Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Why Democrats Can’t Talk Honestly About Abortion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
    Eh. Unity in the primary stuff, diversity in the secondary stuff. We don't know everything. Only God knows everything!
    But, for some reason, US white conservative evangelicals seem to have decided in the last 50 years that 'primary' stuff includes the issues of abortion, homosexuality, and the nuclear family, and that such 'culture wars' are primary. ~shrug~
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      No, the different translations deal with it differently. I flagged the translation mentioning formed and unformed as the septuagint. I thought that part was was clear.

      Jim
      It seems you are just looking for translations that agree with you then. Even if you have to use an English translation of a Greek translation of a Hebrew text.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
        But, for some reason, US white conservative evangelicals seem to have decided in the last 50 years that 'primary' stuff includes the issues of abortion, homosexuality, and the nuclear family, and that such 'culture wars' are primary. ~shrug~
        For some reason, increasing numbers of those who go to church decided that some positions of historic Christianity were not for them. It's much easier on the conscience when you decide that something isn't a sin after all.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          It seems you are just looking for translations that agree with you then. Even if you have to use an English translation of a Greek translation of a Hebrew text.
          I seems that way because you don't appear to know and/or don't respect the history of translating that text.

          The HISTORICAL translation is miscarriage, and I've given you the reasons why. HISTORICALLY, it has been used in attempts to justify abortion, as far back as Augustine. HISTORICALLY, the arguments against using this verse as justification for considering abortion moral were argued without arguing the text was somehow improperly rendered, or that the Hebrew meant something other than a miscarriage.

          HISTORICALLY, the Jewish people to whom the text was given, and of whom that language and culture around the language are, do not regard the human soul as entering the child UNTIL it takes it's first breath. This goes back to the close association of breath and the human living soul. As in 'God breathed (Nephach) into his nostrils the breath(Neshamah) of life, and the man became a living soul (Nepesh)). Given that the translators from Hebrew to Greek were Hebrew, Given that the earliest Christians where almost exclusively Jewish, given that the Vulgate retained the sense of miscarriage in the translation to Latin, we can establish that historically, culturally, this is what the verse means. One can't ignore the historical culture, idiomatic usage and context when translating a text. Idioms RARELY mean what the text 'literally' says. The use of the plural for the birth product and the context were all clearly understood at the time (3rd century BC through at least the first 1000 years of the church) to imply miscarriage.

          The trend towards translation of the text in a way the excludes miscarriage is more a modern one.

          I would appreciate it Sparko if you would stop trying to 'whisper' that I'm 'really' favoring' this for personal reasons that imply some sort of pro-abortion stance. You are completely wrong when you do that, and are, in fact, speaking and encouraging belief in a falsehood concerning me.



          Jim
          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 02-11-2019, 11:29 AM.
          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            I seems that way because you don't appear to know ans/or don't respect the history of translating that text.

            The HISTORICAL translation is miscarriage, and I've given you the reasons why. HISTORICALLY, it has been used in attempts to justify abortion, as far back as Augustine. HISTORICALLY, the arguments against using this verse as justification for considering abortion moral were argued without arguing the text was somehow improperly rendered, or that the Hebrew meant something other than a miscarriage.

            HISTORICALLY, the Jewish people to whom the text was given, and of whom that language and culture around the language are, do not regard the human soul as entering the child UNTIL it takes it's first breath. This goes back to the use of Nephesh, or 'breath' to define the human living soul. As in 'God breathed (Nephach) into his nostrils the breath(Neshamah) of life, and the man became a living soul (Nepesh)). Given that the translators from Hebrew to Greek were Hebrew, Given that the earliest Christians where almost exclusively Jewish, given that the Vulgate retained the sense of miscarriage in the translation to Latin, we can establish that historically, culturally, this is what the verse means. One can't ignore the historical culture, idiomatic usage and context when translating a text. Idioms RARELY mean what the text 'literally' says. The use of the plural for the birth product and the context were all clearly understood at the time (3rd century BC through at least the first 1000 years of the church) to imply miscarriage.

            The trend towards translation of the text in a way the excludes miscarriage is more a modern one.

            I would appreciate it Sparko if you would stop trying to 'whisper' that I'm 'really' favoring' this for personal reasons that imply some sort of pro-abortion stance. You are completely wrong when you do that, and are, in fact, speaking and encouraging belief in a falsehood concerning me.



