Pro-Life, Pro-Science

[redleghunter]

Of course it does. You can deny the translation if you like .. claim the translators got it wrong - in every English version of the Bible.

For now I will take their word over yours. Do you speak ancient Hebrew ? If not what is the point of giving you an ancient Hebrew Translation ?

Show me where abortion is mentioned ?

Where is miscarriage in the Hebrew and why the majority of English translations don’t have either word used.

 

[redleghunter]

What on earth are you talking about ? Where do you get that Christianity is based on objective standards from.

Regardless - what does this have to do with whether or not the zygote is a living human ?

No .. the Divine Logos was never a zygote. The zygote created the Logos- in the same way every other human is created.

In fact the Logos did not become the Logos - until he was Baptized.

These threads do sometimes bring out the ancient heresies.

You deny the Incarnation so I can see why you don’t view human life in the womb.

 

[redleghunter]

God declares that the woman is to take some concoction which cases the woman to miscarry - otherwise known as chemical abortion.

Actually she takes the bitter water to test if she is truthful. There is no mention of a pregnancy nor miscarriage in the literal rendering of the passage.

Here are the English translations. The NASB, KJV and ESV being literal word for word translations with no use of miscarriage.

Numbers 5:27 When he has made her drink the water, if she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then the water that brings a curse will enter her and cause bitter suffering; her belly will swell, her thigh will shrivel, and she will become accursed among her people.

The Hebrew word for miscarriage is shakol which is absent from the text.

Here’s the Lexicon showing Shakol is not present.

Numbers 5:27 Lexicon: When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will waste away, and the woman will become a curse among her people.

Here’s the Hebrew showing shakol is not present.

Numbers 5:27 Hebrew Text Analysis

In some non literal translations, translators are entering their own interpretation.

 

[redleghunter]

That the Hebrew text uses the colloquialisms of the day which meant shakol, rather than the word, shakol is nothing unusual.

What is silly is your claim that translators did not know what those colloquialisms meant and just made stuff up.

There’s no colloquialism in the Hebrew.

Miscarriage is used in Exodus 23:

26“There shall be no one miscarrying or barren in your land; I will fulfill the number of your days.

Shakol: miscarriage.

Strong's Hebrew: 7921. שָׁכֹל (shakol or shakal) -- to be bereaved

Hebrew is a concrete language. The best one can come up with without doing violence to the Hebrew is the woman loses the ability to conceive a child.

There are idioms used in the Hebrew but this chapter is void of them.


Ancient Hebrew Idioms

 

[redleghunter]

I did not say the human zygote was not alive ? Why are you making up nonsense and attributing that nonsense to me ?




I did not say a human heart was a human zygote. Why are you making up nonsense and attributing that nonsense to me ?

Actually both above is exactly what you have been supporting.

That’s why I tried to boil this down to you making a philosophical argument as opposed to a scientific one. Yet you persisted with the scientific examples of a heart cell is similar to a zygote, they are both human and as such should be treated the same biologically.

That is what is coming across in your posts. However the link to the paper takes milestones in human development from conception onwards and then presents the philosophical arguments. That was a clear paper. It made sure that philosophical theories were presented based on the scientific data.

Yet in this thread since page one I presented the fact human beings begin at conception. We cannot deny what is present though small is human and is life.

If you or someone else wants to debate that we don’t reach “personhood” until a certain point in human development other than conception then the burden of proof is on the one making the subjective claim.

 

[redleghunter]

Incarnation has nothing to do my perspective on human life in the womb.

Yes it does if you believe Jesus Christ is truly God and Truly human. One Person with two natures, a human and Divine. If not then in a Christian only area discussing non Christian doctrines such as Modalism and Oneness is forbidden by the site statement of purpose and statement of beliefs to be posting as a Christian.

If you think the Gospel of Mark is "Heresy" you are welcome to your opinion.

Nowhere in Mark’s Gospel is Modalism or Oneness supported.

But maybe for another thread where this debate is allowed.

 

[redleghunter]

While I disagree with your claim that translators would just make stuff up in this case - there are other cases where translators deliberately mistranslated or omitted certain things. In these other cases the reason was to make the Bible better conform to the dogma of the day. There is no such rational in this case.

Regardless there are other places in the Bible where YHWH shows no regard for the unborn and has them slaughtered.

I did not say they made it up. I pointed out the most literal translations don’t have miscarriage because the Hebrew word does not appear in the text. Versions like the NIV do use miscarriage but that is the translator adding what they think is happening. The NIV is not a literal word for word translation. It is a functional equivalent. When you have a passage where people (as you are) make a claim as you are making, we must go to the literal rendering of the passage to see if the claim is true. Shakol is not in the text but everywhere else God is speaking of a barren woman or one who suffers miscarriage, shakol is there.

