Post Reply
Page 7 of 20  •  Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 20 Next
5 years ago  ::  May 31, 2010 - 9:56AM #61
faith713
Posts: 3,892

May 21, 2010 -- 12:31AM, bb-15 wrote:


May 4, 2010 -- 3:46PM, Phronesis wrote:


On the locked thread, Yavanna asked:

older, where in your Bible does it specify abortion is murder?


Exodus 21:22—25.


While Christians are not under the Old Covenant, we can still see from what is therein written how Jehovah views matters.  Note this:


And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, branding for branding, wound for wound, blow for blow.


Although the passage does not specifically state the death of the baby is what is here being addressed, the context strongly indicates that this is the case. In fact, since it does not specifically state it, then it would in all likelihood apply to either mother or child.




Imo one should be very careful about Bible translations. We should not just accept either the translation or interpretation of the Jehovah's Witnesses at face value but should look at it in comparison with different translations and other interpretations.


* Exodus 21:22-25 (New International Version)


  22 "If men who  are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a] but there is no serious injury, the  offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the  court allows. 23 But if  there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth,  hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.


* Exodus 21:22-25 (Young's Literal Translation)


 22`And when men  strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman,  and her children have come  out, and there is no mischief, he is  certainly fined, as the husband of  the woman doth lay upon him,  and he hath given through the judges; 23and if there is mischief,  then thou hast given life for  life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,  foot for  foot, 25burning  for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.


* Exodus 21:22-25 (The New Revised Standard Version - Anglicized Edition)


When people who  are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage,  and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what  the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23If any harm follows, then  you shall give life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for  tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for  wound, stripe for stripe.


Now, what happens in this passage to the fetus is important here; the words used in these different translations are "gives birth prematurely","her children have come out" and "there is a miscarriage". In the time of the Old Testament when there was no modern medical care, a premature birth would almost certainly be fatal.



- So, a possible interpretation of the Jehovah's Witness translation,"but no fatal  accident occurs," is that it tries to downplay the possibility that the premature birth would lead to death. But the other translations are much more vague; "there is no serious injury",  "there is no mischief" and "yet no further harm follows".


* One possible interpretation is that the pregnancy has been terminated (there is a miscarriage with no chance for the unborn child to survive) and that this only results in a fine. The Oxford Companion to the Bible has such an interpretation (on page 4).


The Hebrew text at v. 22 literally reads "and there is no harm," implying that contrary to current sensibilities, the miscarriage itself was not considered serious injury.



* Again, one interpretation of this passage is that while the termination of a pregnancy (with no chance of survival for the unborn child) due to violence is a sinful act, this violence causing a miscarriage does not = murder but only warrants a fine.


BB ;-)


 





The NRS version changes the wording to say miscarriage. Why would they need to change the wording?


The second answer may be safely deduced from a close reading of the NRSV, and from an observation of its trends. That reason is ideological. One discerns an apparent desire to import modern thought into the Biblical text, even at the expense of the clear teaching of the Bible. Since Biblical doctrine and some of our culture's favorite notions clash, one or the other has to "give." In the NRSV, it is often the Bible that "gives."


www.bibchr.com/nrsv.html

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."--John14:6

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.-- John 3:16

"We love Him because He first loved us."--1 John 4:9-10

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear ... "
1 John 4:18
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 31, 2010 - 10:22AM #62
Marysara722
Posts: 2,550

Exodus 21:22—25

May 31, 2010 -- 9:56AM, faith713 wrote:

The NRS version changes the wording to say miscarriage. Why would they need to change the wording?


The second answer may be safely deduced from a close reading of the NRSV, and from an observation of its trends. That reason is ideological. One discerns an apparent desire to import modern thought into the Biblical text, even at the expense of the clear teaching of the Bible. Since Biblical doctrine and some of our culture's favorite notions clash, one or the other has to "give." In the NRSV, it is often the Bible that "gives."


www.bibchr.com/nrsv.html



Er no, there is no second or third "answer" nor do we have to jump through hoops worth of interpretations when we consider the fact that since the inception of when the Exodus 21:22 law was written, it has always meant the loss of a pregnancy.  Period.

And the lost of such a pregnancy constituted a fine paid by the person [or persons] who caused the accident to begin with.
Any further harm that occurred was harm to a woman herself.  Like she suffered a broken arm or leg in the process of losing her pregnancy and at worse, her own life.

