Were you ever an unborn child?

I just pulled out my trusty old NIV and it definitely says "miscarriage".

lux et lex said:

I just pulled out my trusty old NIV and it definitely says "miscarriage".

Click to expand...

I looked up the literal translations and it says "premature birth" some say "and her children has come out" and I looked up the NIV it says "give birth prematurely" not "miscarriage." Don't know if NIV used "miscarriage" in an earlier translation but the one I pulled up didn't have the word.

Exodus 21:22 NIV;NKJV;ESV;YLT;DARBY - If people are fighting and hit a - Bible Gateway

Bibles have plenty of translation differences, I'm not seeing why this is a point. My physical book says miscarriage. Literal translations are not always the best ones, you know.

Don't know if NIV used "miscarriage" in an earlier translation but the one I pulled up didn't have the word.

Click to expand...

Look at the footnote under the NIV version.

lux et lex said:

Bibles have plenty of translation differences, I'm not seeing why this is a point. My physical book says miscarriage. Literal translations are not always the best ones, you know.

Click to expand...

Literal "word for word" are the best because it's not assuming something. Paraphrases like "The Message" and "thought-for-thought" like the NIV are a little less accurate.

But it's important because someone is claiming that the child has been "miscarried" and therefore it means that the child's life is not "as equal to the mother" but those literal translations don't say anything about it being "miscarried." Even when I look at the footnotes for my ESV and NKJV, which are some of the most reliable word for word translation we have. I even looked up the 1599 Geneve Bible, and the word "miscarriage" is not there. So all these literal word-for-word translations don't translate it as "miscarriage".

Here is the Hebrew breakdown of that Scripture:
Exodus 21:22 Hebrew Texts and Analysis

EDIT: Even if you want to claim it a "miscarriage" I still don't understand the connection. When that passage speaks of an accident of the woman giving birth where abortion speaks of a willful act of choosing to end the life of the child, by terminating the "fetus", not allowing the baby to continue to grow.

The point is the "life" of the fetus is worth a few pieces of silver. The life of the woman is worth another life.

lux et lex said:

The point is the "life" of the fetus is worth a few pieces of silver. The life of the woman is worth another life.

Click to expand...

A few pieces of silver, 30 pieces to be exact, is what one man's life was worthy when he died on that cross. So I'll cherish both the "few pieces of silver" and the life.

But that's exactly what I'm talking about. When you interpret it as "miscarriage" you're assuming the child is dead and so therefore you're assuming that the life is only worth "a few pieces of silver" but when you interpret it as "premature labor" or "her child has come out of her", which is what the literal translations translate it as, does not always implies that the child has died "preemies" as the example, would then force you to re-think how exactly you interpret that Scripture.

But even SO....one speaks of an accident where the woman gives birth...Abortion speaks of a willful choice to kill the "fetus" or as the bible call it "child". And just so we're clear, the punishment for the fact that the woman gives birth prematurely is not ONLY money it is

Lux et Lex,
This is quite easy.
Firstly the Hebrew words are, according to strongs, to come out prematurely. It doesnt say miscarriage or not, but it does say the woman is hurt by the men fighting that casues the premature coming out of the child, and a penalty to follow if there is no mischief.
Now as it says the woman has been hurt, what mischief could there be apart from it being subject to the child?

It is obviously a penalty to pay if it was a miscarriage. So if it is endorsing abortion, how come it does it by men hurting the woman? Is that how we should do it today?

Either way your argument is shot to pieces as it literally says 'child' that has come out, I thought you were arguing instead for 'foetus' as not a viable human being?

Taking this contextually, all children under 1 month were not counted as such in the census or considered people. We've come a long way from that, but why would it be life for life for something that didn't even count?

lux et lex said:

Taking this contextually, all children under 1 month were not counted as such in the census or considered people. We've come a long way from that, but why would it be life for life for something that didn't even count?

Click to expand...

Historically I would guess that is quite sensible, given that infant mortality was quite high; there was no point counting someone if the chance they would be dead in a week was 50/50.

lux et lex said:

Taking this contextually, all children under 1 month were not counted as such in the census or considered people. We've come a long way from that, but why would it be life for life for something that didn't even count?

Click to expand...

They were not counted in the census but that doesn't mean they weren't considered people. Women weren't counted in the genealogies but that doesn't mean that they weren't considered people.

daydreamergurl15 said:

They were not counted in the census but that doesn't mean they weren't considered people. Women weren't counted in the genealogies but that doesn't mean that they weren't considered people.

Click to expand...

genealogies =/= census. Census counts people. Genealogies are (traditionally) male heritage. Apples and oranges.

lux et lex said:

I get the feeling you aren't even reading what you're writing. A child HAS BEEN BORN. As to the rest, in Biblical times they believed the man's sperm was essentially an embryo that needed to be put into the woman, hence the sin of Onan. Should we use all of the scientific mistakes in the Bible as fact or just this one?

Click to expand...

Actually that is incorrect. Onan's sin was the sin of spilling his sperm because withdrawing during sex is gravely sinful. The reason being that all sex must be open to life and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] must occur within the woman's vagina so that the sexual act is open to life. This is also the reason why all contraception, including the use of condoms is gravely sinful.

You use this "gravely sinful" term a lot. Aren't all sins equal?

Lux et Lex,

Taking this contextually, all children under 1 month

Click to expand...

so either you are agreeing it is a child that comes out prematurely, or you are not taking it contextually.

but why would it be life for life for something that didn't even count?

Click to expand...

Quite easily. If one can assume it is a miscariage one can assume the woman has died.

Lux et Lex,

genealogies =/= census. Census counts people. Genealogies are (traditionally) male heritage. Apples and oranges.

Click to expand...

So, according to your thinking, if the woman isnt counted in the census either, what is te life for life the passages is referring to?

But women WERE counted in the census. You can't just make up an alternate history.

But women WERE counted in the census. You can't just make up an alternate history.

Click to expand...

Nor can you make assumptions anymore than anyone else, the pregnancy comes out early, so you cant say for sure its miscariage rather than birth.
And, this is about men fighting and harming a pregnant woman, if one treats this as support for abortion then one has already accepted the hrming of a pregnant woman.

Ave Maria said:

Actually that is incorrect. Onan's sin was the sin of spilling his sperm because withdrawing during sex is gravely sinful. The reason being that all sex must be open to life and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] must occur within the woman's vagina so that the sexual act is open to life. This is also the reason why all contraception, including the use of condoms is gravely sinful.

Click to expand...

You have to take this into to context Er did wickedly in the site of God and God dealt harshly with him...according to the law back then in the Bible Tamar was to be given to the next son in the lineage which was Onan. Onan was given a charge to raise up a seed out of Tamar for Er...and for whatever reason did not obey the commandment of God...therefore God dealt harshly with him as well. Due to Jewish law which was the law of Moses, since Er died before Onan was married, Tamar was to be wedded into the family to maintain the lineage of Judah which is the lineage of Christ.

Onan was not punished for merely spilling his seed but for not obeying God which was detrimental to the lineage of Judah considering Jewish Law and God's promise of the redeemer being a descendant of Judah.