            Jim
            I never said any such thing. Just that it appears to me that you are trying really hard to justify your already stated opinion. I have found HISTORICAL commentaries that say it refers to a live birth. And just because something is historical doesn't make it more accurate. We have more documents now than we ever did in "history." - I can admit it goes both ways, and I am just making a decision to choose the one I think fits more with the nature of God. You can't. I don't know why. And I never speculated.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              I never said any such thing. Just that it appears to me that you are trying really hard to justify your already stated opinion. I have found HISTORICAL commentaries that say it refers to a live birth. And just because something is historical doesn't make it more accurate. We have more documents now than we ever did in "history." - I can admit it goes both ways, and I am just making a decision to choose the one I think fits more with the nature of God. You can't. I don't know why. And I never speculated.
              You are implying I am trying to find a result I 'like' for some personal reasons - where the reason is left undefined, which opens the door to random (usually bad) speculation. My guess at what specific you are implying between the lines may well have been wrong, but nevertheless, that is what you are doing.

              As opposed to scholarly or historical reasons, or out of respect for the language and the text - which is the true reason, a reason I have stated several times, and a reason that by virtue of your stated questions you are claiming is false. Make no mistake, Sparko, you are implying my explanation of why I favor these translations is not true, a lie, even if you are not saying so explicitly.

              As to your explanation of your 'choice' regarding the interpretation of the text, you are saying it is not based on scholarship but preference, not based on the cultural or linguistic history of how the text has been understood for thousands of years, but rather that which fits your presumed view of what God would have said or meant. That approach to scripture is dangerous in that objectivity is lost. Our view of what God would have said may well be incorrect, and if we use that presumptive sort of thinking to drive how we interpret the text, we are reading into it what we already believe about God, rather that learning from it what it would teach us about God.

              Jim
              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 02-11-2019, 11:49 AM.
              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

              Comment


              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                You are implying I am trying to find a result I 'like' for some personal reasons - where the reason is left undefined, which opens the door to random (usually bad) speculation. My guess at what specific you are implying between the lines may well have been wrong, but nevertheless, that is what you are doing.

                As opposed to scholarly or historical reasons, or out of respect for the language and the text - which is the true reason, a reason I have stated several times, and a reason that by virtue of your stated questions you are claiming is false. Make no mistake, Sparko, you are implying my explanation of why I favor these translations is not true, a lie, even if you are not saying so explicitly.

                As to your explanation of your 'choice' regarding the interpretation of the text, you are saying it is not based on scholarship but preference, not based on the cultural or linguistic history of how the text has been understood for thousands of years, but rather that which fits your presumed view of what God would have said or meant. That approach to scripture is dangerous in that objectivity is lost. Our view of what God would have said may well be incorrect, and if we use that presumptive sort of thinking to drive how we interpret the text, we are reading into it what we already believe about God, rather that learning from it what it would teach us about God.

                Jim
                Jim, I showed you counter-arguments to yours that are just as authoritative and you rejected them and went on a wild goose chase till you found some weird english translation of a greek translation of a hebrew text. And you seem to refuse to admit that there are two sides to this story. I am at least admitting that there are two good arguments, one for a miscarriage and one for live birth. I am looking at both sides and I am choosing which one I think A) Fits God's Nature to value all life and be the creator of life. B> comparing it to other verses that speak of say John kicking in response to being in the presence of Jesus when both were just fetuses, and God knitting Jeremiah in the womb and having plans for him. and C> what I believe reads more logically considering the next verse, e.g. the context. You on the other hand can't seem to even give in that much to the discussion and are going out of your way to reject that argument and only accepting the one that fits YOUR preconception of what the verse means.

                You are doing what Shunya does. Just googling till you find something that matches your view and then using it.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Jim, I showed you counter-arguments to yours that are just as authoritative and you rejected them and went on a wild goose chase till you found some weird english translation of a greek translation of a hebrew text. And you seem to refuse to admit that there are two sides to this story. I am at least admitting that there are two good arguments, one for a miscarriage and one for live birth. I am looking at both sides and I am choosing which one I think A) Fits God's Nature to value all life and be the creator of life. B> comparing it to other verses that speak of say John kicking in response to being in the presence of Jesus when both were just fetuses, and God knitting Jeremiah in the womb and having plans for him. and C> what I believe reads more logically considering the next verse, e.g. the context. You on the other hand can't seem to even give in that much to the discussion and are going out of your way to reject that argument and only accepting the one that fits YOUR preconception of what the verse means.

