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

Christianity Today Op Ed

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

  • Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
    Actually it is a mistranslated as Miscarriage in the NASB as Greg Koukl points out the 2 hebrew words used in that instance have been used to denote a living birth.here in fact Yasa means to go or come forth.
    From the Article.
    The relevant phrase in the passage, "...she has a miscarriage...," reads w?yase û ye ladêhâ in the Hebrew. It's a combination of a Hebrew noun, yeled, and a verb, yasa, and literally means "the child comes forth." The NASB makes note of this literal rendering in the margin.

    The Hebrew noun translated "child" in this passage is yeled[4] (yeladim in the plural), and means "child, son, boy, or youth."[5] It comes from the primary root word yalad,[6] meaning "to bear, bring forth, or beget." In the NASB yalad is translated "childbirth" 10 times, some form of "gave birth" over 50 times, and either "bore," "born," or "borne" 180 times.

    The verb yasa[7] is a primary, primitive root that means "to go or come out." It is used over a thousand times in the Hebrew Scriptures and has been translated 165 different ways in the NASB--escape, exported, go forth, proceed, take out, to name a few. This gives us a rich source for exegetical comparison. It's translated with some form of "coming out" (e.g., "comes out," "came out," etc.) 103 times, and some form of "going" 445 times.

    What's most interesting is to see how frequently yasa refers to the emergence of a living thing:

    Genesis 8:17 [to Noah] "Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you, birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth...."

    Genesis 15:4 "This man will not be your heir; but one who shall come forth from your own body...."

    Genesis 25:25-26 "Now the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau. And afterward his brother came forth with his hand holding on to Esau's heel, so his name was called Jacob.".........

    Yasa is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is never translated "miscarriage" in any other case. Why should the Exodus passage be any different?


    Plus there were two other words Moses could have used to denote Miscarriage nepel and sakal.
    also from article.

    The noun nepel[11] means "miscarriage" or "abortion," and is used three times:......
    Job 3:16 "Or like a miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, as infants that never saw light."

    Eccl. 6:3-4 "If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, 'Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity.'"

    Psalms 58:8 "Let them be as a snail which melts away as it goes along, like the miscarriages of a woman which never see the sun."

    The verb sakal[12] means "to be bereaved" and is used four times, including one time when it's actually translated "abort:"
    Genesis 31:38 "These twenty years I have been with you; your ewes and your female goats have not miscarried, nor have I eaten the rams of your flocks."

    Exodus 23:26 "There shall be no one miscarrying or barren in your land; I will fulfill the number of your days."

    Hosea 9:14 "Give them, O Lord-- what wilt Thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts."

    Job 21:10 "His ox mates without fail; his cow calves and does not abort."


    If Moses had 2 words that would denote a dead child coming out of the womb why did he choose one that in all instances it is used is translated as living hmm?
    This is the modern day rationalization of conservative views on abortion and this text. 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.
    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
      This is the modern day rationalization of conservative views on abortion and this text.
      That'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


      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.
      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.
      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 Post
        That'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.
        The 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?
        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 Post
          The 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?
          You're using it as a means to argue that a developing fetus is somehow less inherently valuable than a fully developed person, which is a classic pro-abortion argument and not the intent of the passage.
          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 Post
            The 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?
            “I’m not a liberal (but I’ve never met a liberal talking point I didn’t agree with).”

            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 Post
              The 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?
              Show me where I said you were JUSTIFYING abortion. Applying this verse to the abortion discussion is not the same as justifying abortion, Jim.
              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 Post
                Show me where I said you were JUSTIFYING abortion. Applying this verse to the abortion discussion is not the same as justifying abortion, Jim.
                How 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)
                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 Post
                  That'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.
                  You 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?
                  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 Post
                    Are 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.
                    You are correct. I did miss your point. I apologize.

