Why do some Christians claim that the Bible is pro-life, when it is clearly not?

SPF · Oct 4, 2018

Rubiks said:
The NRSV (which is the most common translation used in academic journals) renders the Exodus 21 passage as a miscarriage.

Hi Rubiks, I suspect you haven't actually followed along with this thread.

This Article may be of some educational help for you if you are actually interested in the Exodus passage.

Here's one section that is relevant to the miscarriage notion:

Words inserted into English translations. Yet another flaw becomes evident when we realize that almost all the translations that support the miscarried fetus view insert words that are neither present nor implied in the original Hebrew text. For example, The Bible in Basic English says: "If men, while fighting, do damage to a woman with child, causing the loss of the child, but no other evil comes to her, the man will have to make payment up to the amount fixed by her husband, in agreement with the decision of the judges. But if damage comes to her, let life be given in payment for life" (Ex. 21:22, 23).

This translation, apparently assuming that the fetus was miscarried, inserts the words "to her," implying that the word "evil" or "harm" (Hebrew ason) refers to the mother and not to the fetus. However, a closer look at the Hebrew original reveals two problems: first, that the words "to her" (lah in Hebrew) are not in the text; and second, that the position of the word "evil" in the sentence structure compels us to relate it to either the fetus only or to both the fetus and its mother.

Besides the unwarranted insertion of the words "she," "herself," or "to her" by several translations, 16 of them add the words "other," "further," or "otherwise" in front of the word "harm" in verses 22 and 23. This implies that some harm already has been done, namely the alleged miscarriage, which is then judged to be relatively insignificant because it draws only a fine. The original text for bids such translation, indicating that even though the offspring comes out as the result of a blow to the woman's body, both baby and mother are alive and well.

Only in verse 23 is the possibility of harm introduced. It reads literally, "and if harm occurs." The text does not say that this is "further" harm or that it applies only to the mother. Rather, it makes absolutely no distinction between offspring and mother, thus applying the life-for-life legislation to both.

When one analyzes the evidence, it seems reasonable to conclude with Jack Cottrell that "there is absolutely no linguistic justification for translating verse 22 to refer to a miscarriage." 13

redleghunter · Oct 4, 2018

Brother Billy said:
Whenever I have mentioned the Talmud on this thread, I was referring to the body of Jewish civil and ceremonial law and legend comprising the Mishnah and the Gemara.

Which again is post 2nd Temple Judaism.

Brother Billy said:
I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.

Post Temple Judaism was a departure from Torah.

redleghunter · Oct 4, 2018

Brother Billy said:
The beginning of human personhood is the moment when a human is first recognized as a person.

By whom?

Brother Billy said:
If you unlawfully kill a person, then in terms of the law you are guilty of murder.

Under what circumstances?

Brother Billy said:
Different legal systems define the beginning of personhood differently - for example it can start at conception, a defined period after conception, at birth etc.

Which means you have no definition and leave it to any society to determine personhood from as early as conception to after birth sometime as Peter Singer puts it well after the 3rd month after birth.

Do you not see a problem with this relativistic subjective position you have? It allows a society to determine who is human and who is sub-human. History is full of examples which I don't think we need to list here.

redleghunter · Oct 4, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:
Ok. I saw it.

Really, the only thing I might be able to come away with is that God might feel that the rights of ILLEGITIMATE children brought about by the sexual improprieties of loose women (wives) is somehow less than that of legitimate children. So, while this might actually be the case (and I don't know that it is if we add Jesus into the equation), for us to impute this 'lessening of rights to life' to all fetuses would be a fallacy.

Yet if we are speaking of Numbers 5 again, the text itself does not even imply there is a pregnancy nor a miscarriage. Such does not exist in the Hebrew.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 4, 2018

redleghunter said:
Yet if we are speaking of Numbers 5 again, the text itself does not even imply there is a pregnancy nor a miscarriage. Such does not exist in the Hebrew.

Well, even if Brother Billy is even partially right, it wouldn't mean that 'abortion' as we now conceptualize it and legally protect it on a mass scale in today's world would be justified. It would simply mean that God meant business with His emphasis upon holiness in Israel.

redleghunter · Oct 4, 2018

Brother Billy said:
Haha okay. I assumed that God values all unborn children equally. I could well be wrong on this point!

The New Covenant includes Jews and Gentiles. Under Mosaic Law all Gentiles were illegitimate. Under the New Covenant the term 'illegitimate' is used for the reprobate.

Galatians 3: NASB
23But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.

Brother Billy said:
You actually got me thinking about Deuteronomy 23:2 which states that illegitimate children can't go to heaven. Maybe this verse is somehow related to Numbers 5:11-29. What do you think?

