01 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by RatXTry this.
Not up your ass, where you seem to have found yours...
1. There is a Hebrew verb for miscarry or lose by abortion or be bereaved of the fruit of the womb, namely, shakal. It is used near by in Exodus 23:26, "None shall miscarry (meshakelah) or be barren..." But this word is NOT used here in Exodus 21:22-25.
2. Rather the word for birth here is "go fort ...[text shortened]... en "going forth" or "coming out" from the womb.
Standard Hebrew translation - need help?
Even given the designation of the embryo / fetus as intrinsic to the mother's body and thereby lacking, we might say, personhood - is feticide, the killing of at least a potential human being the same as homicide? The biblical books of Exodus and Leviticus (part of the Torah - teaching, path, law - in Judaism, and canonical "Old Testament" books for Christians), as understood through the Talmud and Rashi (one of the most important Rabbinic authorities), argue that the answer to this question is, "No."
The law of homicide in the Torah, in one of its formulations, reads: "Makkeh ish..." "He who smites a man..." (Ex. 21:12). Does this include any many, say a day-old child? Yes, says the Talmud, citing another text: "...ki yakkeh kol nefesh adam" "If one smite any nefesh adam" (Lev. 24:17) - literally, any human person. (Whereas we may not be sure that the newborn babe has completed its term and is a bar kayyama, fully viable, until thirty days after birth, he is fully human from the moment of birth. If he dies before his thirtieth day, no funeral or shivah rites are applicable either. But active destruction of a born child of even doubtful viability is here definitely forbidden.) The "any" (kol) is understood to include the day-old child, but the "nefesh adam" is taken to exclude the fetus in the womb.
http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/Forum/abortion/background/judaism1.html#II
Where, by the way, is the explicit provision against abortion in Mosaic law? According to your "interpretation" it should be right there with the bans against homosexuality and bestiality. But nada. Care to explain?
My Bible translations are the American standard Version. You still haven't said where your's came from.
01 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by RatXTend to disagree with you on that point. The Christian Bible is an accretion of texts which took some centuries to attain "wholeness", a quality which has to be interpreted into it with some mental agility and vigour.
I was, as you've not noticed, referring to the Bible as a whole (which was written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic). It should be understood as a whole - not argued in semantics...
Semantics is the study of what words mean, so it's application to Biblical exegesis, especially the more ancient texts, is obvious.
01 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderEven given the designation of the embryo / fetus as intrinsic to the mother's body and thereby lacking, we might say, personhood - is feticide, the killing of at least a potential human being the same as homicide? The biblical books of Exodus and Leviticus (part of the Torah - teaching, path, law - in Judaism, and canonical "Old Testament" books for Christians), as understood through the Talmud and Rashi (one of the most important Rabbinic authorities), argue that the answer to this question is, "No."
Try this.
Even given the designation of the embryo / fetus as intrinsic to the mother's body and thereby lacking, we might say, personhood - is feticide, the killing of at least a potential human being the same as homicide? The biblical books of Exodus and Leviticus (part of the Torah - teaching, path, law - in Judaism, and canonical "Old T ...[text shortened]... translations are the American standard Version. You still haven't said where your's came from.
The embryo is several biblical texts is referred to as a seperate human being (David spoke of himself as a living being separate and apart from his mother while in her womb in Ps. 139:13-16 - and when referring to John's happiness while in the womb in Lk. 1:41, 44). However, your "most important Rabannic authority" is stating something quite different to the general understanding of the texts before abortion became a legal debate in the mid-last century. Many scholars of Biblical text today agree with the translation I showed you of the text, however, pre-1900's, this wasn't an argument.
What you're throwing at me is a liberal POV, while I'm privying you to a more conservative POV (which you'd happily exterminate like your mother in law)...
Where, by the way, is the explicit provision against abortion in Mosaic law? According to your "interpretation" it should be right there with the bans against homosexuality and bestiality. But nada. Care to explain?
Understand it as simply as this - if a child was killed in a scuffle prior to birth, the penalty was death (according to the translation from the original Hebrew, see my post again). Must it be stated explicitly when abortion was not a practice known (or common) to the Israelites (who placed very great value on having children, to be barren was a shame). It's like questioning why there was no explicit statement about abortion in the original constitution.
My translation is based on the NIV and KJV with referance to the orignal Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic.
01 Nov 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI did discuss semantics. However, I was arguing from a Christian perspective (as we're trying to figure out whether the Bible is against abortion or not) and it should be accepted as a whole book.
Tend to disagree with you on that point. The Christian Bible is an accretion of texts which took some centuries to attain "wholeness", a quality which has to be interpreted into it with some mental agility and vigour.
Semantics is the study of what words mean, so it's application to Biblical exegesis, especially the more ancient texts, is obvious.
When various translations and various authorities on various words in verses comes in, the ultimate message of the book, in its entirety, is lost in the shouting match (my Rabbi's smarter than yours, you don't know Hebrew, that's your opinion, etc). One needs to consider the message as a whole (life is sacred).
If you want to discuss semantics, not a problemo... We can break down the verses to find out exactly what they mean, which I did.
01 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderMy position as I have stated on several occasions is that the fetus
It's an example where you brought your God into it and suggested that HE has a position against abortion on the basis that a fetus is a human being. In fact, Exodus 21:22-24 and Mosaic Law as amplified in the Talmud clearly show that this is not the case. If you actually believe in your OT God, you would have to concede that abortion is OK with him on t ...[text shortened]... ting that your God believes something that He apparently does not (He's an angry God, ya know).
is part of the human life, it is the human life at our earliest stages.
Abortion I don't believe was ever in the OT a topic of discussion,
so I don't think you can say it states that God does not
care about abortion.