                  You are doing what Shunya does. Just googling till you find something that matches your view and then using it.
                  That is ridiculous Sparko. And you should know it. What I have presented is not just 'googling till I find what I want'. Your reactions so far have been the reactions I get to people clueless about the history of the text and the language, or fully prejudiced against such studies, and honestly I am very surprised to see it. I have studied Hebrew in the past. I have made myself familiar with issues related to ancient studies over a great deal of time. I don't have a 'degree' in those things, but I have studied them nevertheless.

                  And you can't JUST do a word use search - though I don't dismiss the potential value or implications there. But in this case you need to understand culture, language, idioms etc. The reasons for the translation being what it was can't be discerned reading a lexicon or doing a word search.

                  And I have acknowledge that point as you raised it, and in response I have over and over given you reasons why in this case that sort of thing can't shed a great deal of light on this verse.

                  Consider this:

                  Source: https://preachersinstitute.com/2016/09/02/bible-beatdown-the-septuagint-text-vs-the-masoretic-text/


                  …the basis of the Old Testament text in the Orthodox tradition is the Septuagint, a Greek translation by the “seventy interpreters” made in the third to second centuries BCE for the Alexandrian Hebrews and the Jewish diaspora. The authority of the Septuagint is based on three factors. First of all, though the Greek text is not the original language of the Old Testament books, the Septuagint does reflect the state of the original text as it would have been found in the third to second centuries BCE, while the current Hebrew text of the Bible, which is called the “Masoretic,” was edited up until the eighth century CE. Second, some of the citations taken from the Old Testament and found in the New mainly use the Septuagint text. Third, the Septuagint was used by both the Greek Fathers of the Church, and Orthodox liturgical services (in other words, this text became part of the Orthodox church Tradition)

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Now this comes from a site arguing for the Greek Orthodox tradition, nevertheless, it's points are valid concerning the validity of looking at the Septuagint for guidance in understanding difficult passages.

                  But consider also this from a protestant site appearing to favor the Masoretic text:

                  Source: http://evidenceforchristianity.org/what-is-the-advantage-of-the-masoretic-text-over-the-septuagint-translation/


                  As for the relative advantages and disadvantages, the Masoretic Text has some textual issues because it was produced from Hebrew texts from the 8th and 9th centuries. The Septuagint Text has a different problem, which is that it is not in the original language, but the advantage of the Septuagint for accuracy is that it is a translation made about 250 years BC, so it reflects relatively better Hebrew text. Good scholars who translate the Old Testament into English take into account both the Masoretic and the Septuagint texts, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls. In fact, if you look in the margin of your Bible, they will often note which of the versions is being used, as well as giving the translation of the other texts in the margin.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  I would have expected more from you. That you would actually do some research yourself to see if what I'm telling you is accurate. That is exactly what I did with Piper's article. And I explained to you my issues with Piper. He is not an objective source on this, and I gave you reasons why I believe that - which apparently you dismissed. I also assumed That you would have some knowledge of the ancient texts and their relationships to each other, and the historical significance of that. If I had realized you actually placed no value on that, even to ridicule its use or its implications as one fully ignorant of ancient studies, I would not have wasted my time doing the research I did.


                  Jim
                  My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                  If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                  This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                    That is ridiculous Sparko. And you should know it. What I have presented is not just 'googling till I find what I want'. Your reactions so far have been the reactions I get to people clueless about the history of the text and the language, or fully prejudiced against such studies, and honestly I am very surprised to see it. I have studied Hebrew in the past. I have made myself familiar with issues related to ancient studies over a great deal of time. I don't have a 'degree' in those things, but I have studied them nevertheless.

                    And you can't JUST do a word use search - though I don't dismiss the potential value or implications there. But in this case you need to understand culture, language, idioms etc. The reasons for the translation being what it was can't be discerned reading a lexicon or doing a word search.

                    And I have acknowledge that point as you raised it, and in response I have over and over given you reasons why in this case that sort of thing can't shed a great deal of light on this verse.

