|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
posted May 19, 2013 11:55 AM |
|
|
Since the abortion thread is supposed to be more about science and less about religion, let me post this here.
Exodus 21,22-25. Both pro-life and pro-choice people are often using it as an anti-abortion or pro-abortion point. It's clear for me that it wouldn't be good to depend on Old Testament while discussing the abortiob, yet I want to ask you how do you interpret this fragment.
The Bible, NIV:
Quote:
If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e
] 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.
Now, many people argue that "serious injury" means that the baby gets injured or killed, so that's why this text is pro-life. But how could miscarriaged child be NOT injured? Today it's not probable for most fetuses to survive the miscarriage. Why would it be thousands of years ago more probable? Why would it even be written in the Bible if the plausibility of not injured miscarriaged baby equaled about 0%?
PS. Don't even start Old Testament vs. New Testament stuff. I'm talking only about Old Testament right now.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 02:01 PM |
|
|
@Hobbit
A cruel God, and the old law! If you mix the human head. To have to mix your head. I think that Islam is still used in today's day.
EDIT: Baby hm I do not remember the old thing. When a pet, If the assailant has not been pet. Someone want to make sure he dies.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 10:39 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 22:39, 19 May 2013.
|
@Hobbit
The scriptures are saying in Israel if a woman was struck and a premature birth results but the baby lives the man was to be fined was to be fined. If the woman or baby died he was to be executed.
Quote:
Exodus 21:22-23(NASB)
22 “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband [v]may demand of him, and he shall pay [w]as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, [x]bruise for bruise.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 10:55 PM |
|
|
I went to a Baptist church. They seem to be more in touch with the believers than the more traditional orthodox Church here.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 11:03 PM |
|
Edited by Ghost at 23:05, 19 May 2013.
|
@Elodin and Exodius
Yeah just yes.. When don't know yet! Now I don't search for tip.. So old law, but no abortion is allowable. If woman decide on make a baby, why she decide make also abortion.. People! Why you go out? Better you talk about it. And the Bible said no!
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 11:04 PM |
|
|
Personally I go out because I enjoy fresh air, if bible says "no", I don't give a damn'.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 11:13 PM |
|
|
|
..and orphanage have problem on Russia
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 11:14 PM |
|
|
Paul to Timothy:
I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men,
for kings and for all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time
for which I am ordained a preacher and an apostle (I speak the truth in Christ and lie not), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
God never tells you, a Christian or an atheist, not to go out or not to do normal things, quite the contrary.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 11:26 PM |
|
|
Thank you, @Elodin, I can read. Yet there is nothing in this fragment that is saying "when baby is injured". How do we know that it's about the baby, not the woman? Considering the fact that baby actually HAD to be injured, it would make much more sense if it was about mother's health.
So does the Bible really say "No, abortion can't be done", or maybe "Mothers have to be protected"?
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 12:02 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 16:38, 20 May 2013.
|
Quote:
Thank you, @Elodin, I can read. Yet there is nothing in this fragment that is saying "when baby is injured". How do we know that it's about the baby, not the woman? Considering the fact that baby actually HAD to be injured, it would make much more sense if it was about mother's health.
Premature birth without further injury = fine the culprit
22 “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined
If the mother or baby dies then the culprit is to be put to death
23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,
If the mother or baby has some sort of other injury but neither dies the punishment is to be commensurate with the injuries
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, [x]bruise for bruise.
This is a straight forward reading of the text.
The Bible is replete with instances of calling the unborn children. For example.
Luk 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
The Bible always says, "begat sons and daughters." So at conception the human organism is a son or daughter. A child. For example: Gen 5:3,4,28-30, Job 3:3, Luke 1:36
The twins in the womb of Rebekah are called children (Gen 25:21,22.)
Babies that die before birth are called infants (Job3:16)
Mary is called the mother of the Lord while Jesus was still in her womb. (Lk 1:43)
John the Baptist was called a son and baby in the womb. (Luke 1:36, 41,44)
There are many, many other instances.
Thus the Bible establishes no difference between the life of human in the womb and one out of the womb.
The Bible says to kill a child is to shed innocent blood.
Quote:
Psa 106:38 And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.
The Bible says anyone who slays the innocent is wicked.
Quote:
Exo 23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.
We can thus conclude abortion is wicked.
Quote:
Exodus 20:13 (NIV)
13 “You shall not murder.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 12:35 AM |
|
|
@Elodin, shouldn't you read my post carefully before answering it?
I said: probability of a not injured prematural birth was too low to be even considered by those who wrote the Bible. So this "further injury" had to be about mother's health, not the baby itself. This is how I see that and you didn't address it at all - just missed it. I want to ask you if you have any proof that Exodus 21,22-25 is about baby's death, not only about mother's death.
