Abortion and the Bible

Post Reply New Topic

^^^^

Interesting point about murder. The entire population however, is not being called wicked. Interesting point about the Ten Commandments, but Christ told us the first and most important command is to love God as you love yourself. Interesting point about the difference in numbers between balanced and saved. You are however totally wrong, since Christ all who believe and those who have ever known by their general revelation.

Here are some good word that you might find interesting:

'My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet.

Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning'.--C.S. Lewis

This!
And there are english translations that say DEATH instead of injury, it's not just my swedish translation. And also a french translation I happen to own says the same thing. And seens it is not specified who's death, it could be either the mother's, the child's or both.
By the way, I don't believe I'm going to hell if I'm wrong. I just like to have my facts right

Even where the original Hebrew is lyrical, the KJV does not catch the rhythm and the beat. KJV is a s**t, unhebraic rendition of the text. It is dreadful. It is awful. It is strictly for the goyim.

ruveyn

In relation to the Commandment

ratsach is the Hebrew word in question. It can mean murder or kill and in most translations of the OT it is translated as kill (in Exodus 20:13). The translation as 'kill' appears to be the most correct. Since in other places in the OT ratsach means something other than 'murder' (Deuteronomy 4:42, Numbers 35:30-31). Therefor, thou shalt not kill, is the most appropriate translation. The English word kill is actually a pretty good word to translate into, since it too can mean murder or kill whereas the translation to murder would not fit with the rest of the Hebrew cannon.

In relation to the laws relating to causing premature birth by violence.

The translation of the passage relating to the premature birth of the child in Exodus and the punishment relating to it. This is a REALLY complicated translation. However, put simply it cannot be translated so as to allow for the death of the child. There are many other words in Hebrew for that and they are not used. Here is a quite tedious look into the translation (http://apologeticspress.org/articles/2598). Suffice to say, the legal ruling on the matter in the Book of Exodus, involves the premature birth of a healthy child in which the offender(s) receive a fine, or if the child or mother dies, they are to be executed.

The manner in which a killing took place also plays into this:

"And if he thrusts him through in hatred, or throws an object at him while lying in wait, so that he dies, or in enmity he smites him with his hand so that he dies, the one who smote him shall certainly be put to death, for he is a murderer ...
"But if he pushes him suddenly without enmity, or throws an object at him without lying in wait, or uses a stone, by which a man could die, throwing it at him without seeing him, so that he dies, while he was not his enemy or seeking his harm, then the congregation shall judge between him who killed someone and the revenger of blood, according to these right-rulings."
(Numbers 35:20-24, ISR)

Standing with scissors in hand and thrusting them into the base of the skull at the end of the birth canal is murder.

And for those who would split hairs in relation to hatred or enmity:
=================
Enmity, n.
The quality of being an enemy; the opposite of friendship; ill will; hatred; unfriendly dispositions; malevolence. It expresses more than aversion and less than malice,and differs from displeasure in denoting a fixed or rooted hatred, whereas displeasure is more transient.
=================

Which English translation is the best, then?

Jewish Publication Society (1962 version) or Fox version. These are translations of TNKH only. No Gospels or Apocrypha.

And these are not perfect. There can be no perfect translations from ancient Hebrew to modern English.

ruveyn

Then you do well, my friend!

Consensus seems to be against me as to how this is read, that is, that injury caused to a premature baby resulting in death can be cause to demand the other man's life for the child. I'm still not convinced, though. It seems to me the emphasis is on the woman, not the baby.

Also, a baby could not survive outside the womb until a certain point in pregnancy. The objection I raise here is that it would be too easy to cause the death of a child at a certain early point in gestation. The only possible ruling would have to be accidental death when it has to do with the baby.

The greatest commandment is "Love the Lord with all your heart, your mind, and your strength." Jesus added a second: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 4 of the 10 Commandments deal with man's relationship with God, the other 6 deal with man's relationship with each other. The remainder of the Law that God spoke personally to Moses at the Tent of Meeting really deal with details of how to properly carry this out, proper application and interpretation of the Law.