Plus, whether or not a woman herself died in the process, it did not constitute Capital Punishment when we take into account that the law is referring specifically to an accident because an accident isn't an intent for premeditated murder thus no Capital Punishment was warranted.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 04, 2010 - 9:36PM #63
Donald
Posts: 56

I don't understand Christians (Jews and Muslims) that are against abortion because of their religious views.  They believe in a god that murdered millions of babies and unborn babies and children by drowning and burning.  Remember the story of Noah and Sodom and wife into salt story.  God did not care that there were babies and pregnant woman, kill them all.  So, you believe in a mass murderer that the only thing people say is that he was justified in murdering babies because he was pissed at some sinners.  Surely you don't believe that a fetus has sinned or a one month old baby has sinned.  Your god just decided to murder them because he was pissed. 


 


Likewise, how many miscarriages are there each year that your god could prevent if he wanted?  Or do you want to tell me he could not prevent a miscarriage?  So, indirectly he is causing these abortions of human life. 


 


So, your god murders more babies then any abortion doctor could ever kiull.  Your god allows millions of abortion each year that he could prevent and does not. 


 


So, why are you against abortion. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2010 - 8:34AM #64
Marysara722
Posts: 2,550

Jun 4, 2010 -- 9:36PM, Donald wrote:

I don't understand Christians (Jews and Muslims) that are against abortion because of their religious views.  They believe in a god that murdered millions of babies and unborn babies and children by drowning and burning.  Remember the story of Noah and Sodom and wife into salt story.  God did not care that there were babies and pregnant woman, kill them all.  So, you believe in a mass murderer that the only thing people say is that he was justified in murdering babies because he was pissed at some sinners.  Surely you don't believe that a fetus has sinned or a one month old baby has sinned.  Your god just decided to murder them because he was pissed.


Because don't you know!? --There were nothing but Homosexuals who lived in S&G thus there were no infants or babies because Gay people cannot reproduce don't you know.  So thus, no babies or children were killed at S&G but if there were any, they were sinners too so into the fire they too went.


D <<< Likewise, how many miscarriages are there each year that your god could prevent if he wanted?  Or do you want to tell me he could not prevent a miscarriage?  So, indirectly he is causing these abortions of human life. 


Because only God can decide who should or shouldn't be born so all's good here.


D <<< So, your god murders more babies then any abortion doctor could ever kiull.  Your god allows millions of abortion each year that he could prevent and does not.


It's God's rules, not ours.


D <<< So, why are you against abortion. 


Because only God gets to decide who gets born or who doesn't thus it's not allowed for women to decide to terminate their own pregnancies for frivolous reasons like some woman whose Sugar Daddy just gave her a Porsche and she can't fit behind the wheel because she's 7-8 months pregnant.  Or the gals who are taking their dream cruise ship trip and want to fit into their bikini bathing suits instead of looking like beached whales.


[/sarcasm off]

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 06, 2010 - 2:02PM #65
jlb32168
Posts: 13,784

Jun 4, 2010 -- 9:36PM, Donald wrote:

I don't understand Christians (Jews and Muslims) that are against abortion because of their religious views.  They believe in a god that murdered millions of babies and unborn babies and children by drowning and burning. [. . .].  So, why are you against abortion.


That’s easy.  Man may not take another life – certainly not an innocent life.  Perhaps God is allowed to take life or to order the deaths of others, but we may not take life.


Yes . . . it’s a double standard, but since when was applying a double standard wrong?  We do it all of the time.  Minors aren’t allowed the right to vote, in spite of the fact that many minors demonstrate more responsible behaviour than 18- or 19-year olds.  The same goes with the consumption, sale, and purchase of alcoholic beverages.  Some adults can be sent to defend their country, placing their lives at risk, while still being required to wait three years before they can have a drink with their comrades.


It’s a double standard – so what?

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 06, 2010 - 2:21PM #66
jlb32168
Posts: 13,784

May 31, 2010 -- 10:22AM, Marysara722 wrote:

Er no, there is no second or third "answer" nor do we have to jump through hoops worth of interpretations when we consider the fact that since the inception of when the Exodus 21:22 law was written, it has always meant the loss of a pregnancy.  Period.


You are correct Marysara, but you have to consider all available evidence.  