Several places within the scripture does it talk about God forming
us within our mother's wombs.
Job 31: 15
15 Did not he who made me in the womb make them?
Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?
Isaiah 44:2
This is what the LORD says— he who made you, who formed you in
the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, O Jacob, my
servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen.
Isaiah 44:24
"This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the
womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched
out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,
Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I
set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
My position is consistent within scripture, we are started within our
mother's womb, God has a hand in that. It isn't to difficult to arrive
at this.
Kelly
01 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by RatXWhat I'm "throwing at you" is the traditional understanding of the Mosaic law and Talmud agreed on by Jewish authorities for thousands of years! For you to assert that is some modern understanding while you attempt to expand a Biblical translation, the NIV (which does't have the translation you claimed either, so I assume it's something you cooked up on your own), which was not created until the 1980's, is utterly laughable. The Jewish interpretation has been since ancient times, and still is as far as I know, that a fetus is not a human being.
[b/]Even given the designation of the embryo / fetus as intrinsic to the mother's body and thereby lacking, we might say, personhood - is feticide, the killing of at least a potential human being the same as homicide? The biblical books of Exodus and Leviticus (part of the Torah - teaching, path, law - in Judaism, and canonical "Old Testament" books for Ch ...[text shortened]...
My translation is based on the NIV and KJV with referance to the orignal Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic.
Since your translation is just that, YOUR TRANSLATION which exists no where else but in your mind, I'll ignore it. In fact, this Mosaic law is based on a provision in the Code of Hammaurabbi, with the difference that if the pregnant woman died, the man who accidentally killed her had to kill his own daughter (real eye for eye)! Your second point is ludicrous; even the right to life websites concede the obvious truth that abortion was common in ancient times. Again Egyptian records discuss abortion long before the events of Exodus supposedly occurred and the Israelites were in Egypt so the claim that they wouldn't have "known" about abortion is silly (and abortion can be caused by more direct means than drugs). Certainly homosexuality would have an adverse effect on the birth rate, but it was EXPLICITLY condemned. The absence of a Mosaic Law against abortion is what it is; proof that abortion was not illegal because the OT view is that a fetus was not a human life.
01 Nov 05
Originally posted by KellyJayUsing your logic, according to Jeremiah 1:5 since God knew him BEFORE he formed him in the womb, you have a right to life BEFORE conception!
My position as I have stated on several occasions is that the fetus
is part of the human life, it is the human life at our earliest stages.
Abortion I don't believe was ever in the OT a topic of discussion,
so I don't think you can say it states that God does not
care about abortion.
Several places within the scripture does it talk about God formi ...[text shortened]... n our
mother's womb, God has a hand in that. It isn't to difficult to arrive
at this.
Kelly
01 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderSorry, my "translation" was a referance from Torah scholars - the one quoted in particular was a George Bush (not that one...) of the 1800's. The translations I particularly use, with a cross-referance to the original text and word definition in the KJV.
What I'm "throwing at you" is the traditional understanding of the Mosaic law and Talmud agreed on by Jewish authorities for thousands of years! For you to assert that is some modern understanding while you attempt to expand a Biblical translation, the NIV (which does't have the translation you claimed either, so I assume it's something you cooked u ...[text shortened]... s; proof that abortion was not illegal because the OT view is that a fetus was not a human life.
Seems like my clarification wasn't enough for you to understand, so let me begin again:
The Bible is clear that the fetus is a human being, particularly in the following verses (try reading them, silly):
1.David spoke of himself as a living being separate and apart from his mother while in her womb - Ps. 139:13-16
2. The phrase woman with child affirms that a fetus is a child (cf. 2 Ki. 19:3; Job 3:13-16; Ec. 11:5; Is. 66:9). - Ex. 21:22
3. In the Bible, the same Greek word is used for a fetus, newly born child, and young child. - Lk. 1:41, 44; 2:12, 16; 18:15; Acts 7:19
Need more?
When it comes to the explicit law against abortion, my argument still stands - it was the pagan nations (relative to the Israelites) that practiced abortion or child-sacrifice. It was expressly forbidden to kill and if it was understood that the fetus could be murdered, the law was enough. As the text in Exodus states, if the fetus is killed in the scuffle, the man shall be put to death. Your translation needs work, as it doesn't stand up to the original Hebrew.
You can writhe in your liberalism as long as you wish, but the conservative view still stands - many scholars disagree with your tune...
01 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by RatXAre you asserting that you know Hebrew better than Rabbinical scholars? Are you asserting that the Jewish belief is that a fetus is a human being?? You are utterly wrong; cite a jewish source anywhere that says so.
Sorry, my "translation" was a referance from Torah scholars - the one quoted in particular was a George Bush (not that one...) of the 1800's. The translations I particularly use, with a cross-referance to the original text and word definition in the KJV.
Seems like my clarification wasn't enough for you to understand, so let me begin again:
The Bible ...[text shortened]... g as you wish, but the conservative view still stands - many scholars disagree with your tune...
1. Psalms is poetry; it does not override explicit Mosaic Law.
2. The phrase "woman with child" proves nothing as it is a translation of a common expression. It says absolutely nothing as to whether a fetus is considered a human being (which it wasn't in Jewish law).
3. If true, that seems to be a defect in the Greek language, but again proves nothing about whether a fetus was considered a human being (the Greeks certainly did not so believe).
The text in Exodus does NOT say what you claim, you are basically adding words to make it mean what you want it to based on your belief that since "life is sacred" in the Bible, that's what it MUST mean. "Life is sacred" is an odd concept to claim that the OT supports; ask the Midianites or the people of Jericho how much life was sacred. You are doing revisionist re-writing of the Bible to fit in with what some conservative pastor told you; sad, but typical of 21st century tele-"Christians".