'Why Believe in a God?' Ad Campaign Launches on D.C. Buses

[djones520]

It's not difficult for anyone who reads the verses.  Christ was obviously within the first trimeseter of His mother's pregnancy, probably within the first few weeks, yet John recognises Him.  Yep, really hard to conclude that both unborn children were persons...NOT!  Give it up, wilbur.  You're always in the wrong...and you know it. 

Christ was also the embodiement of God on Earth.  Not exactly a normal thing.

[TheSarge]

You have to engage in quite a bit of dubious poetic license to get the idea that personhood begins at conception out of that.   Many in the early church believed it was only after the body was fully formed and gained sensation could it be imbued with a soul.... Augustine for one.  Theres much precedent for that idea in Mosaic law.

Then explain why there is a heartbeat at a time when Abortion defenders like yourself are still referring to the baby as "just a clump of cells"?

If you don't believe the Bible believe the father of six kids who was there for all the Dr.'s appointments on four of them.

The Bible could have clearly stated that abortion is wrong.  It doesn't.

And that somehow justifies it?  Ever heard of blessed are the children?

[Chris_]

The old testament makes mention of punishment for a person should they accidentally end an early pregnancy of a woman... with a punishment of a fine.  Not quite the same as abortion, but it makes a specific mention of how to regard a fetus, and makes specific mention restitution to be paid for damaging one.  Early Christian philosophers certainly talked about it.

References?

Anyhow, this has all gotten side tracked.  The Bible tells us not to kill.  We knew this anyway.  'Life begins at conception' does not really seem like a moral to me... and that was my original point.  Its more like a scientific statement.  'Do not murder' is the moral that variably applies to a fetus, depending on ones very scientific/philosophic view of when life begins.  And this was all yet another digression, but I don't feel like going back to read from what.  I'm tired.

So, in the absence of a specific and very self-evident fact, people should take your word over God's?

[MrsSmith]

The old testament makes mention of punishment for a person should they accidentally end an early pregnancy of a woman... with a punishment of a fine.  Not quite the same as abortion, but it makes a specific mention of how to regard a fetus, and makes specific mention restitution to be paid for damaging one.  Early Christian philosophers certainly talked about it.

Anyhow, this has all gotten side tracked.  The Bible tells us not to kill.  We knew this anyway.  'Life begins at conception' does not really seem like a moral to me... and that was my original point.  Its more like a scientific statement.  'Do not murder' is the moral that variably applies to a fetus, depending on ones very scientific/philosophic view of when life begins.  And this was all yet another digression, but I don't feel like going back to read from what.  I'm tired.

You have distorted the biblical lesson.  It says that if the child, (and the word is "child", not fetus or embryo or inhuman thing, the same word used for after the birth), is born early, but is not harmed, the attacker is fined.  If the child dies, the attacker is killed...a life for a life. 

We've been through this before.  You have a very short and inaccurate memory when it comes to the Bible.  It does not enhance the impression we gain of your intelligence when you are unable to learn anything.

[rubliw]

You have distorted the biblical lesson.  It says that if the child, (and the word is "child", not fetus or embryo or inhuman thing, the same word used for after the birth), is born early, but is not harmed, the attacker is fined.  If the child dies, the attacker is killed...a life for a life. 

We've been through this before.  You have a very short and inaccurate memory when it comes to the Bible.  It does not enhance the impression we gain of your intelligence when you are unable to learn anything.

Not so fast... 

# Exodus 21:22 If men strive [fight] an hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit [fetus] 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.

One source comments that because some Bible translations (KJV, RSV) use the phrase "woman with child" that God considers a fetus to be a human child. 3 But other translations render the phrase simply as "pregnant woman" and make no direct reference to the fetus.

This verse describes a situation in which a man, who is fighting another man, accidentally hits a pregnant woman, and causes a termination of her pregnancy. The following verse, 23, explains that if the woman died, the guilty man would be executed by the state. The accidental killing of a woman under these circumstances was considered a capital offense, because she was a human person.