The Septuagint (LXX) – the Greek version of Tanakh – is just as Jewish a work as its Hebrew counterpart.  The LXX verse in question reads:


Exodus 21:22-23 LXXAnd if two men strive and smite a woman with child and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman’s husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life, [emphasis mine]


I agree with your assertion that Exodus 21:22 always exclusively meant the loss of a pregnancy; however, the Hebrew evidence supports both yours and Faith's conclusions.  Only upon consideration of the Greek is the meaning clarified.


May 31, 2010 -- 10:22AM, Marysara722 wrote:

Any further harm that occurred was harm to a woman herself.  Like she suffered a broken arm or leg in the process of losing her pregnancy and at worse, her own life.


This is where our agreement ends.  Perhaps that is what it means today, but that certainly wasn’t what verse 23 meant in ancient Judaism. 


#1 – It's absurd to suggest that causing a broken arm or broken leg incurred capital punishment.


#2 – The Law just said  “Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death” in Exodus 21:12; therefore, it seems highly unlikely that “if any mischief follow” applies to the woman's death, which clearly was just covered (the use of “man” notwithstanding).  What's more likely is that “if any mischief follow” means to clarify the punishment for causing a child to be delivered early.  It also follows the chain of thought of the whole passage, which you agreed spoke of the pregnancy alone.  You just insisted upon this meaning (correctly, imo), but now abandon it (improperly, imo). 


#3 - Philo (Alexandria, Egypt) and Josephus (Judaea) follow the Septuagint's interpretation, saying that death was the punishment for causing the death of a pregnant woman's unborn child.


As to the second part of Faith713's point, it stands.

Faith713


May 31, 2010 -- 9:56AM, faith713 wrote:

The NRS version changes the . . .


The Hebrew can be interpreted either way, as you suggest.  Those who say it categorically excludes the unborn child from consideration in the “if any mischief follow” phrase, are simply partisan and allow their bias/prejudice to override logical consideration of the text.  Why let facts get in the way when you've invested so much in a position that might be erroneous?


In any case, it's quite clear the meaning of the Hebrew is ambiguous when it comes to the unborn child; it allows for both yours and Marysara's positions.


Of course, if one considers the ancient witness of the Greek Septuagint, it soon becomes quite apparent that whoever killed a “perfectly formed” unborn child (I think it’s safe to assume that a “perfectly formed” child meant an unborn fetus who resembled a newborn, just a much smaller version thereof) was to be executed as a murderer.  The LXX evidence clearly excludes MarySara’s interpretation of the Hebrew.  As a warning to you (on the question of religious questions on abortion, specifically the one to which you're calling attention) Marysara and those of like opinion as she, rarely allow factual evidence to encumber their debate. 


The question of when Judaism changed its position is a mystery, but it most definitvely did change.

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 06, 2010 - 5:18PM #67
Donald
Posts: 56

Jun 6, 2010 -- 2:02PM, jlb32168 wrote:


Jun 4, 2010 -- 9:36PM, Donald wrote:

I don't understand Christians (Jews and Muslims) that are against abortion because of their religious views.  They believe in a god that murdered millions of babies and unborn babies and children by drowning and burning. [. . .].  So, why are you against abortion.


That’s easy.  Man may not take another life – certainly not an innocent life.  Perhaps God is allowed to take life or to order the deaths of others, but we may not take life.


Yes . . . it’s a double standard, but since when was applying a double standard wrong?  We do it all of the time.  Minors aren’t allowed the right to vote, in spite of the fact that many minors demonstrate more responsible behaviour than 18- or 19-year olds.  The same goes with the consumption, sale, and purchase of alcoholic beverages.  Some adults can be sent to defend their country, placing their lives at risk, while still being required to wait three years before they can have a drink with their comrades.


It’s a double standard – so what?






So, you are against self defense, defending your wife and children, and war if it would involve the taking of a life.  If someone was going to rape your wife and you had an opportunity to kill the person before he did it, you would let the rape occur? 


I have heard lots of reason why people like you defend your murdering god.   


 It is nice that you admit your god uses a double standard whenever he wants.  You are admitting your god can murder anyone he wants for any reason and you are OK with that.  Sort of like a lot Germans did in killing Jews.  Whatever an authority figure says you go along with.   Here I thought your god was just and did not use double standers. 


Why do you equate your god murdering millions of babies by drowning and burning to death to passing a law that minors cannot drink alcohol?  This is a stupid comparison.  You are saying that murdering babies is the same as drinking alcohol.  Stupid comparison isn't it? 


