Is God pro-abortion?

[Subduction Zone]

If you look at the Greek word it means child, infant, that’s how God views the baby in the womb, sorry bro. And seen as the subject is about God you should use the proper terms, (babe) not fetus.

Nope, the proper term is always fetus. Besides, the Bible always gave exceptions for special people. All that it looks like is if the woman misinterpreted a kick from a fetus, something that almost all fetuses tend to do.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I can post other scholastic articles as well.

There was an article that I should have bookmarked a long time ago that showed how modern, that is post Roe v Wade interpretations changed the interpretation of Exodus 21 22 was changed to make it look as if it opposes abortion. But I already did post a link that went back to the original Hebrew to show how that modern translation is in error.

If you’re using Scholars like one of the guys you mentioned, he is no scholar and a false teacher, find a different source or better yet study the text and words yourself.

 

[tarasan]

The understanding of that passage is clear from the context. Why make the error of demanding that specific words were used especially since the Bible regularly uses euphemisms for sex organs?

Because it's unclear what they meant mate. It says abdomain. The context is to find if someone was unfaithful not killing a child. A foetus isn't a sex organ. For all we know it could mean making them infertile causing a mark etc. It's ambiguous. Especially when u see how easily the Bible talks about god punishing people by sentencing people to death. Why not just be explicit? Why the ambiguity? It is just as likely that the punishment could be baroness or a mark on themselves we aren't sure so why make a conclusion either way?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you’re using Scholars like one of the guys you mentioned, he is no scholar and a false teacher, find a different source or better yet study the text and words yourself.

LOL! If someone disagrees with your unjustified interpretation of the Bible he is not a scholar.

Sorry, it does not work that way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because it's unclear what they meant mate. It says abdomain. The context is to find if someone was unfaithful not killing a child. A foetus isn't a sex organ. For all we know it could mean making them infertile causing a mark etc. It's ambiguous. Especially when u see how easily the Bible talks about god punishing people by sentencing people to death. Why not just be explicit? Why the ambiguity? It is just as likely that the punishment could be baroness or a mark on themselves we aren't sure so why make a conclusion either way?

Please, at least try. No one is suggesting that child be killed.

 

[tarasan]

Please, at least try. No one is suggesting that child be killed.

I'm not sure what this means. I have pointed out that the language is very vague and can mean alot of things. You have insisted it means a very specific thing. I've said there is not evidence for that and considering the Bible does not shy away from god punishing people with death why be vague about it now?

I'm not sure why acknowledging that the text is vague equates to me not trying

 

[We Never Know]

By the way, the abortion interpretation is by no means a recent one. The link leads to an article by a Jewish scholar from 1913 where he points out that a specific Hebrew term means "abortion". Sorry, but I cannot do a copy and paste on it:

The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures

The verse is clearly about an unfaithfu woman. It doesn't matter if she is pregnant or not.

New King James Version
When he has made her drink the water, then it shall be, if she has defiled herself and behaved unfaithfully toward her husband, that the water that brings a curse will enter her and become bitter, and her belly will swell, her thigh will rot, and the woman will become a curse among her people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not sure what this means. I have pointed out that the language is very vague and can mean alot of things. You have insisted it means a very specific thing. I've said there is not evidence for that and considering the Bible does not shy away from god punishing people with death why be vague about it now?

I'm not sure why acknowledging that the text is vague equates to me not trying

You are ignoring your obvious error that I pointed out. You can do better than that. If not why should anyone response to you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The verse is clearly about an unfaithfu woman. It doesn't matter if she is pregnant or not.

New King James Version
When he has made her drink the water, then it shall be, if she has defiled herself and behaved unfaithfully toward her husband, that the water that brings a curse will enter her and become bitter, and her belly will swell, her thigh will rot, and the woman will become a curse among her people.

Don't approach it with a modern literal word for word translation. The context is clear. This is not a new claim either. This interpretation was argued for long before the abortion controversy.

You should be asking yourself how would a man know that his wife had cheated back then if there were no witnesses.

 

[tarasan]

You are ignoring your obvious error that I pointed out. You can do better than that. If not why should anyone response to you?

I feel that I have adequately responded to you, the statement u said specified something specific. The text was very general and pointed out other alternatives as likely as the point you offered. I pointed that out, you said it was plain to see into the text without giving an explanation as to why. I reiterated my point. You have again told me I can "do better".

