Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
I see no real difference.
-
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!
State Senator Proposes Mandatory Vasectomies for Nebraskans
- Thread starter crossfire
- Start date
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
So pick the one in the million problem over all the lives saved? That's not logic.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Obviously it doesn't. There's no abortant mentioned.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What lives saved? You have not even given one little bit of evidence of lives saved.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is not my problem if you cannot understand your own book of myths.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Wow! Okay that is an extremely severe example of poor reading comprehension. It originally was a miscarriage. In a miscarriage the fetus or embryo would die. There was only to be a monetary fine in that case. They changed it to "premature birth" implying that she had a baby and if nothing bad happened to the baby there was only a fine.
In the first case it showed that even an unwanted abortion was only a finable offense. In the second that would have been a death sentence.
But if you want to say that the Bible is okay with abortion either way that is fine with me.
Here is the Jewish interpretation from Chabad.org
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9882/showrashi/true
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
How can it be an actual miscarriage if there's no further injury?
And this is an accidental death if indeed the baby dies. It's not about deliberately killing the baby. As I already showed that can bring a death sentence.
It is not clear from the text that the child in question actually dies.
The text says miscarriage. The fetus dies. Further injury is in regard to the woman.
Let me post the Jewish commentary I posted above from chabad.org behind spoiler tags (because it is a long text paste) here so you can understand.
22And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges' [orders].
And should men quarrel: with one another, and [one] intended to strike his fellow, and [instead] struck a woman. [From Sanh. 79a]
and hit a pregnant woman: Heb. נְגִיפָה וְנָגְפוּ is only an expression of pushing and striking, as [in the following phrases:] “lest you strike ךְתִּגֹף your foot with a stone” (Ps. 91:12); “and before your feet are bruised (יִתְנְַָפוּ)” (Jer. 13:16); “and a stone upon which to dash oneself (נֶגֶף)” (Isa. 8:14).
but there is no fatality: with the woman. -[From Sanh. 79a, Jonathan]
he shall surely be punished: to pay the value of the fetuses to the husband. They assess her [for] how much she was valued to be sold in the market, increasing her value because of her pregnancy. -[From B.K. 49a] I. e., the court figures how much she would be worth if sold as a pregnant slave when customers would take into account the prospect of the slaves she would bear, and her value as a slave without the pregnancy. The assailant must pay the difference between these two amounts. -[B.K. 48b, 49a]
he shall surely be punished: Heb. יֵעָנֵשׁ עָנוֹשׁ. They shall collect monetary payment from him, like וְעָנְשׁוּ [in the verse] “And they shall fine (וְעָנְשׁוּ) him one hundred [shekels of] silver” (Deut. 22:19). [From Mechilta]
when the woman’s husband makes demands of him: When the husband sues him [the assailant] in court to levy upon him punishment for that.
and he shall give [restitution]: The assailant [shall give] the value of the fetuses.
according to the judges: Heb. בִּפְלִלִים, according to the verdict of the judges. -[From Mechilta]
23But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life,and hit a pregnant woman: Heb. נְגִיפָה וְנָגְפוּ is only an expression of pushing and striking, as [in the following phrases:] “lest you strike ךְתִּגֹף your foot with a stone” (Ps. 91:12); “and before your feet are bruised (יִתְנְַָפוּ)” (Jer. 13:16); “and a stone upon which to dash oneself (נֶגֶף)” (Isa. 8:14).
but there is no fatality: with the woman. -[From Sanh. 79a, Jonathan]
he shall surely be punished: to pay the value of the fetuses to the husband. They assess her [for] how much she was valued to be sold in the market, increasing her value because of her pregnancy. -[From B.K. 49a] I. e., the court figures how much she would be worth if sold as a pregnant slave when customers would take into account the prospect of the slaves she would bear, and her value as a slave without the pregnancy. The assailant must pay the difference between these two amounts. -[B.K. 48b, 49a]
he shall surely be punished: Heb. יֵעָנֵשׁ עָנוֹשׁ. They shall collect monetary payment from him, like וְעָנְשׁוּ [in the verse] “And they shall fine (וְעָנְשׁוּ) him one hundred [shekels of] silver” (Deut. 22:19). [From Mechilta]
when the woman’s husband makes demands of him: When the husband sues him [the assailant] in court to levy upon him punishment for that.
and he shall give [restitution]: The assailant [shall give] the value of the fetuses.
