Some read yammin (Heb.), in the nominative case, when days were made ; the sense being, according to them - All my bones were written in my book, O God! from the beginning of the world, when days were first formed by thee, and when as yet none of them actually existed. The other is the more natural meaning, that the different parts of the human body were formed in a succession of time ; for in the first germ there is no arrangement of parts, or proportion of members, but it is developed and takes its peculiar form progressively......

Other Scriptures : Ps 51.5, Job 31:15, Isa. 44.2, Jer. 1.5, Eccles 11.5

Q: According to scripture, In what respects is a zygote or early stage embryo to be regarded as human ?

A : The scriptures clearly indicate that a zygote [ a fertilised egg ] is accounted, before God, as human, because it possesses the innate corruption of original sin [ Ps. 51 :5 ], and indeed legal guilt has been imputed [or accredited ] to it. See Appendix B for a more in depth discussion.

Q: Does not the theory of evolution negate special creation ?

A : Macroevolution* [as opposed to microevolution / natural selection]** is the doctrinal cornerstone of atheism with no sound scriptural or scientific support .

N.B. ANSWERS IN GENESIS (see their site] OR A SIMILAR ORGANIZATION CAN PROVIDE DETAILS ON THE FALLACY OF MACROEVOLUTION.

*MACROEVOLUTION is the hypothesis that one "type" of organism can change into another , new, "type" . For this to happen, the inheritable genetic material [ DNA ] must somehow be changed. Random Mutations [ and /or insertions ] in the genetic material are touted as the likely sources of such new material. Blind forces of natural selection then select for advantageous mutations.

However, this can never be demonstrated scientifically, because of the incalculable amount of time required [ assuming the hypothesis was correct & macroevolution was workable] . For instance, billions upon billions of years ( i.e. more time than the age of the earth, even if it was six billion years old, by far] would be needed to evolve the human brain with its billions/ hundreds of billions? of intricate, often interdependent, neural connections. Furthermore, mutations/insertions in the DNA, supposedly the source of new genetic material, when they affect higher organisms at all, in nearly every instance, hinder their normal function. It should also be remembered that the cells of organisms have repair mechanisms which correct much of the DNA damage induced by mutagens.

**MICROEVOLUTION is the God given ability of one "type" of organism to adapt to the environment it finds itself in. The adaption is only possible within certain narrow limits. Genetic traits present within the population as a whole are selected for on a "survival of the fittest basis". There is no production of new genetic material. Man does this artificially when he selectively breeds out certain traits in horses. However, nobody has yet managed to breed a horse into some other life form. Darwin's finches are an example of microevolution.

To Home Page