Originally posted by RumTumTugger
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Christianity Today Op Ed
Collapse
X
-
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
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThis is the modern day rationalization of conservative views on abortion and this text.
ETHERIDGE’S TARGUM PARAPHRASE
“If men when striving strike a woman with child, and cause her to miscarry, but not to lose her life, the fine on account of the infant which the husband of the woman shall lay upon him, he shall pay according to the sentence of the judges. But if death befall her, then thou shalt judge the life of the killer for the life of the woman.”
Josephus, in Antiquities 4: 278
“He that kicks a pregnant woman, if the woman miscarry, shall be fined by the judges for having, by the destruction of the fruit of her womb, diminished the population, and a further sum shall be presented by him to the woman’s husband. If she die by the blow, he shall also die, the law claiming sacrifice of life for life
It is not a full analysis of all the data that is available as regards the uncertainty surrounding the words used, and is completely uninformed as regards alternate sources such as the Septuagint and extra biblical writing by Christian and Jewish authors from antiquity, though it would take me some time to go pull up the research I have done on the matter.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostThat's a blatant lie, Jim. It is the view of Josephus and the Targum.
ETHERIDGE’S TARGUM PARAPHRASE
“If men when striving strike a woman with child, and cause her to miscarry, but not to lose her life, the fine on account of the infant which the husband of the woman shall lay upon him, he shall pay according to the sentence of the judges. But if death befall her, then thou shalt judge the life of the killer for the life of the woman.”
Josephus, in Antiquities 4: 278
“He that kicks a pregnant woman, if the woman miscarry, shall be fined by the judges for having, by the destruction of the fruit of her womb, diminished the population, and a further sum shall be presented by him to the woman’s husband. If she die by the blow, he shall also die, the law claiming sacrifice of life for life
Again, as I have noted several times on this site, this is referring to accidental miscarriage, not intentional abortion, so using it to apply to abortion is biblical eisegesis.
And I'm not using it as a means of justifying abortion. Have you read my posts on this?Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-21-2020, 03:17 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
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThe post I was responding to is trying to say miscarry is not a correct translation. I accept miscarry as the correct translation. Notice the fine for the miscarriage is not his life.
And I'm not using it as a means of justifying abortion. Have you read my posts on this?Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThe post I was responding to is trying to say miscarry is not a correct translation. I accept miscarry as the correct translation. Notice the fine for the miscarriage is not his life.
And I'm not using it as a means of justifying abortion. Have you read my posts on this?
Anyway, do tell, how do you deal with this verse:
“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.”
Luke 1:41, NIV
If the unborn are not really people?"The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThe post I was responding to is trying to say miscarry is not a correct translation. I accept miscarry as the correct translation. Notice the fine for the miscarriage is not his life.
And I'm not using it as a means of justifying abortion. Have you read my posts on this?That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostShow me where I said you were JUSTIFYING abortion. Applying this verse to the abortion discussion is not the same as justifying abortion, Jim.
The MAIN point of my post was that your reply didn't grasp the fact that the post I was replying to was focussed on showing that miscarriage is not a valid translation of the verse, while BOTH quotes you used to 'contradict' my response recognized miscarriage as the meaning of that verse. You COMPLETELY missed the point of my reply, and in fact supported the point I have been making.
The reason miscarriage is taken to task by that previous post I responded to is that for the result of a miscarriage (which means the blow killed the fetus) to be a simple fine, while the cost if the woman dies is 'a life for a life' is that the fetus prior to birth was not considered the equal of a person outside the womb. The cost wasn't a 'life for a life' because they were not equal lives.
And this is consistent with the Jewish tradition and faith on this issue to the present day. The Jewish faith regards life as beginning when the first breath is taken, or when the baby emerges from the womb. This is why many members of the Jewish faith are pro-abortion. They don't see the fetus has having yet obtained person-hood.
As for your comments about 'eisogesis' and the Christian debate over abortion - Poppycock! This verse speaks very clearly to the most critical element of the abortion debate - ensoulment. Abortion is a problem because a life is being taken. But the debate over ensoulment (when the fetus aquires a soul) is the key issue, and there are and have been many differing views over that, with no less that Augustine, Aquinus, Pope Innocent the III and Pope Gregory XIV taking the positions that ensoulment happens later, at quickening (when the fetus exhibits perceptible movement in the womb) and with this verse forming some part of the arguments for those position in many of those instances. Any information the Bible has to offer on how to classify the life in the womb is critical information in that debate. And indeed, that verse has been part of the abortion debate since the earliest days of the Church, and even before Christianity began among the jewish rabbi's (re Philo)Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-22-2020, 08:20 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 Bill the Cat View PostThat's a blatant lie, Jim. It is the view of Josephus and the Targum.
ETHERIDGE’S TARGUM PARAPHRASE
“If men when striving strike a woman with child, and cause her to miscarry, but not to lose her life, the fine on account of the infant which the husband of the woman shall lay upon him, he shall pay according to the sentence of the judges. But if death befall her, then thou shalt judge the life of the killer for the life of the woman.”
