According to the Bible Killing a Fetus is not the same as killing a Person (translation, atheist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Bible tells us in Exodus 4 if two men fight, and one hits another and kills him, the killer must be executed. If they hit a pregnant woman (this is the literal translation of the Hebrew) and kill her, it is also a capital crime. If the woman is not hurt, but the fetuses (plural in the original Hebrew) are lost (literally "and her children went out"), then the killer must pay a monetary fine. It is not a capital crime. This establishes the principle that a person does not become a person until birth for killing a fetus is not a capital crime. This is true even if the fetuses were twins (fetuses in plural). When we think first-degree murder as a capital crime, we must not think that abortion is the same type of thing. It is very wrong to say, as some do, the widespread practice of abortion is like a Holocaust.
It's not Exodus 4 as mentioned above, but Exodus 21. See below...
Quote:
These verses have nothing to do with abortion, which the pro-abortion side will admit if pushed. However, a correct exegesis can be used to destroy the pro-abortion position.
Exodus 21:22-25 - Translations & Mistranslations by Gary Butner, Th.D. (http://www.errantskeptics.org/Exodus2122.htm - broken link)
03-09-2009, 11:49 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
This is a perfect example of how unbelievers go looking for contradictions or problems with the Bible instead of genuinely looking for answers - they come with a closed mind and heart. Those who want genuine answers will do thier homework and find answers. It is also a good example of commities that are filled with atheists theologians who give creedance to the slightest bit of suspposed inferential evidence in order to give rise to a translation that ends up becoming part of the political controversies of the day. This is not because there is a problem with the text but with the translators/translations of/from the text. We should not kid ouselves there are people on both sides that seek to distort things. My experience is that all these suspposed problems are reasonably answered if you really want to hear them. Most people just seek out things to hang thier doubt on with no real desire for the solviing these issues - they don't really come asking a question like 'is there a solution'? Instead they state the question as if the issue is settled in their mind, as if it is a punch in the face - an indirect way of saying 'look at this contradiction you stupid christian.' I am not saying the OP had this attitude but alot questions on here are of this nature. As the saying goes - a lie will travel around the world before truth has been able to put its shoes on. Truth takes openness and diligence.
It's not Exodus 4 as mentioned above, but Exodus 21. See below...
Exodus 21:22-25 - Translations & Mistranslations by Gary Butner, Th.D. (http://www.errantskeptics.org/Exodus2122.htm - broken link)
I am not pro-abortion but this thread does raise some interesting questions about the Bible.
According to the author of the link you supplied:
"The Hebrew word mistranslated miscarriage in this verse is "yatsa," which actually means to "come out" or "give birth." This word is regularly used for live birth in the OT. In fact, it is never used for miscarriage, though it is used once for still birth. In this passage, as in virtually all OT texts, it refers to a live, though premature birth."
I wonder how many pre-maturely born babies survived in those times. I also wonder how rampant beating a pregnant woman was at that time that this law even was addressed.
I am not pro-abortion but this thread does raise some interesting questions about the Bible.
According to the author of the link you supplied:
"The Hebrew word mistranslated miscarriage in this verse is "yatsa," which actually means to "come out" or "give birth." This word is regularly used for live birth in the OT. In fact, it is never used for miscarriage, though it is used once for still birth. In this passage, as in virtually all OT texts, it refers to a live, though premature birth."
I wonder how many pre-maturely born babies survived in those times. I also wonder how rampant beating a pregnant woman was at that time that this law even was addressed.
Another question: I wonder how many women were beaten such that they did miscarry but the fetus was early enough in gestation that no one had a clue the woman miscarried.
I am not pro-abortion but this thread does raise some interesting questions about the Bible.
According to the author of the link you supplied:
"The Hebrew word mistranslated miscarriage in this verse is "yatsa," which actually means to "come out" or "give birth." This word is regularly used for live birth in the OT. In fact, it is never used for miscarriage, though it is used once for still birth. In this passage, as in virtually all OT texts, it refers to a live, though premature birth."
I wonder how many pre-maturely born babies survived in those times. I also wonder how rampant beating a pregnant woman was at that time that this law even was addressed.
That word "Yatsa" does change things providing it is a correct translation. Maybe I am missing something, but it doesn't seem to state a crime if the fetus is miscarriaged, but only if there is a live birth that dies?
Now, my own belief is that it is immoral to have an abortion in later stages, but it is also immoral for a woman to not practice self-defense in the case that the baby could cause her death. I am for saving the mother over the child. But I don't believe that it is a capital punishment offense to have an abortion. Of course there are other times when I think it would be good to have an abortion too, but I won't discuss that here.
And the bible says killing a woman is not the same as killing a man. The bible's full of inequality. Which makes it a poor guide for which to seek answers to social conundrums. The bible has many instances where God right out encourages vile and cruel slaughters of the unborn.
All of that said, I can not support elective abortions.
And the bible says killing a woman is not the same as killing a man. The bible's full of inequality. Which makes it a poor guide for which to seek answers to social conundrums. The bible has many instances where God right out encourages vile and cruel slaughters of the unborn.
All of that said, I can not support elective abortions.
Can you please show me where it says killing a woman isn't the same as killing a man?
I am not pro-abortion but this thread does raise some interesting questions about the Bible.
According to the author of the link you supplied:
"The Hebrew word mistranslated miscarriage in this verse is "yatsa," which actually means to "come out" or "give birth." This word is regularly used for live birth in the OT. In fact, it is never used for miscarriage, though it is used once for still birth. In this passage, as in virtually all OT texts, it refers to a live, though premature birth."
I wonder how many pre-maturely born babies survived in those times. I also wonder how rampant beating a pregnant woman was at that time that this law even was addressed.
I don't read it that men just beat on a pregnant woman. I read it as though two men are fighting, and they accidentally hit a pregnant woman.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