according to the judges: Heb. בִּפְלִלִים, according to the verdict of the judges. -[From Mechilta]
But if there is a fatality: with the woman.
you shall give a life for a life: Our Rabbis differ on this matter. Some say [that he must] actually [give up his] life, and some say [that he must pay] money, but not actually a life, and if one intends to kill one person and kills another, he is exempt from the death penalty and must pay his [the victim’s] heirs his value, as [it would be if] he were sold in the marketplace. -[From Mechilta, Sanh. 79]
24an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot,you shall give a life for a life: Our Rabbis differ on this matter. Some say [that he must] actually [give up his] life, and some say [that he must pay] money, but not actually a life, and if one intends to kill one person and kills another, he is exempt from the death penalty and must pay his [the victim’s] heirs his value, as [it would be if] he were sold in the marketplace. -[From Mechilta, Sanh. 79]
an eye for an eye: If [a person] blinds his neighbor’s eye, he must give him the value of his eye, [which is] how much his price to be sold in the marketplace has decreased [without the eye]. So is the meaning of all of them [i.e., all the injuries enumerated in the following verses], but not the actual amputation of a limb, as our Rabbis interpreted it in the chapter entitled הַחוֹבֵל, he who assaults. -[From B.K. 83b, 84a]
25a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.a burn for a burn: Heb. כְּוִיָּה, a burn caused by fire. [Rashi probably alludes to מִכְוַת-אֵשׁ in Lev. 13:24.] Until now [the Torah] spoke of an injury that decreases the value [of the victim], and now of [an injury] that does not decrease the [victim’s] value [as a slave] but causes pain, for instance if he [the assailant] burned him [the victim] on his nails with a spit, they [the judges] compute how much [money] a person like him would be willing to take to endure such pain. -[From B.K. 84a, Mechilta]
a wound: Heb. פֶּצַע, a wound that bleeds, where he wounded his [victim’s] flesh, navredure in Old French, all according to what it [the wound] is. If it decreases his value, he [the assailant must] pay [for the] damage; if he falls into idleness, he [must] pay for idleness, and for healing, shame, and pain. This verse is superfluous [because there is no difference between a wound and a burn. Whatever damage he inflicts he must pay]. In [the chapter] הַחוֹבֵל (B.K. 84a), our Rabbis interpreted it as making one liable for [the victim’s] pain even where there is [permanent] damage [which he must pay for], because although he pays him [the victim] the value of his hand, we do not exempt him from the [payment compensating for the victim’s] pain, reasoning that since he [the assailant] purchased his [the victim’s] hand [by giving the victim payment for its value], he may amputate it with whatever he wants. We say, however, that he should amputate it with a medication that lessens the pain. However, [if] he cut it off with [an] iron [implement] and caused him pain [he must give the victim compensation]. -[From B.K. 85a]
a bruise: Heb. חַבּוּרָה. This is a blow in which blood collects but does not come out. It only reddens the flesh on that spot. The term חַבּוּרָה is equivalent to tache in Old French [meaning] a spot, like “or a leopard its spots (חִבַרְבֻּרֹתָיו) ” (Jer. 13:23). Its Aramaic translation is מַשְׁקוֹפֵי, an expression of beating, batedure in Old French, [meaning] beating, knocking, and so, שְׁדֻפוֹתקָדִּים (Gen. 41:23) [is translated by Onkelos as:] קִדּוּם שְׁקִיפָן, [which means] “beaten by the [east] wind,” and similarly, “on the lintel (עַל הַמַשְׁקוֹף)” (Exod. 12:7), [is given this appellation] because the door bangs against it [the lintel]. [See commentary on Exod. 12:7.]