Under the Law it meant not being an Israelite citizen.

redleghunter · Oct 4, 2018

Rubiks said:
The NIV is infamous for intentionally mistranslating verses in order for them to agree with an evangelical protestant worldview.

That's news to me. Considering few Evangelical scholars use the NIV and most quote from the ESV and NASB.

Rubiks said:
The NRSV (which is the most common translation used in academic journals) renders the Exodus 21 passage as a miscarriage.

The NRSV is an ecumenical Bible version. It is not a literal word for word translation. It is in the category of "thought for thought."

Types of Bible Translations - Outline.jpg

What is not listed on the chart above is the most literal word for word translation (some call mechanical translation) the Lexham English Bible (LEB) which is used by LOGOS software.

Brother Billy · Oct 6, 2018

SPF said:
You are correct. But then one asks - what is the foundation you use to support that assertion? Well, it is quite clearly an argument from silence which is a fallacy. In your own words, "The Bible never explicitly condemns abortion...Why would they omit something..." The thrust of your point stems from the perceived Biblical silence on abortion. Which.... once again... is a fallacy. Lack of evidence is not evidence.

Okay, let me give you an example to show you why you are wrong:

If someone is arrested and is asked if he is guilty of a crime, his silence can be interpreted as a tacit admission of guilt since it is reasonable to assume an innocent man would loudly deny a serious charge. And such silence can later be introduced at his trial as an indicator of guilt. Of course, this alone doesn't prove he is guilty, but it might be enough to sway a jury's decision from not-guilty to guilty.

In the above example, arguing that he is guilty is not an argument from silence because it is reasonable to expect that if he is innocent that he would loudly protest this.

An argument from silence occurs when someone interprets someones or something’s silence as anything other than silence, when there is no justification for doing so.

In my case, my justification for expecting the Mosaic Laws to include an explicit prohibition against abortion is because it is a crime on par with murder (according to pro-life advocates) and because the Mosaic legal system had laws for other serious crimes e.g. rape, incest, adultery, homosexuality etc. Also I'm not claiming that this silence is conclusive evidence that the Bible doesn't consider abortion to be murder.

SPF said:
This is another fallacy, known as the appeal to tradition. Remember, you're talking to a lot of Protestants here that have a lot of disagreements with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox regarding theology that can be sourced to pre AD 1000. An interpretation, even 1,500 years old can still have been wrong for 1,500 years.

No, I disagree. You're comparing apples and oranges here. Aside from the inclusion of the Apocrypha, the Catholic Bible is identical to Protestant Bibles in terms of the canon (the books belonging in the Bible). The differences between Catholics and Protestants aren't due to disagreements over translations from the original language to English. The disagreements relate to how they interpret the scriptures which have already been translated into English.

SPF said:
You also seem to forget that Jews did disagree with each other and were not entirely in agreement as you suppose. There were different Jewish schools of thought.

Yes, there were disagreements between different schools of thought. However the overwhelming consensus among the ancient Hebrew scholars in Biblical times was that Exodus 21:22 said that the accidental death of the fetus was punishable by a fine, not death.

SPF said:
Congrats, and I get the distinct feeling that it is mostly people with a pro-choice agenda who are desperate to find anything in Scripture that can validate their opinion.

That's not true. In the earlier posts of this thread I stated that I'm pro-life. I see abortion as a human rights issue. On demand abortion is murder. The only time I think an exception should be made is when the mother's life is in danger. [/QUOTE]

SPF said:
In conclusion, if you want to have any chance of actually providing any sort of substance to your claims from your OP, especially with regards to the Exodus passage, you're going to have to do more than just repeat "I only acknowledge the Talmud". You're going to need to actually do some work and engage with the original text. Here's a good start:

Most writers who support the premature birth concept offer a thorough exegesis of Exodus 21. They pay the most attention to the Hebrew words yeled, yatsa, and ason. 17

The noun yeled. Gesenius' well-respected Hebrew lexicon says that yeled means "child, son, boy, youth." 18 No distinction is made between an unborn child and a child after birth in the Pentateuch or in the entire Old Testament.19 Furthermore, yeled is not the usual Hebrew noun for the product of a miscarriage, but rather, nephel, meaning "one untimely born" (see Job 3:16; Ps. 58:8; Eccl. 6:3).20

The verb yatsa. According to the Hebrew dictionary, its basic meaning is to "go or come out." 21The Hebrew Bible consistently bears out this meaning. The word yatsa when used alone to describe human reproduction usually refers to a normal birth (see Gen. 25:25, 26; 38:27- 30; Jer. 1:5; 20:18). Whenever yatsa refers to a stillbirth, it is always accompanied by some form of muth (to die), as in Numbers 12:12and Job 3:11. Because yatsa appears without any form of muth in Exodus 21:22, we must conclude that the passage indicates a live birth.