                    Consider this:

                    Source: https://preachersinstitute.com/2016/09/02/bible-beatdown-the-septuagint-text-vs-the-masoretic-text/


                    …the basis of the Old Testament text in the Orthodox tradition is the Septuagint, a Greek translation by the “seventy interpreters” made in the third to second centuries BCE for the Alexandrian Hebrews and the Jewish diaspora. The authority of the Septuagint is based on three factors. First of all, though the Greek text is not the original language of the Old Testament books, the Septuagint does reflect the state of the original text as it would have been found in the third to second centuries BCE, while the current Hebrew text of the Bible, which is called the “Masoretic,” was edited up until the eighth century CE. Second, some of the citations taken from the Old Testament and found in the New mainly use the Septuagint text. Third, the Septuagint was used by both the Greek Fathers of the Church, and Orthodox liturgical services (in other words, this text became part of the Orthodox church Tradition)

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Now this comes from a site arguing for the Greek Orthodox tradition, nevertheless, it's points are valid concerning the validity of looking at the Septuagint for guidance in understanding difficult passages.

                    But consider also this from a protestant site appearing to favor the Masoretic text:

                    Source: http://evidenceforchristianity.org/what-is-the-advantage-of-the-masoretic-text-over-the-septuagint-translation/


                    As for the relative advantages and disadvantages, the Masoretic Text has some textual issues because it was produced from Hebrew texts from the 8th and 9th centuries. The Septuagint Text has a different problem, which is that it is not in the original language, but the advantage of the Septuagint for accuracy is that it is a translation made about 250 years BC, so it reflects relatively better Hebrew text. Good scholars who translate the Old Testament into English take into account both the Masoretic and the Septuagint texts, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls. In fact, if you look in the margin of your Bible, they will often note which of the versions is being used, as well as giving the translation of the other texts in the margin.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    I would have expected more from you. That you would actually do some research yourself to see if what I'm telling you is accurate. That is exactly what I did with Piper's article. And I explained to you my issues with Piper. He is not an objective source on this, and I gave you reasons why I believe that - which apparently you dismissed. I also assumed That you would have some knowledge of the ancient texts and their relationships to each other, and the historical significance of that. If I had realized you actually placed no value on that, even to ridicule its use or its implications as one fully ignorant of ancient studies, I would not have wasted my time doing the research I did.


                    Jim
                    And you still can't seem to admit that there are two schools of thought on this verse and both have good support for it. So I am not the one who is being close-minded on the topic Jim. You are. All I see above is more rationalization. And I HAVE done some research myself on the topic. I posted a few earlier but at this point I have seen it would be useless to continue as it would not change your mind. Which is why I was asking why you are so invested in that view. Which you vehemently deny and act like I have accused you of something I have not.

                    I am done here. As carp says, you may have the last word.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      And you still can't seem to admit that there are two schools of thought on this verse and both have good support for it. So I am not the one who is being close-minded on the topic Jim. You are. All I see above is more rationalization. And I HAVE done some research myself on the topic. I posted a few earlier but at this point I have seen it would be useless to continue as it would not change your mind. Which is why I was asking why you are so invested in that view. Which you vehemently deny and act like I have accused you of something I have not.

                      I am done here. As carp says, you may have the last word.
                      I assumed you would be. You are not willing to consider the data I've been presenting or reason about it, so it is true there is no point in further discussion. But to be clear.

                      I don't have to 'admit' there are two schools of thought. That there are two 'schools' is obvious. What is not as obvious if one only looks at one side of the debate is that the side you have taken is johnny come lately and contrary to a good bit of historical evidence from the language and the culture.

                      And I have answered you several times. I am 'invested' in this 'view' of the text because it IS the historical, idiomatic translation of the the text. And not only have I claimed that, I have given you the reasons why and with almost each post given you additional information to consider. The alternate view ignores that history, and I believe that history is significant. It says the ancients had no clue what they were doing, it ignores known idiomatic and contextual elements and bases it's conclusions on the assumption that looking at the word use out of context, both historical and cultural, while imposing modern sensibilities on the text is superior to looking at word use in a cultural and idiomatic context. I reject that sort of reasoning. I find it convenient and eisogetical. The original speakers of the language in the culture in the time are generally more qualified to tell us what the text means (when we have access to such an explanation) than our own speculations outside that context.


                      Jim
                      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 02-11-2019, 01:54 PM.
                      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                      Comment

                      Related Threads

                      Collapse

                      Topics Statistics Last Post
                      Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                      16 responses
                      160 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post One Bad Pig  
                      Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                      53 responses
                      400 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post Mountain Man  
                      Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                      25 responses
                      114 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post rogue06
                      by rogue06
                       
                      Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                      33 responses
                      198 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post Roy
                      by Roy
                       
                      Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                      84 responses
                      379 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post JimL
                      by JimL
                       
                      Working...
                      X