Is the Fetus a Human Being?

[Hillsage]

I just couldn't help myself but quote ubicaritas here as I found something we agree on.

It takes a true '??' to offer a compliment when one is admittedly still in disagreement. Kudos.

The NIV is dynamic equivalence, or "thought for thought" as opposed to a "word for word" translation like the NASB or ESV (I prefer the NASB), which would be more appropriate for an actual theological study. I would never recommend the NIV to someone doing a serious Bible study.

Maybe you missed and earlier post of mine, although no one else ever responded to it either???? In it was my comment about the FACT that I have TWO NAS BIBLES which both say "miscarriage" in that verse instead of those 'later changed multiple words' of "gave birth prematurely". Why were there no queries or comments from those here who want me to think they pursue the truth....no matter where it takes them, when I mentioned that????

Two of my NAS bibles are sitting in front of me right now.

ONE: Zodhiates' Hebrew-Greek study bible copyright 1984 .
TWO: Holman Bible copyright 1985.

Both say; And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury,...

Please note that "further" is italicized because it is not in the Hebrew.

Could the 'lying pen of the scribes' (Jer 8:8) have changed this NAS passage to 'religious and political' correctness of 'the times'?????

 

[Lily of Valleys]

I think the keyword in Exodus 21:22 is the Hebrew word yalad (H3205), which is mainly used in the scripture to refer to giving birth:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb/exo/21/22/t_conc_71022
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3205&t=NASB​

“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. (Exodus 21:22 NASB)

 

[ubicaritas]

It takes a true '??' to offer a compliment when one is admittedly still in disagreement. Kudos.


Maybe you missed and earlier post of mine, although no one else ever responded to it either???? In it was my comment about the FACT that I have TWO NAS BIBLES which both say "miscarriage" in that verse instead of those 'later changed multiple words' of "gave birth prematurely". Why were there no queries or comments from those here who want me to think they pursue the truth....no matter where it takes them, when I mentioned that????

My two NAS bibles are sitting in front of me right now.

ONE: Zodhiates' Hebrew-Greek study bible copyright 1984 .
TWO: Holman Bible copyright 1985.

Both say; And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury,...

Please note that "further" is italicized because it is not in the Hebrew.

Could the 'lying pen of the scribes' (Jer 8:8) have changed this NAS passage to 'religious and political' correctness of 'the times'?????

They are overlooking the politics of the NIV that surrounded its creation and has become part-and-parcel of the conservative evangelical biblical translation scene ever sense, especially how it was dominated by groups that were already reacting to the emerging post-60's culture war (Robert Preus in particular was one of the scholars I am most familiar with, and he had a serious axe to grind with mainline Protestant approaches to the Scriptures and religion, and became notorious for academic persecutions of modernist ideas at Concordia, St. Louis). That was something many evangelical Protestants were talking about back in the day when translations like the NIV and its translation philosophy were still relatively recent, especially those from mainline backgrounds.

The RSV's translation team, on the other hand, had absolutely no reason to translate yalad as "miscarriage" just to obscure some abortion debate. There really was no abortion debate back in 1952.

 

[redleghunter]

They are overlooking the politics of the NIV that surrounded its creation and has become part-and-parcel of the conservative evangelical biblical translation scene ever sense, especially how it was dominated by groups that were already reacting to the emerging post-60's culture war (Robert Preus in particular was one of the scholars I am most familiar with, and he had a serious axe to grind with mainline Protestant approaches to the Scriptures and religion, and became notorious for academic persecutions of modernist ideas at Concordia, St. Louis). That was something many evangelical Protestants were talking about back in the day when translations like the NIV and its translation philosophy were still relatively recent, especially those from mainline backgrounds.

The RSV's translation team, on the other hand, had absolutely no reason to translate yalad as "miscarriage" just to obscure some abortion debate. There really was no abortion debate back in 1952.

Politics for the NIV? The same NIV which opted for gender neutral?

 

[ubicaritas]

Politics for the NIV? The same NIV which opted for gender neutral?