a wound: Heb. פֶּצַע, a wound that bleeds, where he wounded his [victim’s] flesh, navredure in Old French, all according to what it [the wound] is. If it decreases his value, he [the assailant must] pay [for the] damage; if he falls into idleness, he [must] pay for idleness, and for healing, shame, and pain. This verse is superfluous [because there is no difference between a wound and a burn. Whatever damage he inflicts he must pay]. In [the chapter] הַחוֹבֵל (B.K. 84a), our Rabbis interpreted it as making one liable for [the victim’s] pain even where there is [permanent] damage [which he must pay for], because although he pays him [the victim] the value of his hand, we do not exempt him from the [payment compensating for the victim’s] pain, reasoning that since he [the assailant] purchased his [the victim’s] hand [by giving the victim payment for its value], he may amputate it with whatever he wants. We say, however, that he should amputate it with a medication that lessens the pain. However, [if] he cut it off with [an] iron [implement] and caused him pain [he must give the victim compensation]. -[From B.K. 85a]
a bruise: Heb. חַבּוּרָה. This is a blow in which blood collects but does not come out. It only reddens the flesh on that spot. The term חַבּוּרָה is equivalent to tache in Old French [meaning] a spot, like “or a leopard its spots (חִבַרְבֻּרֹתָיו) ” (Jer. 13:23). Its Aramaic translation is מַשְׁקוֹפֵי, an expression of beating, batedure in Old French, [meaning] beating, knocking, and so, שְׁדֻפוֹתקָדִּים (Gen. 41:23) [is translated by Onkelos as:] קִדּוּם שְׁקִיפָן, [which means] “beaten by the [east] wind,” and similarly, “on the lintel (עַל הַמַשְׁקוֹף)” (Exod. 12:7), [is given this appellation] because the door bangs against it [the lintel]. [See commentary on Exod. 12:7.]
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Wow! The miscarriage, the ending of the pregnancy is the "damage". Further damage would have been if the woman died or was permanently harmed.
This was the interpretation before Roe v Wade. Antiabortion people changed the interpretation of the Bible because of political reasons. Or because even worse they wanted to tell God what to say.
Doesn't that bother you at all as a Christian?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Thanks. I just bookmarked that page. I have known for quite some time that the interpretations of US Bibles have changed since Roe v Wade. I have older Bibles in my house. But not everyone is as old as me or keeps their old books. Years ago there was also at least one internet article about that, but try finding it after it has been buried by thousands of Christian antiabortion articles. It is nice to have an interpretation that is unhcanged.
What is amazing is that the new interpretations all appear to have been rather clumsily done. as if the people knew that they were lying and did not care if they insulted the intelligence of their target audience.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
No, because that's not what happened. And you have not given any evidence to the idea that politics played any part in the interpretation.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is a very good explanation for why the interpretations changed. I did find a source that showed at least one interpretation changed. Why aren't there papers by scholars explaining this change?
At least you do seem to realize that it has been changed. Did you find an old Bible? Why do you think that they made that unjustified change?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
I don't think anyone made an unjustified change. That's your claim, which you have no evidence for.
The law here has nothing to do with abortion no matter how it's interpreted, so why should it even matter in that context? Rendered literally, the Hebrew of Exodus 21:22 reads, “If men fight, and strike a pregnant woman so that her children come out.
That doesn't even tell you whether it's a premature birth or an actual miscarriage. It could be either. At any rate it's a accident, and accidents don't always carry the same penalty under the law as deliberate harm.
If the translators of the NKJV are correct, we can assume that the subsequent death of the premature baby would fall under the heading of potential “mischief” or “harm” that might result from such an incident. In that case, the standard penalty would apply: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc.” (verse 24). If this interpretation is not correct, it’s hard to understand what the writer has in mind when he says “if any mischief follows.” He can’t be referring to the woman, since, where she’s concerned, the harm has already been done.
The Old Testament Law made special provision for the refuge and protection of people who became guilty of unintentional manslaughter (see Numbers 35:9-34).,...most people would agree that there is a significant difference between accidental miscarriage and deliberate abortion.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sure they did. They tried to change it because they have a false belief. The Bible does not support the idea that a fetus is a person.
Where did you do that copy and past from? You need to remember that Christian apologists are not valid sources. They have to be willing to lie for their beliefs.
How about that. It was a copy and paste from a lying site. Didn't you know that there is a Commandment against stealing? It is also against the rules of the forum:
Bible Suggests That the Unborn Child Is Less Than Human?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Why would God supposedly "murder" babies in what we call a "miscarriage"? I pose this because I think there's all too often something left out of our formulation. And if one says "That's God's choice", even though that could be hypothetically correct, then the question begs "Why would God do that if all life is sacred?".
I don't pose an answer-- I pose a problem.
I don't pose an answer-- I pose a problem.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
False statement based on no evidence.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Only God is able to make judgements about who should live and he decides when each of us pass from physical existence. In this sense God kills everyone. Man has no right to make those decisions for the unborn.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
That's your unevidenced belief.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, evidence was given. You are just denying it. You are finally admitting that there was a change, though since you have not admitted your earlier error in denying that change you have lost all credibility . . . again.
It is too bad that you do not realize that to maintain credibility that one needs to admit that they were wrong when something that they denied was shown to be wrong.