                    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.
                    If that is your summary of what you have researched, then you are in fact wrong. As you cited the Septuagint as one of the sources you researched, then you must be aware that it says:

                    Source: http://tmcdaniel.palmerseminary.edu/LXX_EXO_%2021_22-23.pdf


                    “And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her CHILD BE NOT FULLY FORMED, he shall be forced to pay a penalty as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay what seems fitting. But if the CHILD BE FULLY FORMED, he shall give life for life.”

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Additionally, from the same paper:

                    Source: above


                    This law was so perfectly clear that Sprinkle (1993:247) well noted: The penalty paid is assessed on the basis of the stage of the development of the dead fetus. The rationale for this view is that the later the stage of pregnancy, the more time has been lost to the woman, the greater the grief for the loss of a child, and the more difficult. This may have been the view of the LXX, which paraphrases !Asa' hy<h.yI al{w > as “imperfectly formed child” and translates ~ylliipB.i “with valuation.” Furthermore, Speiser’s view gains credibility in that penalties for miscarriage actually do vary with the age of the dead fetus in the parallel ancient Hittite Law §17, which states, “If anyone causes a free woman to miscarry—if (it is) the 10th month, he shall give ten shekels of silver, if (it is) the 5th month, he shall give five shekels of silver and pledge his state as security.”

                    A fetus aborted in an accidental miscarriage which is not fully formed—nor equal to an infant born prematurely—was to be treated as property. However, if the aborted fetus was fully formed—and equal to an infant born prematurely—it was to be treated as a person. A property which is accidentally destroyed called for a fine to be paid by the destroyer. But the lex talionis became applicable when a person—including a fully developed fetus—was accidentally injured or killed. Accordingly, in Mosaic law a woman’s fertilized egg or an imperfectly formed fetus was not considered to be a vp,n, a person.20 Only a fetus that was !As.a, /!w"s.a, (ceswon/ceswan) “fully formed” was recognized as a vp,n, a person.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    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.
                    This is simply untrue. It is an interpretation of Jewish faith, but not the only one.

                    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.
                    No it doesn't. The motive of someone intentionally performing an abortion is not the same as someone who accidentally strikes a pregnant mother.

                    Abortion is a problem because a life is being taken.
                    It's more than that, Jim. Someone else is TAKING that life and someone is SEEKING and CONSENTING TO that taker. Abortion is a problem because 2 other people are seeking to destroy the third.

                    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)
                    I am aware it has been used in the abortion debate for centuries. But the justification for allowing abortion based on this similar, but ultimately not identical verse is improper in my opinion.
                    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 Post
                      You 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?
                      Yes. I am sorry for that.
                      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 Post
                        How 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)
                        Did any of them have a sonogram where fetal movement can be observed several weeks before actually felt?
                        "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 Post
                          Yes. I am sorry for that.
                          Thanks BTC! Very much accepted.
                          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 Post
                            Did any of them have a sonogram where fetal movement can be observed several weeks before actually felt?
                            I would advocate that the application of that principle leads us directly to a symmetric definition where human life from the standpoint of secular is defined as starting and stopping with a certain minimum level of higher level brain activity. This would be uncomfortable for those that insist on conception as the only acceptable answer, but this removes the possibility of legal second and third trimester abortions for reasons other than immediate threat to the mother's life and provides a consistent, objective, and respectful position on when human life is a person with all the rights thereof, and when it is not.
                            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 Post
                              Did any of them have a sonogram where fetal movement can be observed several weeks before actually felt?
                              That'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.
                              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 Post
                                That'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.
                                The problem I see with treating babies at different stages of development as their lives being more or less valuable, is that it could be carried on to after they are born. After all, a 5 year old is more developed than a newborn, and a 12 year old is more developed than a 5 y.o. - And then you have people with low IQ's or dementia. Are they less valuable than say, a genius? People aren't valuable because of their brain development, they are valuable because they are human beings. Or for us Christians, because they are made in the image of God and have souls.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                15 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                52 responses
                                261 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                108 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                195 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                83 responses
                                345 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Working...
                                X