Preus has been dead for some time and the culture has changed (the anti-ERA, anti-feminist tone of evangelicalism in the 80's has been muted), so it really doesn't contradict what I said. There are plenty of conservative evangelicals that prefer gender neutral language just because its become so normative in certain segments of society, and there even some conservative evangelicals that are egalitarians in terms of men and women, but they still might be opossed to abortion.

 

[redleghunter]

Preus has been dead for some time and the culture has changed (the anti-ERA, anti-feminist tone of evangelicalism in the 80's has been muted), so it really doesn't contradict what I said. There are plenty of conservative evangelicals that prefer gender neutral language just because its become so normative in certain segments of society, and there even some conservative evangelicals that are egalitarians in terms of men and women, but they still might be opossed to abortion.

You still see the NIV as a conservative translation even though it is the only major translation to use gender neutral terms?

However, the NIV does spell out in no uncertain terms homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9

 

[ubicaritas]

You still see the NIV as a conservative translation even though it is the only major translation to use gender neutral terms?

Yes. Not all conservative evangelicals have a problem with gender-neutral language. Especially in the numerous congregational or non-denominational churches. By "conservative evangelical", I mean any Protestant church that is not in the historic mainline (the so-called "Seven Sisters of Mainline Protestantism", UCC, Methodists, ABC, ELCA, PC-USA, etc.), or does not follow that style of doing church or theology (higher criticism, openness to modernism, consensual ethical tradition, etc.).

The NRSV, which we tend to use the most, also uses gender-neutral language. There are also several others that do as well, though you may not be as familiar with them. The Contemporary English Version, Common English Bible, all those have gender-neutral language. The CEV is aimed largely at conservative evangelicals (particularly to use in missionary/outreach efforts), and the CEB is the product of several mainline denominations.

However, the NIV does spell out in no uncertain terms homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9

That's something that isn't universal to Bible translations historically either.

 

[Hillsage]

They are overlooking the politics of the NIV that surrounded its creation and has become part-and-parcel of the conservative evangelical biblical translation scene ever sense, especially how it was dominated by groups that were already reacting to the emerging post-60's culture war (Robert Preus in particular was one of the scholars I am most familiar with, and he had a serious axe to grind with mainline Protestant approaches to the Scriptures and religion, and became notorious for academic persecutions of modernist ideas at Concordia, St. Louis). That was something many evangelical Protestants were talking about back in the day when translations like the NIV and its translation philosophy were still relatively recent, especially those from mainline backgrounds.

The RSV's translation team, on the other hand, had absolutely no reason to translate yalad as "miscarriage" just to obscure some abortion debate. There really was no abortion debate back in 1952.

Commentaries in point:

Wycliffe Bible Commentary was published in 1962
Adam Clark was published 1810-1826.

Ex 21:18-32: No mischief follow; i.e., in addition to the loss of her child, no permanent injury to the mother ensues.
(from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary)

Ex 21:22…[And hurt a woman with child] Since a posterity among the Jews was among the peculiar promises of their covenant, and since every man had some reason to think that the Messiah should spring from his family, therefore, any injury done to a woman with child, by which the fruit of her womb might be destroyed, was considered a very heavy offense; and since the crime was committed principally against the husband, the degree of punishment was left to his discretion. But if mischief followed, that is, if the child had been fully formed, and was killed by this means, or the woman lost her life in consequence, then the punishment was as in other cases of murder-the person was put to death; Ex 21:23. (from Adam Clarke's Commentary)

You mentioned it earlier, but really didn't drive home your point IMO. You talked about the issue of killing people and it wasn't considered "life for life". Contextually, in the very verses preceding the ones we're talking about, where is the mandate from God to protect the life of actual living people?

EXO 21:20 "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.

I'm not sure how to take this verse. What "punishment" is verse 20? Is it life for life, or a fine. As it 'sounds' as if the man is not punished if the slave lives a day or two and then dies??? If that is the case, then what is that all about. 'And, continuing on 'in context with our topic what about a woman's possession or property? Or let's just say the slave of the father and the mother which isn't born? Just thinking here.