I don't care about what the Bible says about unborn life - this particular fragment is as far as I know the only fragment that says anything about miscarriage or abortion. So it's the only one I'm going to consider while discussing whether Bible is pro-life or pro-choice.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 01:05 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:07, 20 May 2013.
|
Quote:
@Elodin, shouldn't you read my post carefully before answering it?
I said: probability of a not injured prematural birth was too low to be even considered by those who wrote the Bible. So this "further injury" had to be about mother's health, not the baby itself. This is how I see that and you didn't address it at all - just missed it. I want to ask you if you have any proof that Exodus 21,22-25 is about baby's death, not only about mother's death.
I don't care about what the Bible says about unborn life - this particular fragment is as far as I know the only fragment that says anything about miscarriage or abortion. So it's the only one I'm going to consider while discussing whether Bible is pro-life or pro-choice.
So, according to your statement you don't care what the Bible says and you are not asking a question to obtain actual information or enlightenment.
I gave you the proper meaning of the text, and the text is quite clear. Then I showed you what the Bible says about human life, referencing the Scriptures, so you would be able to see the meaning of the verses for yourself.
I established that the Bible equates life in the womb with life outside the womb. Human life is human life. A human life that is in the womb is called a child a human life outside the womb is called a child.
The verse (23) says, "life for life."
23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,
Therefore, if the mother dies the violent person is to die.
Therefore if the child dies the violent person is to die.
The meaning is pretty clear, actually, if you understand that the Bible equates life in the womb to life outside the womb. Life for life.
Now, if you say, "I don't care about what the Bible says" and you want to impose a meaning on the verses that is not there then we have nothing to discuss.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 02:02 AM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 02:04, 20 May 2013.
|
Quote:
So, according to your statement you don't care what the Bible says and you are not asking a question to obtain actual information or enlightenment.
No. I don't care what the Bible says ABOUT THE UNBORN LIFE. In that case though I do care about what the Bible says about the abortion and miscarriage.
And yes, I'm not asking a question to obtain actual information or enlightenment, because there is none. It's about interpretation and discussion. I want to be wiser by discussion, not to be "wiser" because you tell me if it's black or white.
Quote:
Therefore, if the mother dies the violent person is to die.
Therefore if the child dies the violent person is to die.
There's nothing in this particular fragment that is so "pretty clear". It's only your guess and faith that it's about both mother and child. But let me tell you once again: if a child is going to be injured anyway (because there is no other possibility - or maybe I'm wrong and miscarriage after beating mother isn't causing fetus' injuries?), why would there be any choice in the Bible?
It's like saying "If you decapitate him yet he's still alive, you are going to pay him some money. But if he's dead, then you're going to die". I'm assuming that there is some sense in the Bible and it has some logic (or maybe not?), therefore your statement is just wrong unless you explain it in a rational way.
And about "the Bible equates life in the womb to life outside the womb": most of your points are just about using proper words. You can change "children" into "fetuses" and it would still have the same meaning (like in abortion thread - many abortionists including myself used those terms equally). And there's nothing in the Bible about killing the unborn children except this one fragment I showed you - all the rest only about "children", but you have no evidence that it's really about both born and unborn.
That's why I don't care about the rest of the Bible. It says nothing about abortion nor miscarriage except these particular verses. And I have no evidence that these particular verses were talking about both mother and child getting injured.
I explained why for me it looks like it was only about mother's mischief. You explained me nothing - just gave me pure statements about the Bible and unborn life, which is not the case. Would you finally address the point, please?
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 03:28 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 03:37, 20 May 2013.
|
@Hobbit.
Believe what you want to believe.
You'll not find the word "abortion" in the Bible but the Bible calls the unborn sons, daughters, and children.
"Thous shalt not murder" covers all the bases.
Exodus 21:22-23 is quite clear to me. If it is not clear to you I'm sorry.
Quote:
Genesis 9:6
6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God
He made man.
I now refer you to a discussion of the passage which refers to the original language.
Clicky
Quote:
Exodus 21:22 is the first fetal homicide law and concerns the child harmed during a separate assault. Pro-abortion theologians wrongly interpret this passage to refer to miscarriage, and only if the woman also dies is the penalty then life for life.
But the passage distinguishes between the baby who survives the assault and the baby who dies. The meaning turns on whether the woman has a miscarriage or gives birth prematurely. And the Hebrew verb used is NOT that for miscarriage.
Therefore the passage imposes only a fine on the criminal who accidentally causes a premature birth, but the punishment is life for life if the baby then dies. This shows that God equated the life of the unborn with that of the born, and abortion with murder.
This passage, like Exodus 21:33-36, 22:5-6, and others, teaches that those who cause injury are responsible for their actions, even if the harm was unintentional. Therefore, this passage is the biblical model for any principled Unborn Victims of Crime Act.