What does that mean? U have given no evidence why the text should or must be interpreted the way u are saying. I'm asking for that if you do t mind

 

[Subduction Zone]

I feel that I have adequately responded to you, the statement u said specified something specific. The text was very general and pointed out other alternatives as likely as the point you offered. I pointed that out, you said it was plain to see into the text without giving an explanation as to why. I reiterated my point. You have again told me I can "do better".

What does that mean? U have given no evidence why the text should or must be interpreted the way u are saying. I'm asking for that if you do t mind

You have still not dealt with your error. When you do so then we can have a discussion. Do I have to go back and quote your error that you appear to have known that you made but refuse to deal with?

 

[tarasan]

You have still not dealt with your error. When you do so then we can have a discussion. Do I have to go back and quote your error that you appear to have known that you made but refuse to deal with?

You do
I think I have said this to you before but please don't assume my intent I do have a life outside this forum and if I am not talking about something it could be that during my day I misread or overlooked something accidentally. That is why I review what I consider relevant to you in every post. It's encase you didn't read it properly due to a busy situation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do
I think I have said this to you before but please don't assume my intent I do have a life outside this forum and if I am not talking about something it could be that during my day I misread or overlooked something accidentally. That is why I review what I consider relevant to you in every post. It's encase you didn't read it properly due to a busy situation.

This sentence was the one that I clearly referred to:

" The context is to find if someone was unfaithful not killing a child. "

No one is advocating killing a child. Children were never part of the conversation.

 

[We Never Know]

Don't approach it with a modern literal word for word translation. The context is clear. This is not a new claim either. This interpretation was argued for long before the abortion controversy.

You should be asking yourself how would a man know that his wife had cheated back then if there were no witnesses.

First off what does the thighs rotting have to do with pregnancy or arbortion?

He could have found someone else's shirt in his house, she could have had a hicky, she could have acted complety different so he had suspicions, he could have seen/felt someone else had been in the house, there are many ways

 

[tarasan]

This sentence was the one that I clearly referred to:

" The context is to find if someone was unfaithful not killing a child. "

No one is advocating killing a child. Children were never part of the conversation.

Ok... But the language in the text talked about the abdomain. In numbers it talks about testing if someone had been faithful and in the actual language something happening to the abdomain as a sign. From what u wrote u thought that was abortion while instead it could be all manner of things like a mark, baroness heck it could even be a cramp!. I never suggested someone was avocating to kill a child rather I was saying people would use that test in numbers to say God justified abortion which it doesn't as the language is too vague to prove it. Are we talking about two different texts?

 

[We Never Know]

Don't approach it with a modern literal word for word translation. The context is clear. This is not a new claim either. This interpretation was argued for long before the abortion controversy.

You should be asking yourself how would a man know that his wife had cheated back then if there were no witnesses.

Not to even mention if he had been gone for 6 months and comes home to a wife that is 4 months pregnant. He wouldn't need a priest to do a test to see if she was unfaithful unless he was completely stupid.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First off what does the thighs rotting have to do with pregnancy or arbortion?

He could have found someone else's shirt in his house, she could have had a hicky, she could have acted complety different so he had suspicions, he could have seen/felt someone else had been in the house, there are many ways

The "thigh" is usually a reference to the genitals in the Bible. It helps if you understand the euphemisms used.

And let's keep the argument in the time frame of the OT.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not to even mention if he had been gone for 6 months and comes home to a wife that is 4 months pregnant. He wouldn't need a priest to do a test to see if she was unfaithful unless he was completely stupid.

Exactly. No witnesses and that is the key way one would know that one's wife cheated on him. Add that to the euphemistic references to genitals and the result of the magic potion and it is rather clear what it is.

The better modern translations that are idea for idea rather than the overly simplistic word for word translations will use terms that make this clearer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok... But the language in the text talked about the abdomain. In numbers it talks about testing if someone had been faithful and in the actual language something happening to the abdomain as a sign. From what u wrote u thought that was abortion while instead it could be all manner of things like a mark, baroness heck it could even be a cramp!. I never suggested someone was avocating to kill a child rather I was saying people would use that test in numbers to say God justified abortion which it doesn't as the language is too vague to prove it. Are we talking about two different texts?

And there you go with killing a five year old again. Why even say that?

 

[We Never Know]

Exactly. No witnesses and that is the key way one would know that one's wife cheated on him. Add that to the euphemistic references to genitals and the result of the magic potion and it is rather clear what it is.

The better modern translations that are idea for idea rather than the overly simplistic word for word translations will use terms that make this clearer.

Even if she cheated it doesn't mean she was pregnant. The curse would be the same for an unfaithful woman that wasn't pregnant.