Is God pro-abortion?

[Subduction Zone]

You make stuff up instead of trying to understand what God was communicating. It’s bearing false witness.

Where have I ever made up stuff? You asked a question, I answered it. You did not like the answer. And please, don't conflate understanding the Bible with understanding what God wants to communicate. The God of the Bible rather clearly does not exist. I do not bear false witness because I do not have to. The facts support me.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Where have I ever made up stuff? You asked a question, I answered it. You did not like the answer. And please, don't conflate understanding the Bible with understanding what God wants to communicate. The God of the Bible rather clearly does not exist. I do not bear false witness because I do not have to. The facts support me.

Where does Number 5 mention a chemical abortion? It doesn’t

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where does Number 5 mention a chemical abortion? It doesn’t

If you want to discuss a Bible passage you need to read it first.

Understanding it should not be this difficult. To do that you must first drop the false narrative.

 

[ElishaElijah]

If you want to discuss a Bible passage you need to read it first.

Understanding it should not be this difficult. To do that you must first drop the false narrative.

Your satire was completely devoid of truth, a cartoon you believe communicated some truth but wasn’t close. Numbers 5 wasn’t about abortion it was about the law of husbands jealousy of an unfaithful wife. The Hebrew word for miscarriage is shakol, nowhere in Numbers 5 is this word used. Yet you claim falsely that the NIV is a more accurate translation, which it’s not. First you say the husband suspected his wife was unfaithful because she was pregnant which was false and you also finally admitted that ok maybe she wasn’t. But go ahead, be indoctrinated, as for me,
I will continue to check for myself. Approximately 50k babies are fully formed in the womb and are torn limb by limb or burned, murdered by people involved and you believe this is acceptable, I don’t and neither does God. Surprised RF allows such garbage as your satire to be posted at all.

 

[capumetu]

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?

Thanks sir for the input, of course the topic is abortion, and whether God accepts it. As you clearly stated, if the fetus died, then you are to execute the guilty party. God was that adamant about an accidental miscarriage, no doubt He would be equally if not moreso adamant about the deliberate killing of a fetus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your satire was completely devoid of truth, a cartoon you believe communicated some truth but wasn’t close. Numbers 5 wasn’t about abortion it was about the law of husbands jealousy of an unfaithful wife. The Hebrew word for miscarriage is shakol, nowhere in Numbers 5 is this word used. Yet you claim falsely that the NIV is a more accurate translation, which it’s not. First you say the husband suspected his wife was unfaithful because she was pregnant which was false and you also finally admitted that ok maybe she wasn’t. But go ahead, be indoctrinated, as for me,
I will continue to check for myself. Approximately 50k babies are fully formed in the womb and are torn limb by limb or burned, murdered by people involved and you believe this is acceptable, I don’t and neither does God. Surprised RF allows such garbage as your satire to be posted at all.

You could not find a flaw in it. All that you could demonstrate is a lack of understanding of rather clear passage of the Bible. Be specific, how was the video wrong? What did they get wrong?

You also just underscored why you get your interpretation of the Bible wrong. You are looking for specific words instead of specific meanings. I can provide Christian sources that show the superiority of the NIV to the KJV. It does a much better job of getting ideas, or what the scripture actually means, across. There are Christians that recognize this, not atheists. You do not need the term "chemical abortion" all that is required is the idea and the idea is clearly there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks sir for the input, of course the topic is abortion, and whether God accepts it. As you clearly stated, if the fetus died, then you are to execute the guilty party. God was that adamant about an accidental miscarriage, no doubt He would be equally if not moreso adamant about the deliberate killing of a fetus.

Incorrect. The source that I provided explained how you are in error.

Did you not read it? It was a translation error in the Septuagint that led to your error. If the woman is harmed, she clearly did not die, then the same harm is to be place on the attacker. The fetus was already gone, there was no doubt of that, again context matters, that is only a financial fine.