One thing we need to keep in perspective is nowhere does the Bible say that it is good and proper for people to fight among themselves. What we end up arguing here is that it's OK to hit a woman if you are in a fight with her husband and she's pregnant, and that it's ok to cause her to have a premature child. You just can't cause death or permanent injury to them. I think we'll agree that kind of interpretation is absurd, and that fighting, especially fighting that puts a woman at risk for injury, is in no way "Loving the Lord" or each other.

Neither the Masoretic Text nor the Septuagint are perfect, either. The MT compared with older manuscripts shows inconsistencies. They are minor. They do not affect the truths that the TNKH reveals. But it is an imperfect text, nonetheless. Translations into other languages aren't going to be perfect due to language differences and the inability to EXACTLY translate into equivalencies. However, one can examine as best he can the literal (word-for-word) translation with the contextual meaning (dynamic) "translation" to find a balance between the two. No one trying to understand the Bible, neither the TNKH nor the Greek New Testament, will get it if they ignore the context in which it was written.

I'm not going to go out of my way to defend the King Jimmy. However, even the King Jimmy was based on the MT, the Septuagint, and the Vulgate. At the time, it was the best any Bible scholar could have done at an English translation. If you can take the time to understand language conventions at the time, like when to use do/dost/doest, it's actually in some ways BETTER than modern-language translations. However, there's no point in reading any text you can't understand. There are a number of English translations in modern English that are quite good.

The Bible does not say that only "fallen angels would have dared do such a thing." They were probably good, decent angels. And, the Bible doesn't characterize the Nephilim as "wicked." On the contrary, they were "the great heroes and famous men of long ago."



Well, why not?


David had enough wives, concubines and children as it was. He certainly didn't need to take Uriah's wife. But, being King, he could do as he pleased.


Uriah was a Hittite, and therefore his name would not have appeared among the families of Israel in the first place.


Now that's just plain ridiculous. But does demonstrate that God has very little regard for human life. Using your argument, abortion is an "easy and merciful relief for a child" and a punishment for the child's father. And, David did get over his grief quite quickly. He actually seemed relieved that the kid had died. He did "fast and weep" while the child was still alive, hoping that he could con God into letting the kid live. But, as soon as the kid died, he quickly resumed banqueting and having coitus.


Like what? Did someone piss against a wall, or forget to bury his turds?


It was God's idea for David to take the census in the first place. Was it just so God could have an excuse to wallop them? God set a pretty clever trap for them. Neither Samuel nor Chronicles mentioned the half-shekel ransom, so I don't think that it was really the issue. Moreover, neither Samuel nor Chronicles state that the ransom wasn't collected during this particular census.


I still think it was rather mean of God to make David take a census as an excuse for killing 70,000 Israelites.


They are much more consistent with a view that God places a low value on human life.

how does that match with this analysis?

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nokilling.html

Interesting word-study...there are any number of places in the OT where the 'wicked' are condemned for lying in wait; and skipping over to the NT, you have the devil described as a prowling lion looking for prey,

Genesis 6:4--The Nephilim were on the earth both in those days and afterwards, when the sons of God came to the daughters of man, who bore children to them. They were the powerful men of old, the famous men.

There is no indication that they were "great heroes." "Sons of God" can be reasonably said to be fallen angels, such as in Job 1:6--One day the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them."


It wasn't necessary. God wanted to exhaust all means of reaching them first. Sacrifices were instituted early on and formalized after the Israelites left Egypt. They had to be given the opportunity of Law in order to come to any realization that acts of the Law were futile in the way of divine reconciliation. Biblical characters are reminded that God desires obedience, not sacrifices. It is written of Abraham that he was justified through faith in what God WOULD do. We are justified through faith in what God has done already.


True. It just shows that David is a fallible human being.


Good point. I'd forgotten that point. It COULD have been, though, that Uriah might have converted and thus adopted into the community. At any rate, thanks for reminding me of that detail. Uriah's death also reflects poorly on David's ability to honor treaties, which makes messing around with his wife an even more shameful affair. The Hittites were among the Canaanite tribes the Israelites were forbidden to associate with. I wonder if there was any Hittite tradition that required death or retribution against national leaders or entire nations for such outrage.


It's not ridiculous at all. Also, you have to consider how the judgment was carried out. Bathsheba was allowed to give birth, first of all. Second, the child was allowed to live a short amount of time. A few days. Third, it was God who was ultimately responsible for taking the child's life. David's fault for bringing that judgment on himself, but nonetheless God who acted despite David's best efforts.

I'm not sure David really got over his grief that quickly. But an extended period of mourning really was pointless. David had a kingdom to run, and probably the best way to deal with the grief was to jump right back into work. This isn't unlike our own present-day practices of continuing work through a mourning period or resuming work as quickly as possible.


Who knows? Could have been. I'm not going to get into hygienic matters relating to God's presence, but displaying your excrement before God is highly irreverent and inexcusable. I'm guessing that if the sins were unrelated, they were collectively just as bad. Usually when kings are described as doing "what was evil in the Lord's sight," the expression can also be translated as "THE evil in the Lord's sight," a reference to worship of false gods and all associated activities. If I had to guess, I'd say this was what was beginning to happen. God was just giving them one more chance before carrying out judgment, perhaps to see if paying the tax was the last sign He needed that He'd been nearly completely forgotten.


Where does it say that it was God's idea? I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious. God doesn't need an excuse, but like I just said here perhaps it was to see how far gone they were and whether there were any redeeming qualities. The reason I think the tax was the issue is because there's nothing wrong with conducting a census. It's perfectly legal, and nothing God should punish anyone over. It could be that not paying the tax showed lack of protocol, OR David's motives were improper. His subordinates even questioned why he was registering the population.


Would you have preferred 700,000? Or 7,000,000? It could have been, for all we know, that those who died were the ones least likely to show repentance for their wrongdoing. Others who were just as complicit might be swayed to see what happens to such negative influences. That God gave so many a chance only shows that God is willing to show mercy to those who can be persuaded to seek it.


Not really. God promised never to destroy the earth again with water. Apparently He has kept that promise. There are a LOT of human beings running around these days. That God has refrained since from such total destruction all-at-once speaks to His value of life.

My translation of Genesis 6:4 says "great heroes." Job 1:16 reads "When the day came for the heavenly beings to appear before the Lord, Satan was there among them." It doesn't say that these were "fallen angels" by any means. "Fallen angels" is not a reasonable interpretation for "sons of God", unless you also consider Jesus to have been a "fallen angel." You're just trying to see wickedness where none exists.


And just why did God take this approach? If he truly valued human life, he could have just sent Jesus back then and averted the flood.


David brought the judgment upon his son--not upon himself. And, he quickly went back to feasting and coitusing.


2 Samuel 24:


I Chronicles 21 came to the opposite conclusion, however:


Both Samuel and Chronicles agree, however, that it was an ill-intentioned supernatural being who caused David to take the census, for the specific purpose of making trouble.


I would have prefered none. I don't see any evidence to suggest that the slaughter was anything other than indiscriminate. You're just trying to make God out to be a goody-two-shoes, when he really isn't.


[/quote]
But he did send the flood.

The people who did the KJV had their own theological axes to grind. They were not going to support the Jewish oral tradition. As I have said before, the KJV is strictly for the goyim (gentiles). Not for the Jews.

As I have said before the TNKH (what gentiles call the "old" testament) is a book by Jews for Jews. It is not for the gentiles. The gentiles have commandeered the Jewish texts to push their own religious agenda.

ruveyn

Well, can't we gentiles read it and push any agenda we want? You can read Tolkein, and use it to promote any agenda you want. And, we can read the TNKH. At least for a hoot.

If we don't read it for ourselves, then we may end having to take some two-bit Christian preacher's word for what it says, and then start tithing him.

Or, would you rather that we all just started reading the Koran and converted to Islam?