 Of course, at least you admit that your god burned babies to death and drowned pregnant mothers and the best you do is justify that your god can murder anyone that he wants for no reason. 


You worship a god that just for the hell of it murders babies and you compare it to prohibiting children doing things that would harm them. 


 Of course your god is a double standard like you said.  Kills and murders whoever he wants and also tortures them for eternity because he doesn't like them. 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 06, 2010 - 8:26PM #68
jlb32168
Posts: 13,784

Jun 6, 2010 -- 5:18PM, Donald wrote:

So, you are against self defense, defending your wife and children, and war if it would involve the taking of a life.  If someone was going to rape your wife and you had an opportunity to kill the person before he did it, you would let the rape occur?


Yep, I’d take some lives to do all of those things.  Yep – I still think that killing anyone for any reason is sin and that its sinfulness is only mitigated by the fact that innocents will benefit from the deaths of evil men.


From my religious standpoint, taking life – no matter how evil the murdered party is – is still a tragedy and indicates man’s failure to attain to that for which he was destined.


Jun 6, 2010 -- 5:18PM, Donald wrote:

I have heard lots of reason why people like you defend your murdering god.  It is nice that you admit your god uses a double standard whenever he wants.  You are admitting your god can murder anyone he wants for any reason and you are OK with that.


Yep – I’m okay with God allowing people to be killed.  Do I presume to understand why God allows such things?  No – I can’t pretend that I understand. 


Jun 6, 2010 -- 5:18PM, Donald wrote:

Whatever an authority figure says you go along with.   Here I thought your god was just and did not use double standers.


No – I don’t go along with any authority figure and will gladly clear up your obvious, glaring confusion.  BTW, insulting the intelligence of those who disagree with you only turns moderately minded people off and galvanizes those who already disagree with you.


In any case, I give God the benefit of the doubt and I have already explained that double-standards are not entirely wrong and have given several examples where this is the case. 


Jun 6, 2010 -- 5:18PM, Donald wrote:

Why do you equate your god murdering . . .


#1 – What do any of these questions have to do with abortion?  Yeah - that's rhetorical.  They've not got jack-shiz-nit to do with abortion.


#2 – I said that double standards weren’t wrong and gave examples.  Your rebuttal was “that example is stupid” – called an argumentum ad ridiculum.  I’m not too worried about what you call stupid since I think that your response was a stupid response.


Jun 6, 2010 -- 5:18PM, Donald wrote:

Of course, at least you admit that your god burned babies to death and drowned pregnant mothers and the best you do is justify that your god can murder anyone that he wants for no reason.


Nope – I said there’s a reason.  I just don’t know what the reason is.  That’s quite a difference from “God can murder for no reason whatsoever.” 


Why don’t you try debating my points as I present them and not as you wish I had presented them? (which is called building a strawman)


Jun 6, 2010 -- 5:18PM, Donald wrote:

You worship a god that just for . . .


more irrelevant red herring


Whatever . . . I got it – you don’t like the Judeo-Christian deity that we don't even know exists.  [eyeroll]


What’s any of that got to do with the religious question of abortion??  Make an assertion and defend it, or run along and let those who can do it for you.

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 08, 2010 - 4:53AM #69
Spotvice29
Posts: 2

Hello,


 


Abortion is not just murding young innocent little angle that is a gift from heaven, and it is againt human right " imaging you are killing young inoccent child, and the law say that every one has a right in this world".


 


Thanks


theadvicespot



Edit to remove ad html code

Moderated by Marysara722 on Jun 08, 2010 - 11:06AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2010 - 4:24AM #70
Amilius1970
Posts: 45

I have a very hard stance on this issue.  Not only am I against abortion but I have a very have some bad thoughts and feelings about the women who have them.  


I know that there are some cases where a woman has no choice because the pregnancy is life threatening.  I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND.  IT MUST BE DONE.


But the women who use abortion as birth control are due for some serious KARMA.  And if the post abortion is as bad as they say it is then that is still not enough as far as I'm concerned.  Yes, I know it's not a good thing to think, say, or feel for another person.  But It's Only Right Considering What They Did To An Unborn Child.


PLEASE PARDON ME IF I COME OFF TOO HARSH.  And May The Almighty Creator Forgive Me.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 7 of 20  •  Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 20 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook