• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bible Passages About Fetus / Baby

Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Wildswanderer said:
Yes that's why it was a crime to harm the unborn baby! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No, it was only a financial fine. That was in the time of an eye for an eye. Please make sure that you use a pre-Roe v Wade translation. If only a miscarriage occurred and there was no other harm to the woman it was only a fine.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Wildswanderer said:
You should work on your reading comprehension.
Click to expand...
Backwards as usual. You clearly do not understand that verse. Let me quote it for you:

“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.

Where does it support your beliefs? The woman had a miscarriage. That means an end to the pregnancy with no child. The fine is monetary. Not the death penalty which would apply if it was a person.
 
W

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
Backwards as usual. You clearly do not understand that verse. Let me quote it for you:

“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.

Where does it support your beliefs? The woman had a miscarriage. That means an end to the pregnancy with no child. The fine is monetary. Not the death penalty which would apply if it was a person.
Click to expand...
You think I support the death penalty for accidentally killing someone?
Why would you believe such a silly thing?
The man could literally take away the other man's entire livelihood. Imagine if such a penalty were law today for accidental death, what we now call manslaughter, where the person's father could set the number.
We still have fines for accidentally killing someone. Unless you broke a bunch of other rules, such as drunk driving or other traffic violations, you're not likely to go to jail at all.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Wildswanderer said:
You think I support the death penalty for accidentally killing someone?
Why would you believe such a silly thing?
The man could literally take away the other man's entire livelihood. Imagine if such a penalty were law today for accidental death, what we now call manslaughter, where the person's father could set the number.
We still have fines for accidentally killing someone. Unless you broke a bunch of other rules, such as drunk driving or other traffic violations, you're not likely to go to jail at all.
Click to expand...
Hard to say. You do not understand the Bible that you follow. The verse that you don't understand has a financial penalty, and no other, because the husband had money invested in his wife. A birth adds to the perceived wealth of a household. The laws of that time were even laid out later. In the following verses "A life for a life". If the woman died then the man that was responsible would have been put to death. But if the only loss was the fetus, then it was just financial. There was no life to pay for.
 
W

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
Hard to say. You do not understand the Bible that you follow. The verse that you don't understand has a financial penalty, and no other, because the husband had money invested in his wife. A birth adds to the perceived wealth of a household. The laws of that time were even laid out later. In the following verses "A life for a life". If the woman died then the man that was responsible would have been put to death. But if the only loss was the fetus, then it was just financial. There was no life to pay for.
Click to expand...
Nice fiction story.
 
W

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
I agree. That part of the Bible is definitely a fiction story. That may be why you appear to have such a hard time understanding it. What part did you not understand?
Click to expand...
No your story was fiction. It's about an accidental death. However if it was deliberate, the man could be killed.

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall upay as xthe judges determine. ylife for life, zEye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, awound for wound, stripe for stripe."

However:
Talmudic tradition required:

  • Two witnesses to the actual offense
  • The perpetrator had to have been warned the action carried the death penalty
  • The perpetrator had to exhibit knowledge that the act carried the death penalty
  • Mere confession was not enough; witnesses were needed, and circumstantial evidence was not permitted.
So one might wonder how often people were actually put to death.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Wildswanderer said:
No your story was fiction. It's about an accidental death. However if it was deliberate, the man could be killed.

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall upay as xthe judges determine. ylife for life, zEye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, awound for wound, stripe for stripe."
Click to expand...

Wow! That is a unique interpretation. I don't think that anyone has put that bizarre spin on it before. In fact I doubt if you have.

However:
Talmudic tradition required:

  • Two witnesses to the actual offense
  • The perpetrator had to have been warned the action carried the death penalty
  • The perpetrator had to exhibit knowledge that the act carried the death penalty
  • Mere confession was not enough; witnesses were needed, and circumstantial evidence was not permitted.
So one might wonder how often people were actually put to death.
Click to expand...

Now you are grasping at straws. The example given would arguably meet all of those requirements, otherwise why have such a law?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top