Josephus, in Antiquities 4: 278
“He that kicks a pregnant woman, if the woman miscarry, shall be fined by the judges for having, by the destruction of the fruit of her womb, diminished the population, and a further sum shall be presented by him to the woman’s husband. If she die by the blow, he shall also die, the law claiming sacrifice of life for life
Again, as I have noted several times on this site, this is referring to accidental miscarriage, not intentional abortion, so using it to apply to abortion is biblical eisegesis.
Are you going to apologize for calling me a liar?Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-22-2020, 08:18 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 PostAre you capable of dealing with the main point instead of picking fights over little ones? I see little difference between 'justifying' and 'applying', since the majority of the objection to my posts on this are rooted in the fear that somehow what is being said undermines the traditional conservative stance on abortion.
The MAIN point of my post was that your reply didn't grasp the fact that the post I was replying to was focussed on showing that miscarriage is not a valid translation of the verse, while every single verse you quoted to 'contradict' my response recognized miscarriage as the meaning of that verse. You COMPLETELY missed the point of my reply, and in fact supported the point I have been making.
The reason miscarriage is taken to task by that previous post I responded to is that for the result of a miscarriage (which means the blow killed the fetus) to be a simple fine, while the cost if the woman dies is 'a life for a life' is that the fetus prior to birth was not considered the equal of a person outside the womb. The cost wasn't a 'life for a life' because they were not equal lives.
Additionally, from the same paper:
And this is consistent with the Jewish tradition and faith on this issue to the present day. The Jewish faith regards life as beginning when the first breath is taken, or when the baby emerges from the womb. This is why many members of the Jewish faith are pro-abortion. They don't see the fetus has having yet obtained person-hood.
https://www.chabad.org/library/artic...d-Abortion.htm
As for you comments about 'eisogesis' and the Christian debate over abortion - Poppycock! This verse speaks very clearly to the underlying element of the why or the how of abortion.
Abortion is a problem because a life is being taken.
But the debate over ensoulment (when the fetus aquires a soul) is the key issue, and there are and have been many differing views over that, with no less that Augustine, Aquinus, Pope Innocent the III and Pope Gregory XIV taking the positions that ensoulment happens later, at quickening (when the fetus exhibits perceptible movement in the womb) and with this verse forming some part of the arguments for those position in many of those instances. Any information the Bible has to offer on how to classify the life in the womb is critical information in that debate. And indeed, that verse has been part of the abortion debate since the earliest days of the Church, and even before Christianity began among the jewish rabbi's (re Philo)That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostYou also need to apologize for saying I lied. I didn't lie - you misunderstood the focus of the previous post, which was the concept that the fine levied referred not to a miscarriage (i.e. the death of the fetus) caused by the blow to the woman, but to a live, premature birth where the baby survives.
Are you going to apologize for calling me a liar?That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostHow about lets talk about the MAIN point instead of picking fights over little ones? (I see little difference between 'justifying' and 'applying', since the majority of the objection to my posts on this are rooted in the fear that somehow what is being said undermines the traditional conservative stance on abortion).
The MAIN point of my post was that your reply didn't grasp the fact that the post I was replying to was focussed on showing that miscarriage is not a valid translation of the verse, while BOTH quotes you used to 'contradict' my response recognized miscarriage as the meaning of that verse. You COMPLETELY missed the point of my reply, and in fact supported the point I have been making.
The reason miscarriage is taken to task by that previous post I responded to is that for the result of a miscarriage (which means the blow killed the fetus) to be a simple fine, while the cost if the woman dies is 'a life for a life' is that the fetus prior to birth was not considered the equal of a person outside the womb. The cost wasn't a 'life for a life' because they were not equal lives.
And this is consistent with the Jewish tradition and faith on this issue to the present day. The Jewish faith regards life as beginning when the first breath is taken, or when the baby emerges from the womb. This is why many members of the Jewish faith are pro-abortion. They don't see the fetus has having yet obtained person-hood.
As for your comments about 'eisogesis' and the Christian debate over abortion - Poppycock! This verse speaks very clearly to the most critical element of the abortion debate - ensoulment. Abortion is a problem because a life is being taken. But the debate over ensoulment (when the fetus aquires a soul) is the key issue, and there are and have been many differing views over that, with no less that Augustine, Aquinus, Pope Innocent the III and Pope Gregory XIV taking the positions that ensoulment happens later, at quickening (when the fetus exhibits perceptible movement in the womb) and with this verse forming some part of the arguments for those position in many of those instances. Any information the Bible has to offer on how to classify the life in the womb is critical information in that debate. And indeed, that verse has been part of the abortion debate since the earliest days of the Church, and even before Christianity began among the jewish rabbi's (re Philo)"The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostYes. I am sorry for that.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 lilpixieofterror View PostDid any of them have a sonogram where fetal movement can be observed several weeks before actually felt?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 lilpixieofterror View PostDid any of them have a sonogram where fetal movement can be observed several weeks before actually felt?Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThat's another big problem with attempts to dogmatically interpret scripture based on the information that would have been available to people at the time. I wonder, too, if punishing only with a fine for causing a miscarriage of an unformed child -- which is to say something that was not readily identifiabe as human -- was to allow for the possibility that the women wasn't actually pregnant, but if it was obviously a developing child then it was treated as murder.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
|
15 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 10:21 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
52 responses
261 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 09:58 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
108 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
195 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Today, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
83 responses
345 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 10:19 AM
|
Comment