Verse 22 is confusing.  The key Hebrew word "yatsa" literally means to "lose her offspring." 4 This has been translated in different Bible versions as:

    * A miscarriage: This would imply that the fetus died immediately as a direct result of the accident. Assuming no further harm happens (e.g. that the woman does not die), the man responsible would have to pay at a fine. The amount would be set by her husband and approved by the judges. This would imply that the death of the fetus was not considered to be the death of a human person. If it were, then the man responsible would be tried for murder and executed. However, because the fetus had possible future economic worth to the father, he would have to be reimbursed for his loss.
    * premature birth: This implies that the fetus is born earlier than full term. Assuming no further harm happens (e.g. that neither the woman nor the baby dies) then the man would pay a fine. One possible interpretation of this passage would be that if the premature baby died, then the man responsible had killed a human person, and would be tried for murder. The verse is ambiguous at this point.

The New International Version of the Bible uses the phrase: "gives birth prematurely." and offers "miscarriage" as an alternative translation in a footnote. These two options result in totally opposite interpretations: one supporting the pro-choice faction; the other supporting the pro-life movement.

Some liberal theologians reject this interpretation. 5 They point out that this passage appears to have been derived from two earlier Pagan laws, whose intent is quite clear:

    * Code of Hammurabi (209, 210) which reads: "If a seignior struck a[nother] seignior's daughter and has caused her to have a miscarriage [literally, caused her to drop that of her womb], he shall pay ten shekels of silver for her fetus. If that woman had died, they shall put his daughter to death."
    * Hittite Laws, (1.17): "If anyone causes a free woman to miscarry [literally, drives out the embryo]-if (it is) the 10th month, he shall give 10 shekels of silver, if (it is) the 5th month, he shall give 5 shekels of silver..." The phrase "drives out the embryo" appears to relate to a miscarriage rather than to a premature birth.

Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, sums the passage up with: "Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence -- it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death." 4

[TheSarge]

Hey Ruby...gonna adress the question I posed to you?

Or since that doesn't fit with your preconcieved rant are you just going to ignore it.

[MrsSmith]

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.

In verse 22, the word "fruit" is actually yeled, translated:
child (72 times)
young man 7
young ones 3
sons 3
boy 2
fruit 1

Point one, the word is the SAME word used after birth for CHILD.

Exodus 21:22-25 is a special text to consider. This text is a pivotal text in the abortion debate. It has two primary interpretations. The text is cited below, then the two views are stated and pro’s and con’s are listed...

>>>

The Premature live childbirth view of Exodus 21:22-25 does not allow for abortion but defines abortion as murder punishable by death. The text is interpreted to mean, if a woman is accidently struck when two men are fighting and she gives birth prematurely but no injury is sustained by either her or her baby, then the courts shall fine the man who injured the woman and payment shall be made to the husband. But if either the woman or the baby is injured or killed, the law of eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, and life for life will be enforced. This view is the best view for reasons listed below.

a) The normal Hebrew word for miscarriage is not used in this text but the word for normal live child birth, see Gen. 25:26; 38:28-30.

b) Moses knew the normal word for miscarriage for he used it both before and after this text, but he did not use it here which tells us he did not have a miscarriage in mind but premature live birth (see Gen. 31:38; Ex. 23:26; Job 2:10).

c) The word “injury” both in vss. 22-23 is indefinite in that it does not designate either the mother or the child but is left indefinite so that it applies to both mother and child.

d) The fact that this is the only place in all of the Bible where the death penalty is required for accidental death is significant. It shows us the value God places on both mothers and their unborn children. The death of either the mother or her child by accident would bring with it the death penalty!

Wrong again, wilbur

[rubliw]

In verse 22, the word "fruit" is actually yeled, translated:
child (72 times)
young man 7
young ones 3
sons 3
boy 2
fruit 1

Point one, the word is the SAME word used after birth for CHILD.

Wrong again, wilbur

a) The normal Hebrew word for miscarriage is not used in this text but the word for normal live child birth, see Gen. 25:26; 38:28-30.

b) Moses knew the normal word for miscarriage for he used it both before and after this text, but he did not use it here which tells us he did not have a miscarriage in mind but premature live birth (see Gen. 31:38; Ex. 23:26; Job 2:10).

Part of the problem with looking to inerrant literalists for biblical knowledge and wisdom is they make silly assumptions that guarantee they will never make sense of their own scripture.  It's widely believed, in all but the inerrant literalist circles, that multiple authors wrote the Pentateuch... claiming that Moses knew the word for miscarriage is irrelevant... as far as we can tell, he didn't write the books.. 

And changing the word 'fruit' to 'child' doesn't actually change the rest of the meaning of the passage.

