 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
 Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 11:34 am Post subject: The Bible clearly states that killing a fetus is not murder |
 |
|
I've looked into chapter 21 verse 22 from Exodus, and I found a web site with the original Hebrew together with the English translation. Apparently it is authentic and well-translated. Here is the web site:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0221.htm
Here is what it says:
| Quote: | 22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, |
It is very clear: anyone who kills a fetus and not the mother gets a fine. Anyone who also kills the mother gets the death penalty. This clearly shows that the Bible is does NOT consider killing a fetus to be murder. It clearly does not place the fetus' life at the same level as the mother's.
In other words, it is not sufficient to say that the pro-life movement has no basis in scripture. It's much worse; the pro-life movement GOES AGAINST scripture. Any Christian protesting outside of an abortion clinic (and calling the doctors murderers) is going against the Bible, since it clearly shows that that the doctors are not murderers at all.
Aside: as a corollary, it must follow that ensoulment happens when the first breath is taken. Exodus 21:22 rules out the possibility of ensoulment at conception. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Sky
Booted
Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 354
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 1:50 pm Post subject: Re: The Bible clearly states that killing a fetus is not mur |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Apparently |
Obviously, you are starting off on a very solid foundation.
Anyone can twist scripture to mean anything they want it to and you, certainly, are no exception as you approach with preconceived notions and desires and not clean pure motives.
Beware what you sew for what goes around comes around
Deuteronomy 32:35, "To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste."
Galatians 6:7, "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."
Jeremiah 1:5, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6840
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It is very clear: anyone who kills a fetus and not the mother gets a fine. Anyone who also kills the mother gets the death penalty. This clearly shows that the Bible is does NOT consider killing a fetus to be murder. It clearly does not place the fetus' life at the same level as the mother's. |
P, I gotta reel you in on this one. The passage in question does not say, nor mean, what you intimate it does. It says: so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, This indicates, at the most, premature delivery, not killing of the baby.
Contextually, the unborn has little value in traditional (ancient) jewish culture. The mother certainly would be considered more valuable than an unborn, or newborn baby.
The rest of the conclusions in your post are completely wrong for they are based on an incorrect premise. Garbage in, garbage out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: |
P, I gotta reel you in on this one. The passage in question does not say, nor mean, what you intimate it does. It says: so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, This indicates, at the most, premature delivery, not killing of the baby.
Contextually, the unborn has little value in traditional (ancient) jewish culture. The mother certainly would be considered more valuable than an unborn, or newborn baby.
The rest of the conclusions in your post are completely wrong for they are based on an incorrect premise. Garbage in, garbage out. |
This is an interesting interpretation, but how do you know that you're right? At least one other translator of the Bible agrees with my interpretation
(From http://www.tldm.org/bible/Old%20Testament/exodus.htm):
| Quote: | 21:22. If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman’s husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award.
21:23. But if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life, |
It very clearly says miscarry, rather than premature delivery.
I've got a bunch of Israelis in my department. I'm going to ask them to translate the original Hebrew for me. How close is modern Hebrew to ancient Hebrew? Will they be able to understand it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: |
Contextually, the unborn has little value in traditional (ancient) jewish culture. The mother certainly would be considered more valuable than an unborn, or newborn baby. |
It sounds like you agree with my statement that the ancient Jews (and therefore the Old Testament, the basis of their morality and laws) did not consider the killing of a fetus to be murder... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 8:31 pm Post subject: Re: The Bible clearly states that killing a fetus is not mur |
|
|
| Sky wrote: |
Anyone can twist scripture to mean anything they want it to |
Trust me, I've noticed... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
The RSV agrees with my interpretation:
| Quote: | | When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. |
The NIV agrees with yours:
| Quote: | | If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life . . . |
So at least one of them was written by someone who screwed up the translation... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChristineS
Pit Bull
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Posts: 357
Location: El Cajon, CA
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is somewhat off topic but it is a question that came into my mind while I was making breakfast for my kids.
Does a person who is an atheist or agnostic have to believe in prochoice? By your own admission, p1234567890, you find abortion distasteful, so why can't you be pro-life? Are you letting your nonbelief choose what to believe? I am not trying to be sarcastic or mean, I just want to know. I admitted that, although it is part of it, that my being pro-life is a personal choice (or God convicts me that it is a sin) and not from the Bible. I want to know if people who are prochoice choose it because it is expected of them by the mainstream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChristineS wrote: | This is somewhat off topic but it is a question that came into my mind while I was making breakfast for my kids.
Does a person who is an atheist or agnostic have to believe in prochoice?
|
No, not really. It is possible to be a pro-life atheist, but it is rare. Most pro-lifers in the U.S. are Christians. Many of them get their pro-life ideology from their friends and from their church. If you're an atheist, you're not part of that whole culture, so you aren't constantly being told that abortion is wrong. You consequently spend more time thinking about the other side of the argument.
| ChristineS wrote: |
By your own admission, p1234567890, you find abortion distasteful, so why can't you be pro-life?
|
Because I generally consider abortion to be less evil than the alternative of having the baby. There are many reasons for this:
1. The world is overpopulated, and adding people to it necessarily causes the suffering and death of others. Having babies literally kills people somewhere else on the planet.
2. If a baby is going to be born addicted to drugs or with some terrible genetic disease, it is more humane to abort it and have a healthy baby at some later date.
