The Bible clearly states that killing a fetus is not murder

P1234567890 · Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 3:50 pm Post subject:

Here is another discussion on this topic (this one is biased):

http://www.libchrist.com/other/abortion/exodus.html

This one seems less biased:

http://www.123helpme.com/assets/10338.html

Here is a relevant passage:

ChristineS · Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 5:11 pm Post subject:

I think the Bible was written fine, it is some of the translations that aren't translated well. Wink

P1234567890 · Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 7:59 pm Post subject:

got_truth? · Ferret Joined: 22 May 2006 Posts: 107

With so many and varied views, it clearly would be wise to go back to the original Hebrew to see what it does and does not say.

Exodus 21:22, 23 is in a part of the Mosaic law dealing with compensation for injuries. As the next verses show, the basic principle was “eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” But what was to be done if a pregnant woman was injured?

Actually, there could be a number of outcomes of the injury. Consider the woman first. She might be hurt, even crippled, but not fatally. Or the damage might have caused her death. Consider next the developing child or children in her womb. If her pregnancy was quite advanced, the blow or shock might bring on early labor so that she prematurely delivered a live baby. Or, the hurt to the mother might cause an abortion, a destruction of the life developing in her womb. Plainly, what the Law said about damage to a pregnant woman had to cover a range of possibilities.

What exactly did the Law say? We here present the literal rendering in the Hebrew-English interlinear by Dr. G. R. Berry (read from right to left):

????? ????? ????????

strike they and ,men contend when And

????? ????? 22 ??? ???

,child her forth goes and ,1pregnant 2woman a

???? ???? ???? ???? ???

,fined be shall he surely ;injury is not and

??? ???? ???? ????

of husband the him upon put may as

? ?????? ???? ????

.judges the with give shall he and ,woman the

??? ????? ???? ????????

23 soul give shalt thou (and) ,is injury if And

? ??? ???

,soul for

The Hebrew word here rendered “injury” (“harm,” Revised Standard Version; “mischief,” Authorized Version) is asón. According to the lexicon by William L. Holladay, asón means “mortal accident.” This is borne out by the usage of asón in its three other occurrences in the Bible. (Gen. 42:4, 38; 44:29) Thus, the rendering “fatal accident” in the New World Translation enables one more accurately to understand what the Law here said.

(Note: the question marks above is where the literal Hebrew words would be. I don't have a Hebrew keypad, so they will have to suffice.)

P1234567890 · Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 7:03 am Post subject:

I don't think this really gets us any closer to knowing what the passage really says. I have seen many different "official translations of the original Hebrew" that are different.

The bottom line is that people translate it to mean what they want it to mean. There doesn't seem to be any way of telling who is right...

RevJP · Moderator Joined: 18 Apr 2003 Posts: 6826 Location: USA

P1234567890 · Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 8:45 am Post subject:

got_truth? · Ferret Joined: 22 May 2006 Posts: 107

But then the question arises, To whom does the expression “fatal accident” apply? Is it the child, the mother or either of them? Some translations present an interpretation of the matter. For instance, The Jerusalem Bible reads: “If, when men come to blows, they hurt a woman who is pregnant and she suffers a miscarriage, though she does not die of it, the man responsible must pay the compensation demanded of him, . . . But should she die, you shall give life for life.” (Ex. 21:22, 23, italics added) This translation clearly shows that a fatal accident is at issue, but the inserted interpretive “she” leaves the impression that if the blow caused the woman to abort but she lived, then merely a fine was imposed. However, is that what the Hebrew text really says?

The aforementioned interlinear reading reveals that the Hebrew does not limit the application of “injury” (fatal accident) to just the mother. Thus, the respected commentary by C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch says that a fine was sufficient only when “no injury [fatal accident] was done either to the woman or the child that was born.” This commentary shows that if the Law meant that, just as long as the mother lived, a simple fine would cover any damage the Hebrew text would have added lah, “to her.” The verse would thus have said, ‘When men contend and they strike a pregnant woman and her child goes forth and no injury [fatal accident] is done to her, a fine must be paid.’ Yet, these commentators conclude: “The omission of lah, also, apparently renders it impracticable to refer the words to [an] injury done to the woman alone.”

Consequently, a fine was imposed when the damage caused the child to be born alive prematurely, with no fatal results to either mother or child. If, though, the blow took the life of either the mother or her child in the womb, the Law required “soul for soul.”

This harmonizes with other Bible passages that show that Jehovah God does not view a living human embryo or fetus as a mere piece of tissue in a woman’s womb. (Ps. 139:13-16) Bearing that out, Jehovah said to the prophet Jeremiah: “Before I was forming you in the belly I knew you, and before you proceeded to come forth from the womb I sanctified you.” (Jer. 1:5) Also, the stipulated “soul for soul” in the case of a man who caused the death of a woman or caused her to abort, would be consistent with the Bible’s overall teaching of respect for life and its opposition to manslaughter.—Gen. 9:6; Num. 35:30, 31; Rev. 21:8.

Therefore Exodus 21:22, 23 in no way minimizes the serious wrongness of abortion. Rather, it shows that the heavy penalty of “soul for soul” was set out in the Mosaic law for anyone who caused a “fatal accident” to a woman or a child developing in her womb.

P1234567890 · Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 9:22 am Post subject:

We can keep going around and around this issue. The bottom line is that the Bible is not clear, and it can therefore be interepreted in any way you want. The pro-choice people can read Exodus 21:22 to say that abortion is fine. The pro-lifers can read it to say that abortion is murder.

The real question is when ensoulment happens. I assert that ensoulment must happen at birth rather than at conception, because there is a major problem with ensoulment at conception and identical twins:

If ensoulment happens at conception, then does the twin that split off from the original zygote get a copy of the original soul? Does it get no soul at all? Does it share one single soul with its sibling? Does it somehow get a new, independent soul even though there is no conception going on?

All of these problems are solved if ensoulment happens at birth.

got_truth? · Ferret Joined: 22 May 2006 Posts: 107

Life is the soul. Every living thing is a soul. You aren't given an immortal soul, you are the soul. Soul simply means life. Genesis 2:7 tells us: “Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.” The account does not say that God implanted in man an immortal soul. It says that when God’s power energized Adam’s body, he “came to be a living soul.” So man is a soul. He does not have a soul.

Ana · Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 12:25 pm Post subject:

got_truth? · Ferret Joined: 22 May 2006 Posts: 107

It is a soul at conception. That is when the life begins. Please read Psalms 139:16

FFT · Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 1:09 pm Post subject:

got_truth? · Ferret Joined: 22 May 2006 Posts: 107

Again, they aren't given souls they are souls. Each life is unique. So each twin may look the same, but each has different personalities and emotional make up. They are two seperate lives or souls. Not sure why everyone wants to get so technical. I guess for the sake of debating.

FFT · Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 1:54 pm Post subject: