The scripture you chose actually argues against your point. To give birth prematurely means to have a miscarriage and the fetus does not live. What the scripture here says is if the fetus is not viable but there is no harm to the mother then he gets fined. But if the woman is hurt you go with the code. The fetus bears no consideration in this matter at all. So I will ask you the same thing. Why is the man not punished for "killing" a fetus?

 

No...to give birth prematurely means just that: to give birth prematurely.

 

The "injury" they speak of is that of the child. If there is no injury to the child, then the man is punished by the woman's husband for striking his wife - a woman - an act which is punishable by Levitical Code.

 

The "further injury" means injury to the baby beyond the fact that it is born prematurely - namely physical injury, retardation or death. In that case, a punishment of equal "eye for an eye" type injury is imposed on the man who struck the woman.

No...to give birth prematurely means just that: to give birth prematurely.

 

The "injury" they speak of is that of the child. If there is no injury to the child, then the man is punished by the woman's husband for striking his wife - a woman - an act which is punishable by Levitical Code.

 

The "further injury" means injury to the baby beyond the fact that it is born prematurely - namely physical injury, retardation or death. In that case, a punishment of equal "eye for an eye" type injury is imposed on the man who struck the woman.

 

I am sorry, but I think you are wrong. Check other translations and they will actually say "miscarriage". Look it up on-line and the interpretation will be miscarriage. However, there are others who may interpret it as you do.

Edited November 2, 201015 yr by acemona

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't God want you to come to him from your own fruition? I don't recall him advocating the passage of legislation to force obedience to his word.

 

Modern liberals would like you to come to their "word" from your own fruition. But if you don't, they'll pass legislation to force it. What are taxes but forced redistribution of wealth according to what gov't deems "proper." What are HOV lanes on public highways but selective permission of use of publicly owned property based individual behavior that fits the gov'ts definition of "correct."

 

Should I take this to mean that you would not promote a law prohibiting abortion?

I am sorry, but I think you are wrong. Check other translations and they will actually say "miscarriage". Look it up on-line and the interpretation will be miscarriage. However, there are others who may interpret it as you do.

 

I'm a Catholic...the Catholics (primarily St. Jerome) assembled the Vulgate Bible, and they now only recognize 8 official translations from the Vulgate: the Douai-Rheims, the Confraternity Edition, the Revised Standard Version, the New American Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the New Jerusalem Bible, and Today's English Version. None of these use the word "miscarry" or "miscarriage" in that passage.

 

Furthermore, if you know about the first five books of the Bible, which I honestly assume you do, you would also know that these were taken directly from the Jewish Torah, in which the book of Exodus is called "Shemot". Here is a translation of that same passage, in English, from the Shemot. (Link).

 

"..if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

 

I don't go for the "miscarriage" interpretation.

I'm a Catholic...the Catholics (primarily St. Jerome) assembled the Vulgate Bible, and they now only recognize 8 official translations from the Vulgate: the Douai-Rheims, the Confraternity Edition, the Revised Standard Version, the New American Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the New Jerusalem Bible, and Today's English Version. None of these use the word "miscarry" or "miscarriage" in that passage.

 

Furthermore, if you know about the first five books of the Bible, which I honestly assume you do, you would also know that these were taken directly from the Jewish Torah, in which the book of Exodus is called "Shemot". Here is a translation of that same passage, in English, from the Shemot. (Link).

 

"..if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

 

I don't go for the "miscarriage" interpretation.

 

So then, I guess we are at a stalemate.

So then, I guess we are at a stalemate.

 

Yep.

Luke 1:41 says that the "baby" in Elizabeth's womb (John the Baptist) leaped for joy when Mary told Elizabeth she was pregnant. Later in Luke 2:12, the shepherds are told by the angel that they would find a "baby" wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.

 

The same Greek word "brephos" is used by Luke (a doctor) in both.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't God want you to come to him from your own fruition? I don't recall him advocating the passage of legislation to force obedience to his word.

 

Modern liberals would like you to come to their "word" from your own fruition. But if you don't, they'll pass legislation to force it. What are taxes but forced redistribution of wealth according to what gov't deems "proper." What are HOV lanes on public highways but selective permission of use of publicly owned property based individual behavior that fits the gov'ts definition of "correct."

 

I think both sides are equally guilty of this. JMO

I think both sides are equally guilty of this. JMO

 

I agree that Repubs are guilty of this also, though not as severely as Dems. That's why a great many conservatives have big problems with the Republican party - hence the Tea Party movement.

I'm a Catholic...the Catholics (primarily St. Jerome) assembled the Vulgate Bible, and they now only recognize 8 official translations from the Vulgate: the Douai-Rheims, the Confraternity Edition, the Revised Standard Version, the New American Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the New Jerusalem Bible, and Today's English Version. None of these use the word "miscarry" or "miscarriage" in that passage.

 

Furthermore, if you know about the first five books of the Bible, which I honestly assume you do, you would also know that these were taken directly from the Jewish Torah, in which the book of Exodus is called "Shemot". Here is a translation of that same passage, in English, from the Shemot. (Link).

 

"..if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

 

I don't go for the "miscarriage" interpretation.

 

Something else I also read into this passage that we might not be taking into consideration because of the times we live in is the concept of children as property/employee of the male head of household.

 

While I can only assume that a big part of these considerations in this and other related passages is concern over the sanctity of life, we would be negligent if we did not also look at the cold, harsh reality of it. Children were expected to work, and from a historical standpoint it can be argued that the family unit evolved as it did (large families engaged in agriculture) in order to support the family business and/or carry on the family lineage. A lost child can never work, own property or carry on the family name, and as a result was a tremendous loss to the family in terms of future earnings and status/power.

 

In that light, I think we attach too much emotionally to the abortion issue by assigning biblical verses to reinforce our personal beliefs about it. With as cheap as human life was in biblical times because of the lack of medical care keeping life expectancies very low, abortion wasn't really an issue -- certainly not the emotionally- and politically-charged issue it is now, in today's relatively cushy times.

Should I take this to mean that you would not promote a law prohibiting abortion?

 

Nope, I would be in favor of it w/ the usual exceptions for the life of the mother. But that's because I consider abortion murder, and I don't think anyone would argue that we shouldn't have a law against murder.

 

IMO, all laws are moral judgments. The decision is where you draw the line of what moral judgments are necessary for the proper functioning of society. I try to draw the line as close as possible to what I believe the framers of the constitution intended. I believe the liberals currently in power within Democratic party couldn't care less about the constitution & wish to pass laws governing whatever they "feel" is important at any point in time. Like light bulbs, spray paint, my air conditioning refrigerant, the safety features in my car, how much insulation needs to be in the walls of my house,......

Something else I also read into this passage that we might not be taking into consideration because of the times we live in is the concept of children as property/employee of the male head of household.

 

While I can only assume that a big part of these considerations in this and other related passages is concern over the sanctity of life, we would be negligent if we did not also look at the cold, harsh reality of it. Children were expected to work, and from a historical standpoint it can be argued that the family unit evolved as it did (large families engaged in agriculture) in order to support the family business and/or carry on the family lineage. A lost child can never work, own property or carry on the family name, and as a result was a tremendous loss to the family in terms of future earnings and status/power.

 

In that light, I think we attach too much emotionally to the abortion issue by assigning biblical verses to reinforce our personal beliefs about it. With as cheap as human life was in biblical times because of the lack of medical care keeping life expectancies very low, abortion wasn't really an issue -- certainly not the emotionally- and politically-charged issue it is now, in today's relatively cushy times.

 

If you read the entire passage it talks about selling daughters into slavery and such. Children under 1 month of age were considered expendable in many other passages in the Bible as well. I would think one in the womb was even more so.

Something else I also read into this passage that we might not be taking into consideration because of the times we live in is the concept of children as property/employee of the male head of household.

 

While I can only assume that a big part of these considerations in this and other related passages is concern over the sanctity of life, we would be negligent if we did not also look at the cold, harsh reality of it. Children were expected to work, and from a historical standpoint it can be argued that the family unit evolved as it did (large families engaged in agriculture) in order to support the family business and/or carry on the family lineage. A lost child can never work, own property or carry on the family name, and as a result was a tremendous loss to the family in terms of future earnings and status/power.

 

In that light, I think we attach too much emotionally to the abortion issue by assigning biblical verses to reinforce our personal beliefs about it. With as cheap as human life was in biblical times because of the lack of medical care keeping life expectancies very low, abortion wasn't really an issue -- certainly not the emotionally- and politically-charged issue it is now, in today's relatively cushy times.

 

If you read the entire passage it talks about selling daughters into slavery and such. Children under 1 month of age were considered expendable in many other passages in the Bible as well. I would think one in the womb was even more so.

 

Well still, this is only one of several places in the Bible where you can derive teachings on abortion. Short of making this a thread about "Where do they talk about abortion in the Bible?", I'd say that the problem with the whole thing is the fact that there are many socio-moral issues that have arisen in the last 1600 years that they cannot all be addressed directly by the passages of a book that was initially compiled in the 4th century and encompasses centuries worth of writings. That is why we rely on rules derived from the teachings and rules held in that book.

i don't believe life begins at conception, so i don't think he would say that it is a sin.

 

Did you know that at the time of conception, a baby has its genetic code it will have for the rest of his/her life? What is the time at when the "thing" becomes actual life?

Jeremiah 1:4 "The LORD spoke his word to me, saying: before I made you in your Mother's womb. I chose you".

 

Here the LORD is telling Jeremiah that he was chosen in the womb to be the LORD's prophet. So right there is showing He has a plan for our lives early. Romans 8:28:29