However, if the harm to the unborn in Exodus 21:22 spoke only of miscarriage, the teaching would then support legalized abortion by valuing the life of a fetus only with a fine, and only if the mother later died, would her death require taking the criminal's life. But note the word used to describe the consequence of the crime described in Exodus 21:22, "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely," the Hebrew word for miscarriage, shaw-kole, is NOT used.
If the baby came out dead, a monetary fine would indicate a less than human value for the life of the fetus. However, because Exodus 21:22 says premature birth, and not miscarriage, the passage does not support a right to kill an unborn child, as contended by many who mistranslate this text. Rather, the text values the unborn child's life equal to that of any other person.
The author Moses (Mat. 12:26) mentions the idea of a baby coming out of the womb twice within three chapters. In Exodus 23:26, he uses the Hebrew word for miscarriage, speaking of barrenness and shaw-kole (miscarriage). But the word at Exodus 21:22 is yaw-tsaw, which means to come out, come forth, bring forth, and has no connotation of death but in fact the opposite.
Quote:
.....
Edit: The Hebrew letters were showing up as gibberish on the forum. You'll have to go the link to see the Hebrew words and phrases
.....
The Hebrew Scriptures use yaw-tsaw 1,043 times beginning with Genesis 1:24 where God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature…” In Genesis and Exodus alone Moses uses this word about 150 times such as in Genesis 25 describing the births of twins Jacob and Esau. Thus the Mosaic law requires the criminal to pay financial restitution to a woman unintentionally injured by a criminal if she "gives birth prematurely." But then if the baby dies, the text applies the full Hebrew idiom which means that the punishment should fit the crime. If there is harm beyond a premature birth, and the unborn child dies, then the punishment is "life for life."
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 08:00 AM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 10:21 AM |
|
|
The Contemporary Emglish Bible version says this:
Quote:
22 Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn’t badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve. 23 But if she is seriously injured, the payment will be life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, cut for cut, and bruise for bruise.
I think, there isn't much room for interpretation here. Older versions are speaking of "if the FRUIT departs her".
The German Luther translation is leaning to that as well.
So obviously the harm for the fruit is already done - we are not talking about premature birth, but about a departure of the fruit - a miscarriage.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 10:39 AM |
|
|
"eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, cut for cut, and bruise for bruise.", this no longer applies for Christians.
You have heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; But I say to you, That you resist not evil: but whoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if any man will sue you at the law, and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 02:23 PM |
|
|
@Hobbit
Quote:
It's not really about believing or not, more like logic. But well, at least we're clear. Anyone else?
I understand what you mean and agree in-part but I also think both are in flux; with our beliefs derived "in part" from our own logic, resulting in what we currently think or conclude.
Truthfully, I have problems with many things in the O.T. and honestly don't know what to make of some issues. It will be considered a dodge on my part but a long time ago I needed to sharpen the focus of my faith because I had adopted too much as my personal responsibility. I decided then to zero-in on Jesus and trust God on all the rest. What issues Christ does not point-blank address, I leave alone, unless I have a need to venture there. My logic tells me God knows I'm not the sharpest tack in the box  and also that my heart & head is in the right place.
My "guess" about issues like this; it's more a record of what the Jews believed God "endorsed" them to do and that's often <imo> more based on their own actions/decisions "while serving God", therefore God willed it and they recorded it. That's total speculation but since Christ changed some ancient Jewish practices like "eye for an eye", Worship and Divorce law, I'm not comfortable with doing more than using the Spirit, mind and heart I now possess, going with that and steering clear of law-stuff. If I find no answer, I leave it be. It' s been a long time since I've thought I should be able to have an answer for everything.
<i.a.e.> Some ancient strategies are a horror to my rational, like slaughtering all people of a tribe during a war or after a successful siege. I'm sure "most" people today would never consider it acceptable to kill the aged, or women and children. But, way back when? it was a survival stratagem that if your people had your mortal enemy on the ropes, they better kill the elderly because they know & remember too much; the baby-makers because more swords will follow them and their children because they will grow-up, seek revenge and will do this to you & yours if you don't eliminate this threat...now.
The world today can be very cold and brutal (like the African-horror)but I don't think most of us can conceive how terrible life often was back then in a world pre-Christ and the others that taught love and forgiveness.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 02:55 PM |
|
|
That historical approach makes sense under normal circumstances but won't do when it comes to religion since religious people declare their law beyond time and location. If some of the stuff is historical and some of the stuff eternal, then it becomes a problem whose authority will decide which is which, hence all the diversion between the churches and sects. A fable, a book of law, philosophy, even a novel can be, well actually, should be evaluated according to the period it's been written in. Religion shoots his own foot again by declaring itself timeless.
If some of the stuff is old, why not send a new message then? But in today's world we rationally hospitalize people who say they carry the message of God or hear voices, so they can't turn into legends over time.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 03:45 PM |
|
|
We did send a new message man, it's called the New Testament. But whoever said atheists have to be fair?
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