 

[ElishaElijah]

You could not find a flaw in it. All that you could demonstrate is a lack of understanding of rather clear passage of the Bible. Be specific, how was the video wrong? What did they get wrong?

You also just underscored why you get your interpretation of the Bible wrong. You are looking for specific words instead of specific meanings. I can provide Christian sources that show the superiority of the NIV to the KJV. It does a much better job of getting ideas, or what the scripture actually means, across. There are Christians that recognize this, not atheists. You do not need the term "chemical abortion" all that is required is the idea and the idea is clearly there.

Thanks for clarifying your indoctrination points, you seem to have a problem with traditional doctrinal teaching but then you use the sources without studying yourself. I backed up my interpretation by going back to the original language and the meaning of the words used and the context which was again “the law of a jealous husband towards an unfaithful wife”. Your satire showed babies in diapers lol , some god you made up and some false view of someone who stands up and speaks for the innocent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for clarifying your indoctrination points, you seem to have a problem with traditional doctrinal teaching but then you use the sources without studying yourself. I backed up my interpretation by going back to the original language and the meaning of the words used and the context which was again “the law of a jealous husband towards an unfaithful wife”. Your satire showed babies in diapers lol , some god you made up and some false view of someone who stands up and speaks for the innocent.

Please don't start a post where you accuse others of your wrongs. If you do not understand something as a question.

And your so called 'traditional doctrinal teaching' is relatively recent. Abortion being wrong was not even taught till the latter part of the 19th century.

You did not back up your interpretation by going to the original language, and you never got context correct. You only asked questions about the original language. But the problem is that you do not want to do even that properly. You are looking for specific words instead of the ideas conveyed at that time. That is why one must understand both the context and the euphemisms used at that time. A "word for word" translation fails at properly translating euphemisms. That is one of the reasons that the KJV is known to be an inferior translation. It is very good at word for word but rather poor at idea for idea.

I love how you focus on parts that are done for purely artistic and satirical purposes rather than the proper interpretation of the Bible. It confirms my claim that you are only looking for an excuse to believe rather than trying to understand the passages by used.

Do you want to discuss Numbers 5, its meaning and its context? I will gladly do that, but I doubt if you will let yourself understand.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Please don't start a post where you accuse others of your wrongs. If you do not understand something as a question.

And your so called 'traditional doctrinal teaching' is relatively recent. Abortion being wrong was not even taught till the latter part of the 19th century.

You did not back up your interpretation by going to the original language, and you never got context correct. You only asked questions about the original language. But the problem is that you do not want to do even that properly. You are looking for specific words instead of the ideas conveyed at that time. That is why one must understand both the context and the euphemisms used at that time. A "word for word" translation fails at properly translating euphemisms. That is one of the reasons that the KJV is known to be an inferior translation. It is very good at word for word but rather poor at idea for idea.

I love how you focus on parts that are done for purely artistic and satirical purposes rather than the proper interpretation of the Bible. It confirms my claim that you are only looking for an excuse to believe rather than trying to understand the passages by used.

Do you want to discuss Numbers 5, its meaning and its context? I will gladly do that, but I doubt if you will let yourself understand.

You already showed me you don’t have a clue

 

[McBell]

You make stuff up instead of trying to understand what God was communicating. It’s bearing false witness.

Other than your wanting him to be wrong, what makes your "understanding" more superior to his?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You already showed me you don’t have a clue

LOL!! Projection at its finest. And typical running away when challenged.

By the way, did you see how I showed that the typical interpretation of Exodus 21:22 is incorrect as used by anti-abortionists? It went back to the original language as you so much want to do at times.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Other than your wanting him to be wrong, what makes your "understanding" more superior to his?

Other than your wanting him to be wrong, what makes your "understanding" more superior to his?

