10 Dec 18
@fmf saidDaniel 4:17
When you say "All leaders are appointed...", you mean all leaders are ordained by God and placed in government by God?
This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.
10 Dec 18
@secondson saidMy questions to KellyJay and Philokalia are triggered by Romans 13.1
Daniel 4:17
This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.
@philokalia saidIn the article you cited the author explains that when Exodus 21:22-23 is read simply as written in the original Hebrew, "the passage does not say that a fetus is alive but that the mother is" and that "the words if 'no harm follows' the ’hurt' to the woman refers to the survival of the woman following her miscarriage."
You're actually a bit off...
The passage is in Exodus:
[quote]The Hebrew Bible makes only one reference to abortion, and this is by implication. Exodus 21:22-23 states: “And if two men strive together and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, accordingly as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him, and he ...[text shortened]... ed church traditions which account for it, and so there is not a reason to view it as so persuasive.
The author further explains that "these passages clearly indicate that the killing of an unborn child is not considered as murder." The author continues by explaining that "the Christian tradition disputing this view goes back to a mistranslation in the Septuagint, the early Greek translation of the Bible that sometimes contains significant errors".
You then cite the NIV which is a paraphrase of the mistranslation that gets one even further from the word of God as originally stated.
Your interpretation of this actually isn't that great.
Interesting that in your mind, your conclusions drawn from a paraphrase of a mistranslation trump conclusions drawn by reading the text simply as written in the original Hebrew.
The article you cited makes caissad4's case for her.
10 Dec 18
@whodey saidInteresting that like Philokalia, you also cite the NIV and largely draw your conclusions from a paraphrase of a mistranslation instead of drawing conclusions by reading the text simply as written in the original Hebrew.
@ThinkOfOne
Well let's look at the verse, shall we?
Exodus 21:22
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
So we see two men "striving", then a woman accidentally gets harmed with ...[text shortened]... he death results from the premature birth to the woman or child, then it would be an eye for an eye.
See my response to Philokalia.
10 Dec 18
@thinkofone saidInteresting, you failed to address my Hebrew translations.
Interesting that like Philokalia, you also cite the NIV and largely draw your conclusions from a paraphrase of a mistranslation instead of drawing conclusions by reading the text simply as written in the original Hebrew.
See my response to Philokalia.
10 Dec 18
@thinkofone saidRight! Tell us you can read Hebrew now.
Interesting that like Philokalia, you also cite the NIV and largely draw your conclusions from a paraphrase of a mistranslation instead of drawing conclusions by reading the text simply as written in the original Hebrew.
See my response to Philokalia.
10 Dec 18
@whodey saidGod used a phrase to denote a miscarriage rather than two words you believe denote miscarriage. In your mind why exactly isn't that permissible?
Interesting, you failed to address my Hebrew translations.
What makes it even more laughable is that your interpretation of the KJV translation you wrote:
<<So we see two men "striving", then a woman accidentally gets harmed with a subsequent miscarriage. >>
There you've clearly acknowledged that it was a miscarriage.
Once again, see my response to Philokalia. While you're at it, read the article that Philokalia cited.
10 Dec 18
@secondson saidHow exactly does your comment make any sense in light of what I wrote to Philokalia?
Right! Tell us you can read Hebrew now.
10 Dec 18
@fmf saidIt's like you don't even want to bother looking like the original point you made is relevant.
The majority of American Christians voted for Trump. He was their choice. He is now the president.
Zero effort here, FMF.
You agree with me, then, and accept my analysis of the situation, that he was voted for as the conservative candidate, and not as a paradigm of Christian morality or anything, right?
10 Dec 18
@fmf saidYes.
Although you don't necessarily think Trump is "good" or a "Christian" or even a "good Christian", do you believe that the power that he wields is ordained by God and that he was placed there in government by God?
Just as how all things are interconnected, sure.
I believe in occasionalism.
10 Dec 18
@thinkofone saidThe NIV is a completely new translation. It doesn't paraphrase the KJV.
In the article you cited the author explains that when Exodus 21:22-23 is read simply as written in the original Hebrew, "the passage does not say that a fetus is alive but that the mother is" and that "the words if 'no harm follows' the ’hurt' to the woman refers to the survival of the woman following her miscarriage."
The author further explains that "these passages ...[text shortened]... xt simply as written in the original Hebrew.
The article you cited makes caissad4's case for her.
The HuffPo article,while advancing the wrong perspective, noted that the Catholic and Orthodox have long been noting this difference as they have been using the Greek Septuagint which lines up with our traditional interpretation making the post by Cassiad even more off base.