[dutch508]

The old testament makes mention of punishment for a person should they accidentally end an early pregnancy of a woman... with a punishment of a fine.  Not quite the same as abortion, but it makes a specific mention of how to regard a fetus, and makes specific mention restitution to be paid for damaging one.  Early Christian philosophers certainly talked about it.

Anyhow, this has all gotten side tracked.  The Bible tells us not to kill.  We knew this anyway.  'Life begins at conception' does not really seem like a moral to me... and that was my original point.  Its more like a scientific statement.  'Do not murder' is the moral that variably applies to a fetus, depending on ones very scientific/philosophic view of when life begins.  And this was all yet another digression, but I don't feel like going back to read from what.  I'm tired.

Jewish law had (during the 1st century BC for example) a fine for murder as well. There were few 'death penalty' crimes in Jewish law.

[franksolich]

Hmmmm.

Doesn't the Bible say "do not commit murder," rather than "do not kill"?

There's a difference.

Of course, that just might be me; it's from the Jewish translation, and I assume Hebraic scholars know more about words and their translations, than do those scholars who came later.

[TheSarge]

Part of the problem with looking to inerrant literalists for biblical knowledge and wisdom is they make silly assumptions that guarantee they will never make sense of their own scripture.  It's widely believed, in all but the inerrant literalist circles, that multiple authors wrote the Pentateuch... claiming that Moses knew the word for miscarriage is irrelevant... as far as we can tell, he didn't write the books.. 

And changing the word 'fruit' to 'child' doesn't actually change the rest of the meaning of the passage.

The actual problem wilbur...is non believers with a noticible anti-religion bend like yourself will twist everything into a pretzel that only makes sense to yourself in order to justify and claim things that just aren't there.

[MrsSmith]

Part of the problem with looking to inerrant literalists for biblical knowledge and wisdom is they make silly assumptions that guarantee they will never make sense of their own scripture.  It's widely believed, in all but the inerrant literalist circles, that multiple authors wrote the Pentateuch... claiming that Moses knew the word for miscarriage is irrelevant... as far as we can tell, he didn't write the books.. 

And changing the word 'fruit' to 'child' doesn't actually change the rest of the meaning of the passage.

Your "wide belief" is, unfortunately for you, limited to "scholars" who don't deserve the title.  Christian scholars have no similar belief.  Also, Christ made it quite clear that the Pentateuch was written by Moses.  If anyone knew who wrote down those books, it would be Him.

Your argument also fails in the simple fact that the word for "miscarriage" is not used, but rather the word for childbirth...regardless of your opinion of the author.  If the child is born alive and there is no further injury, the attacker pays a fine.  If the child dies, the attacker pays a life for a life.   

[MrsSmith]

Hmmmm.

Doesn't the Bible say "do not commit murder," rather than "do not kill"?

There's a difference.

Of course, that just might be me; it's from the Jewish translation, and I assume Hebraic scholars know more about words and their translations, than do those scholars who came later.

I think that is widely accepted...by actual Christian scholars...to be the more accurate translation. 

[MrsSmith]

The passage only seems a clear vindication to you because you approach the text with your own biased context and pull out a dubious inference when, again.. the Bible could have easily and clearly stated in no uncertain terms that abortion was wrong.  Why leave such an important issue up to inference?  You're seeing what you want to see. This is also a 'miraculous' pregnancy of a foretold prophet... fetuses also don't typically comprehend the words that are spoken to their mothers, yet this one did.. quite the special case.  The NT makes no clarification on old Mosaic law in the OT that really show no major concern over a developing fetus.

The passage is quite clear to anyone who actually reads it.  The fact that our limited medical and scientific knowledge of unborn humans has not yet proven that they can understand does not overrule the obvious facts.  And as one who had my first child when most doctors incorrectly believed that newborns feel no pain, I've seen for myself how the medical knowledge of unborn humans has grown in the last 30 years.  By the time we actually understand it, your position on abortion will appear absolutely barbaric.  Obviously, the One Who created the child, and the growing process, understands way more than you.

Also, the Bible makes it quite clear that the verses do not apply to only prophets.  Even in one of the oldest books, Job, the Bible says:

Job 31:13 If I did despise the cause of my manservant or of my maidservant, when they contended with me;
14 What then shall I do when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall I answer him?
15 Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?

Perhaps, if you were not completely ignorant of the actual teachings in the Bible, and you did not rely on leftist websites that distort much and ignore what they don't like, you wouldn't have such a warped view of God...or what He says.