On YHWH and no regard for the unborn. Do you truly want to go down that skeptic atheist pathway? Here’s why such an assertion fails.

1. Adults were slaughtered too. That would mean by your statement YHWH has no regard for any human beings regardless of age.

2. We know the opposite to be true:
YHWH is pro life and involved with every stage of our development:


Psalm 139:13-16 - For you created my inmost being; you knit me to...

Jeremiah 1:5 - “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, be...

Psalm 127:3-5 - Children are a heritage from the LORD, offsprin...

Genesis 1:27 - So God created mankind in his own image, in the...

Psalm 8:5-7 - You have made them a little lower than the ange...

Job 31:15 - Did not he who made me in the womb make them? D...


Psalm 22:10 - From birth I was cast on you; from my mother’s ...


Isaiah 49:15 - “Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and...


Isaiah 49:15 - “Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and...

3. In order to turn your assertion into an argument, especially as a Christian, you would have to explain which approach you are taking with regards to keeping the uncreated Creator to natural law. You would either have to argue from a “sub lego” point of view or an “ex lex” point of view.

 

[redleghunter]

Of course there was colloquialisms in Hebrew.. there are in every language.

What does the use of the term rot - in connection with womb or thigh denote ?

Obviously this means something other than a rotting thigh = a colloquialism.

That is your interpretation of the text.

Nowhere is a pregnancy mentioned. And nowhere is the thigh rotting referring to shakol aka miscarriage.

And it is quite a leap to take this text and declare YHWH did not value human life in the womb and thus by extension approved of abortion because (1) there is no pregnancy in the text. (2) as I mentioned the opposite is true:


Psalm 139:13-16 - For you created my inmost being; you knit me to...

Jeremiah 1:5 - “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, be...

Psalm 127:3-5 - Children are a heritage from the LORD, offsprin...

Genesis 1:27 - So God created mankind in his own image, in the...

Psalm 8:5-7 - You have made them a little lower than the ange...

Job 31:15 - Did not he who made me in the womb make them? D...


Psalm 22:10 - From birth I was cast on you; from my mother’s ...


Isaiah 49:15 - “Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and...


Isaiah 49:15 - “Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and...

 

[redleghunter]

Similar is not the same as. Both the zygote and a heart cell are single human cells. They both have the same DNA.

If I take a heart cell from the mother and one from the father and compare both with the DNA of their child in the womb, at any stage the DNA will be different. The human being from conception in the woman is a distinct human being with their own DNA.

You claimed that the reason the zygote is a human was because it has human DNA. All I did was point that your claim is patently false as having human DNA does not - in of itself - make a single human cell into a human ... using a heart cell as an example.

I said their distinct from parents DNA. This is not a falsehood but scientific fact.

You failed to give any significant difference between a zygote and other human cells that makes the zygote a human.

Procreation is one. The fact a human zygote is an individual developing in the woman is proof enough it is not something else.

 

[redleghunter]

Unbelievable that you would engage in a debate on whether or not a zygote is a human (one of the main debates in the Abortion debate) by standing on a soapbox twirling around saying nothing but "My claim is right My claim is a fact .. my claim is a fact".

Actually embryology makes the point.

 

[redleghunter]

Why do you post such nonsense ? What does "Can a mother forget the baby at her breast" have to do with abortion ?

Because a baby can’t nurse if it is aborted. All of the verses support the sanctity of life from the beginning of human development.

 

[redleghunter]

God created man in his own image .. OK .. thats nice .. what does that have to do with God caring about a zygote ?

Imago Dei.

YHWH made a rule saying children are not to be killed for the sins of their parents - he then turns around and orders the Israelites to kill children, babies - because of the sins of their parents and of course women - regardless of whether or not they were pregnant - were to be killed as well.

You are putting YHWH on trial?

Your claim that this xenophobic genocidal, flip flopping irrational God with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics and emotions had some concern for a zygote - simply does not pass the giggle test.

Are you ascribing to Marcionism with the above? That the Old Testament God was a tyrant or demiurge and not the God of the New Testament?

 

[redleghunter]

What kind of nonsense post is this ? You have not been able to come up with one valid reason why zygote should be classified as a human.

If it is not human then what is it.

Even scholarly papers refer to it as a human zygote.

 

[redleghunter]

A zygote is human. Where did you get the idea that it was not ?

From you....

What kind of nonsense post is this ? You have not been able to come up with one valid reason why zygote should be classified as a human.

This post certainly does not advance your cause.