 

[Hillsage]

I think the keyword in Exodus 21:22 is the Hebrew word yalad (H3205), which is mainly used in the scripture to refer to giving birth:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb/exo/21/22/t_conc_71022
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3205&t=NASB​

“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. (Exodus 21:22 NASB)

I think your key word would be fine if it was defined as an always ‘live’ birth. But does the word really mean that? Or does it just define the ‘coming out process’, the same as a stillbirth. Granted most births aren’t that. But for translators to add the word “premature” simply manipulates the mind with the vocabulary of today, and medical science's ability to ‘save’ fully formed preemies that would have died for thousands of years.

And also, in the context, Why does scripture not say “if her child depart”? What’s with “fruit” if it’s really ‘a child’?

 

[Eloy Craft]

I'm not sure how to take this verse. What "punishment" is verse 20? Is it life for life, or a fine. As it 'sounds' as if the man is not punished if the slave lives a day or two and then dies??? If that is the case, then what is that all about.

If the slave lives a day or two that is evidence that the slave owner didn't want to kill the slave. The slave is money to the slave owner and accidentally killed the slave. The day or two could be efforts to save the slaves life or the blows were not intended to kill. If the slave dies at the time of the blows it is evidence that death was intended. It probably protected slave owners from being accountable for accidentally killing their slaves.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

And yet you 'try to teach'. OK let's see if we can come to a knowledge of the truth. You do know that the "gifts of the Holy Spirit" are 'charisma/gifts' don't you? But do you know that the gifts of being an apostle prophet ect. are not 'charisma' giftings from the Holy Spirit they are 'doma' giftings from Jesus in Eph 4. So when we have a list of two kinds of "gifts" in scripture it is up to us to 'rightly divide the truth' of that passage. You have not done so. When that scripture says to pursue the 'greater CHARISMA gifts' it is not talking about the 'doma/gifts. You can pursue being a prophet all you want, good luck unless you have that calling from the womb like Jeremiah. But the 'spiritual' gifts/charisma are available to all Christians who have gone on to a level of spiritual maturity which will avail them to such 'manifestations' according to scripture.


Now you're just confirming what I have properly 'divided' above but which you knew nothing about. YES all MAY prophesy. Context here, Paul is speaking to the most CHARISMATIC church possibly ever. That 's why he said if you are ALL speaking in tongues and a "FUNDAMENTALIST (sic) or an UNBELIEVER" come in they're going to think you tongue talkers are nuts. Bingo, and Paul's teaching is exactly where the church 'with a bible and not the Holy Spirit' is at today.

1CO 14:23 If, therefore, the whole (charismatic Corinthian) church assembles and all speak in tongues (because they're ALL charismatic), and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?

Who are the "unbelievers"? Scripture says they are those that are 'apistos' or those without faith'. But who are those with/in 'the faith' but are 'outsiders' RSV? Well KJV says they're the 'unlearned' and NAS says 'UNGIFTED'. HELLO!

That's all you who claim 'that' which you've never recevied/lambao just because you received/decomai Christ as your Savior. I know, I know it's all just GREEK to you.

I'm stopping to hopefully let you go study as I have long ago concerning 'this' matter. And I'm really not interested in further derailing the thread based upon the bunny trail diversion which you've brought. A diversion which really has nothing pertinent to contribute to this thread's OP to begin with IMO. Have fun...hopefully.

I am ending my discussion with you. This is both off topic and you neither respect me as a poster nor do we seem to actually discuss points in an orderly matter.

 

[Hillsage]

I am ending my discussion with you. This is both off topic

Just like I said.

you neither respect me as a poster nor do we seem to actually discuss points in an orderly matter.

I give the respect I feel every poster has earned. Unfortunately for them, it's usually just not as highly as they seem to respect themselves IMO. And I treat them exactly as they seem to 'initially' treat me. Which is usually is more lowly than they 'understand' IMO. But we are all certainly entitled to 'our opinion' of ourselves. I'm sure the pharisees figured Jesus never respected them either. So, please don't respond back with "So you think YOU"RE as perfect as JESUS." Just honor your decision which I actually think is a good one. And may God bless you in your walk with Him.