Not wanting him to be wrong, read the text for yourself, go back and look at the subject matter, people read into the Scriptures what isn’t there. That’s what he has done, I already went over all the false assumptions made. If you want to determine if God is for or against abortion, Numbers 5 isn’t the text to use. The law of the jealous husband towards and unfaithful wife is the subject there. If the wife was pregnant in either case, they both drank the water with dirt mix, so if it was a chemical abortion as you assume both would lose their baby and miscarry. The Hebrew word for miscarry isn’t even used in Numbers 5. Doesn’t even mention whether or not she was even pregnant, only that she was accused of marital unfaithfulness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not wanting him to be wrong, read the text for yourself, go back and look at the subject matter, people read into the Scriptures what isn’t there. That’s what he has done, I already went over all the false assumptions made. If you want to determine if God is for or against abortion, Numbers 5 isn’t the text to use. The law of the jealous husband towards and unfaithful wife is the subject there. If the wife was pregnant in either case, they both drank the water with dirt mix, so if it was a chemical abortion as you assume both would lose their baby and miscarry. The Hebrew word for miscarry isn’t even used in Numbers 5. Doesn’t even mention whether or not she was even pregnant, only that she was accused of marital unfaithfulness.

Where did you go over one so called "false assumption"? You only have denial on your side. Or have you forgotten how you attacked a source that is recognized to be superior by Christians to be superior to your rather obvious favorite when it comes to Bible interpretations. You make claims and never back them up. Your focus on a particular word only confirms that your focus is not on the meaning of the text but in grasping at straws so that you do not need to understand it.

Nice.

 

[ElishaElijah]

LOL!! Projection at its finest. And typical running away when challenged.

By the way, did you see how I showed that the typical interpretation of Exodus 21:22 is incorrect as used by anti-abortionists? It went back to the original language as you so much want to do at times.

What was your point there for Exodus? Also if you use anti-abortionist, why use the negative, you have that habit of seeing the negative instead of the positive side of things. God says leave this unhealthy, sinful lifestyle for a fruitful, healthy one. You seem to miss that.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Where did you go over one so called "false assumption"? You only have denial on your side. Or have you forgotten how you attacked a source that is recognized to be superior by Christians to be superior to your rather obvious favorite when it comes to Bible interpretations. You make claims and never back them up. Your focus on a particular word only confirms that your focus is not on the meaning of the text but in grasping at straws so that you do not need to understand it.

Nice.

Already showed you a number of times and you can’t see it, might as well leave that one. You accuse people what you’re guilty of. I do understand but you won’t. Already explained multiple times but you can’t understand it so might as well leave that one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What was your point there for Exodus? Also if you use anti-abortionist, why use the negative, you have that habit of seeing the negative instead of the positive side of things. God says leave this unhealthy, sinful lifestyle for a fruitful, healthy one. You seem to miss that.

The verse I cited shows that if a woman loses her fetus due to being struck that it is a financial fine, not a death penalty. The fetus is not seen as a human being.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Already showed you a number of times and you can’t see it, might as well leave that one. You accuse people what you’re guilty of. I do understand but you won’t. Already explained multiple times but you can’t understand it so might as well leave that one.

Backwards as usual. And please, you have not "explained" anything. You only made false claims based upon an inability to understand the Bible since it goes against your persona false narrative. You are describing your "sins".

Like it or not Numbers 5 is clearly an example of abortions done in the Temple.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Backwards as usual. And please, you have not "explained" anything. You only made false claims based upon an inability to understand the Bible since it goes against your persona false narrative. You are describing your "sins".

Like it or not Numbers 5 is clearly an example of abortions done in the Temple.

No it isn’t as I told you the Hebrew word for miscarry is shakol and not even used in Numbers 5. My only interest is the Truth, obvious that your just pushing your opinions trying to make the Scripture fit your views. You need to find a different text other than Numbers 5.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it isn’t as I told you the Hebrew word for miscarry is shakol and not even used in Numbers 5. My only interest is the Truth, obvious that your just pushing your opinions trying to make the Scripture fit your views. You need to find a different text other than Numbers 5.

Why do you think that is important? Your focus on words is why you frequently do not understand scripture. Don't you think that a miscarriage can be described without using the word "miscarriage"?

Context is more important than individual words in understanding scripture.