Thanks for interesting post. Now I only wonder, if unborn baby doesn’t count as a life, why would for example 25-year-old human count as a life.
-
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!
Is God pro-abortion?
- Thread starter Subduction Zone
- Start date
Thanks for interesting post. Now I only wonder, if unborn baby doesn’t count as a life, why would for example 25-year-old human count as a life.
ElishaElijah
Return
Where does it say the woman was pregnant in Numbers 5?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is there in context. Let me help you with a more modern translation If you rely on the King James Version or other dated translation you will not understand the euphemisms used:
20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.
27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
If she cheated and miscarries due to the test she was obviously pregnant. Did you stop to think how the husband knew his wife cheated on him in the first place? There were no witnesses to the cheating, including the husband. How could he know that his wife had cheated on him if there were no witnesses? There is a clear answer.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Are you serious? You really can't be.
ElishaElijah
Return
Maybe maybe not, she didn’t have to be pregnant, maybe she was, what version are you using, what is the original word you are translating to English?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I am replying to this post a second time because of a discovery of mine. The translation of that verse changed in many Bibles have Roe v Wade. It was retranslated to make it appear to refer to the fetus when in the original it referred to the woman. I have seen articles on that but cannot find them again right now. But I did find this article:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)71025-4/fulltext
In it the change is explained. Many Old Testament translations were based upon the Septuagint. If you are not familiar with that it is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. And like many translations some errors slip through, even though the writers appear to have tried to avoid them. Luckily the original is still available so that it is possible to interpret it properly:
"Differences about legal status, and later problems, probably derive from a mistranslation anyway. In Exodus, the Hebrew text reads: “If a man strives and wounds a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm befall her, then he shall be fined as her husband shall assess, and the matter placed before the judges. But if harm befall her, then you shall give life for life.” Human life is sacred, but the unborn child does not, for these purposes, count as a life. However, the Septuagint (Greek) translation reads one word completely differently. Where the Hebrew word ason was translated as harm, the Septuagint reads it as “form”. So the Greek translation reads: “if there be no form [yet to the fetus], he shall be fined … but if there be form, you shall give life for life”. And that means applying the “life for life” principle to the fetus, rather than the mother."
Do you see the difference between those two translations?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is from the NIV. What translation do you prefer? And I do not know what the original word was. Even without the meaning is clear from context. The verse implies very very strongly that she was pregnant.
And as usual you dodged a question. I will not answer any more of your questions until you answer the question that you dodged:
If she cheated and miscarries due to the test she was obviously pregnant. Did you stop to think how the husband knew his wife cheated on him in the first place? There were no witnesses to the cheating, including the husband. How could he know that his wife had cheated on him if there were no witnesses? There is a clear answer.
ElishaElijah
Return
The Hebrew word ason means hurt mischief, shouldn’t we look up the words ourselves instead of taking someone else’s opinion for it? The wife didn’t have to be pregnant for her husband to be jealous. Now if she was pregnant and her husband was sterile or they hadn’t had sex, sure. It says none of that in the text. It’s says if a husband was jealous that his wife was unfaithful. I’m not saying she was pregnant or not.
Last edited:
ElishaElijah
Return
Even that doesn’t make sense, the jealous husband knew his wife was unfaithful because she was pregnant: only problem with that is when she drank the water with dirt from the floor nothing happened. Then what?
ElishaElijah
Return
This is the text:
“And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and behaves unfaithfully toward him, and a man lies with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and it is concealed that she has defiled herself, and there was no witness against her, nor was she caught— if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him and he becomes jealous of his wife, who has defiled herself; or if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him and he becomes jealous of his wife, although she has not defiled herself—”
Numbers 5:11-14 NKJV
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You dodged the question again because the answer shows that you are wrong. Naughty, naughty.
If she cheated and miscarries due to the test she was obviously pregnant. Did you stop to think how the husband knew his wife cheated on him in the first place? There were no witnesses to the cheating, including the husband. How could he know that his wife had cheated on him if there were no witnesses? There is a clear answer.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is only part of it. It is a quote out of context. You forgot the most important part, how did he know that she cheated? No witnesses, remember?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Well of course since it is God magic in reality it is pretty hit and miss. But let's assume that the test actually works. That means that she was pregnant, but by the husband.
Which leads us back to this question:
If she cheated and miscarries due to the test she was obviously pregnant. Did you stop to think how the husband knew his wife cheated on him in the first place? There were no witnesses to the cheating, including the husband. How could he know that his wife had cheated on him if there were no witnesses? There is a clear answer.
ElishaElijah
Return
I’m trying to follow you here, what verse in the NIV says miscarry? How can the verse be out of context? I quoted the exact text with no commentary.
ElishaElijah
Return
So you’re saying the only way a husband would suspect his wife’s unfaithfulness would be if she was pregnant, if she’s not pregnant then she couldn’t be unfaithful?
ElishaElijah
Return
Ok so I see the NIV is translated miscarry. That could be a proper translation or maybe not. What is obvious is there is a curse on adultery, whether a woman is pregnant or not.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Both of the verses that I quoted say "miscarry". Verses 20 and 27. And it is easy to quote the Bible out of context. Fifteen separate times the Bible says "There is no God". Does that mean that the Bible denies God's existence, or maybe, just maybe, I quoted out of context. A single verse by itself is quite often worthless since the full meaning of it cannot be determined unless read in context.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Not at all. This is a black and white fallacy on our part. I did not say it was the only way. But it is one way. There are other possibilities, but it can be a rather obvious one.
Why do you duck and dodge the questions that show you to be wrong? I do not duck and dodge your questions.
ElishaElijah
Return
How am I wrong? Do you even know? If the video you posted is your understanding, you are completely wrong.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
How are you wrong? You used a black and white fallacy. That is where one pretends that there are only two possible answers to a complex question. There are more than one possible answers therefore you are clearly wrong. And sadly you cannot even being to show that the video is wrong at all. And it is a work of satire which means that parts are likely wrong, though the message given is almost surely correct.