 

[Hillsage]

If the slave lives a day or two that is evidence that the slave owner didn't want to kill the slave. The slave is money to the slave owner and accidentally killed the slave. The day or two could be efforts to save the slaves life or the blows were not intended to kill. If the slave dies at the time of the blows it is evidence that death was intended. It probably protected slave owners from being accountable for accidentally killing their slaves.

I appreciate your 'opinion', but if I was poisoning my wife for a day or two and then quit, but she died anyway, not even the laws of man would say I really got lucky because I quit when I did....or else. So, hopefully you can see where your 'analogous opinion' doesn't change my 'opinion' based upon my 'analogous rebuttal'.

 

[Eloy Craft]

I appreciate your 'opinion', but if I was poisoning my wife for a day or two and then quit, but she died anyway, not even the laws of man would say I really got lucky because I quit when I did....or else. So, hopefully you can see where your 'analogous opinion' doesn't change my 'opinion' based upon my 'analogous rebuttal'.

This law has nothing to do with the death of a wife.

 

[Radagast]

And also, in the context, Why does scripture not say “if her child depart”? What’s with “fruit” if it’s really ‘a child’?

The Bible frequently refers to children as the fruit of the womb.

 

[SkyWriting]

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Matthew 7:13-14

That passage refers to the sentence just before it:
Honor other people's decisions just as you would have them honor yours.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's just it... "It" is a human being. This human is not "her body" or part of it. She is a life support system for it and no blood passes from the mother to the infant. Only O2 and nutrients.

What about the "choice" of the human inside of her?
The woman already made a choice with her body and let part of a man's body inside of her.... The man and the woman are then both responsible for their actions in creating another human.

It is a sad state of the body of Christ, when the Christians can see abortion as an ethical and moral thing to do.

My wife was teaching when one of her 5th grade students brought her baby to class.
Her step-dad was in jail for that. Do you really think you are qualified to
be involved in that big decision? That her Mom made for her?

 

[Eloy Craft]

My wife was teaching when one of her 5th grade students brought her baby to class.
Her step-dad was in jail for that. Do you really think you are qualified to
be involved in that big decision? That her Mom made for her?

It shouldn't be a decision. It should be a given. as a Christian, who has the right to destroy what has come directly from god's hand?

 

[cwo]

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Exodus 21: 22 - 25

Apparently, in God's eyes the fetus is not a human being. Therefore, the abortion is not the murder.

You misinterpreted the passage, this passage is speaking of harm to the baby, where if no harm came to the baby, then the man will be fined by the husband, but if harm did indeed come to the baby, then this rule will apply "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe", so if the baby lost an arm, then the man's arm must be taken, if the baby lost an eye, then man's eye must be taken, and ultimately, if the baby lost his life, then his life must be taken.

The Greek Septuagint clarifies this passage a little better,

And if two men should do combat, and should strike a woman having one in the womb, and should come forth her child not harmed*, with a fine he shall be penalized, in so far as the husband of the woman should put on him, and he shall give by means of what is fit. And if it should be harmed*, he shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (Exodus 21:22-24 [ABP])

This is the correct translation of that passage, where the Greek word I indicated with an asterisk should be rendered as "harmed" as seen in the Masoretic text, where "ason" means "injury, or harm",

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/21-22.htm
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/611.htm

Which further implies that if a pregnant woman were to end the life of her own unborn baby, she deserves to die according to the Law of God.

 

[Hillsage]

It shouldn't be a decision. It should be a given. as a Christian, who has the right to destroy what has come directly from god's hand?

Gee, I didn't know God was into incest!!! But since it's His fault they're pregnant at 12, who are we to think they're pregnant because of a SIN which leads to DEATH. But hey it's just a black and white issue with no greys....for some/most?

BTW don't join the army either. Plenty of killing done there for abortion reasoning; 'breakdown of relationships', 'worry about money', 'fears of what the unknown future 'might' hold' etc. All reasons to justify killing what came from god's hand. And to hell for sure, for those who actually had your attitude above and fought at home....against the war. As for me, I've got medals I'm not even proud of, based upon 'government' decisions. IOW, not so black and white for me.