3. If a woman is poor (or in school or whatever) and cannot support a baby, she can abort it, and get established (get married, get a degree, get a good job, etc.) and THEN have another baby. Having a poor woman with a baby that she can't support properly is much worse than having a woman / family that can be supported.
4. If you abort a baby, you can always have another one later. In that sense, if you DON'T abort a baby, it means that there will be a baby later on that you won't have. In other words, every baby you have causes one of the babies that you would have had later not to exist. Causing to not exist is the exact same result as abortion.
| ChristineS wrote: |
Are you letting your nonbelief choose what to believe? I am not trying to be sarcastic or mean, I just want to know. I admitted that, although it is part of it, that my being pro-life is a personal choice (or God convicts me that it is a sin) and not from the Bible. I want to know if people who are prochoice choose it because it is expected of them by the mainstream. |
I'm sure that there are some people out there who are blindly liberal on all issues without thinking about them. I consider these people to be idiots in the same way that I think that people who are blindly conservative on all issues without thinking are idiots.
I like to think that I don't believe ANYTHING just because the mainstream wants me to. I try to think about all issues and come to my own conclusions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChristineS
Pit Bull
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Posts: 357
Location: El Cajon, CA
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is totally off topic, but I just wanted to thank you, P1234567890, publically for remaining civil in your discussions, although we disagree.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChristineS wrote: | This is totally off topic, but I just wanted to thank you, P1234567890, publically for remaining civil in your discussions, although we disagree.
|
Ditto to you Christine!
I try my best to stay unemotional when debating... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6840
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | This is an interesting interpretation, but how do you know that you're right? At least one other translator of the Bible agrees with my interpretation
It very clearly says miscarry, rather than premature delivery. |
Young's Literal Translation:
Exo 21:22 `And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges;
Jewish Publication Society Bible:
Exo 21:22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Literal Translation of the Holy Bible:
Exo 21:22 And when men fight, and they strike a pregnant woman, and her child goes forth, and there is no injury, being fined he shall be fined. As much as the husband of the woman shall put on him, even he shall give through the judges
Exo 21:22 If3588 men376 strive,5327 and hurt5062 a woman802 with child,2030 so that her fruit3206 depart3318 from her, and yet no3808 mischief611 follow:1961 he shall be surely punished,6064, 6064 according as834 the woman's802 husband1167 will lay7896 upon5921 him; and he shall pay5414 as the judges6414 determine.
H3318
יצא
yâtsâ'
yaw-tsaw'
A primitive root; to go (causatively bring) out, in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively, direct and proximate: - X after, appear, X assuredly, bear out, X begotten, break out, bring forth (out, up), carry out, come (abroad, out, thereat, without), + be condemned, depart (-ing, -ure), draw forth, in the end, escape, exact, fail, fall (out), fetch forth (out), get away (forth, hence, out), (able to, cause to, let) go abroad (forth, on, out), going out, grow, have forth (out), issue out, lay (lie) out, lead out, pluck out, proceed, pull out, put away, be risen, X scarce, send with commandment, shoot forth, spread, spring out, stand out, X still, X surely, take forth (out), at any time, X to [and fro], utter.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean 'miscarry' or 'die'... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: |
Jewish Publication Society Bible:
Exo 21:22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
H3318
יצא
yâtsâ'
yaw-tsaw'
A primitive root; to go (causatively bring) out, in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively, direct and proximate: - X after, appear, X assuredly, bear out, X begotten, break out, bring forth (out, up), carry out, come (abroad, out, thereat, without), + be condemned, depart (-ing, -ure), draw forth, in the end, escape, exact, fail, fall (out), fetch forth (out), get away (forth, hence, out), (able to, cause to, let) go abroad (forth, on, out), going out, grow, have forth (out), issue out, lay (lie) out, lead out, pluck out, proceed, pull out, put away, be risen, X scarce, send with commandment, shoot forth, spread, spring out, stand out, X still, X surely, take forth (out), at any time, X to [and fro], utter.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean 'miscarry' or 'die'... |
It says "so that her fruit depart" or "go forth" or "go out". This can clearly be interpreted in two ways; the way I've stated, as well as the way you've stated.
We aren't going to be able to settle this on the internet. We need a serious Hebrew expert. I've already sent an e-mail to someone I know who is fluent in Hebrew, since he grew up in Israel, but I fear that even he won't be able to settle the issue, since there might be a difference between modern Hebrew and ancient Hebrew.
We need to talk to a serious linguistic scholar. Maybe a Rabbi would know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChristineS
Pit Bull
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Posts: 357
Location: El Cajon, CA
|
| Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I am sure that it means that if the baby is born early, but not dead, then it is not murder, but if the baby is born dead then it is murder. That is what I get from the verses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChristineS wrote: | | I am sure that it means that if the baby is born early, but not dead, then it is not murder, but if the baby is born dead then it is murder. That is what I get from the verses. |
I get the other interpretation. To me it sounds like it is saying that if the woman miscarries, but she survives, then the attacker gets a fine. If BOTH the baby and she die, then the guy gets the death penalty.
The words in the Bible just aren't clear either way. We need to talk to a Hebrew scholar who would have known the context of the phrase.
Hah! At least I get to walk away saying (once again) that the Bible wasn't written very well! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