Further evidence is that the Old Testament verb normally used for miscarriage, or spontaneous abortion, is not yatsa but shakol.22 Indeed, Moses used shakol to describe miscarriage in a later passage (see Ex. 23:26). Because he used yatsa in Exodus 21, we infer that he was referring to a live birth.

The noun ason. Lexicographers translate ason as anything from "hurt, damage, mischance" 23to "mortal accident." 24 Outside of the two times ason is mentioned in Exodus 21, it occurs only three more times in the Old Testament all in connection with the story of Joseph. There it refers to a mishap befalling one's off spring, causing an apparently permanent separation between parent and child.

To whom does ason apply in the passage we are considering? The text mentions a woman being struck so that her offspring comes out "and no ason occurs." The Hebrew expression lah(to her) which would restrict the harm to the woman as opposed to the child is absent in the text. Most scholars who offer an exegesis of this passage suggest that ason refers to both mother and child.25 Others, apparently because ason follows directly upon "her children come out," conclude that harm originally referred exclusively to the offspring.26 But whether asonrefers to only the offspring or to both offspring and mother, there is no doubt that our passage grants to the fetus the status of full humanity.

So Exodus 21:22 does not concern an induced abortion or a miscarriage. Furthermore, there is absolutely no distinction between mother and fetus: both have equal status according to the law. As Meredith Kline puts it: "The life-for-life formula is applied to the destruction of a fetus, with no qualification as to how young the fetus might be. The fetus, at any stage of development, is in the eyes of this law a living being." 27

Just from a common sense perspective your translation doesn't make sense because if a woman had a miscarriage in the early weeks of her pregnancy after being accidentally injured, she would bleed profusely but it is highly unlikely that a fetus would be visible at all. How would the judges apply "you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." if there wasn't even a body to point to?

SPF · Oct 6, 2018

Brother Billy said:
If someone is arrested and is asked if he is guilty of a crime, his silence can be interpreted as a tacit admission of guilt since it is reasonable to assume an innocent man would loudly deny a serious charge.

Sure, lawyers can attempt to use fallacious arguments to win a court case, that doesn’t mean they should. In reality, people have the right to remain silent, and have the right to invoke the fifth amendment, both of which shouldn’t be used as a measuring stick of guilt.

But just like you have done here, people often do fall victim to using fallacious reasoning.

Brother Billy said:
The differences between Catholics and Protestants aren't due to disagreements over translations from the original language to English. The disagreements relate to how they interpret the scriptures.

I’m pretty sure you just agreed with me. The disagreements lie in the interpretation.

Brother Billy said:
That's not true. In the earlier posts of this thread I stated that I'm pro-life.

Your personal opinion has no bearing on my impression that pro-choice advocates seem desperate to find anything in Scripture to support their opinion.

Brother Billy · Oct 6, 2018

SPF said:
Sure, lawyers can attempt to use fallacious arguments to win a court case, that doesn’t mean they should. In reality, people have the right to remain silent, and have the right to invoke the fifth amendment, both of which shouldn’t be used as a measuring stick of guilt.

But just like you have done here, people often do fall victim to using fallacious reasoning.

Do you think the supreme court used fallacious reasoning? See the following link:
Supreme Court: Pre-Miranda silence can be used as evidence of guilt

SPF said:
I’m pretty sure you just agreed with me. The disagreements lie in the interpretation.

No I disagree. The differences between Catholics and Protestants aren't due to disagreements over translations from the Hebrew to English (like the issue we've been discussing). The disagreements relate to how they interpret the scriptures (that have already been translated).

Just out of interest, what are your views about abortion when the mothers life is in danger or when she was raped? Are you full on pro-life or do you think there should be exceptions?

SPF · Oct 6, 2018

Brother Billy said:
Do you think the supreme court used fallacious reasoning? See the following link:
Supreme Court: Pre-Miranda silence can be used as evidence of guilt

No, I don’t think the court used fallacious reasoning. But I don’t think that’s what you’re actually asking. I think you’re asking if I agree with their position. If that is your question, then I would say that I agree with the 4 dissenting judges.

Brother Billy said:
No I disagree. The differences between Catholics and Protestants aren't due to disagreements over translations from the Hebrew to English (like the issue we've been discussing). The disagreements relate to how they interpret the scriptures (that have already been translated).

Youll need to go back and reread. The point I was making was that you were citing the Talmud as a superior interpretation due to its age. I was letting you know that first off that is a fallacy, and that second off, as Protestants who disagree with the interpretations of Catholics on issues that can be dated back to pre AD 1,000, you’re simply not going to convince anyone based upon the age of an interpretation.

Protestants are not going to find the Talmud as a reliable commentary.

And as for my opinion on abortion, feel free to read one of the other threads or start one

Brother Billy · Oct 6, 2018

redleghunter said:
By whom?

By whoever decides they want to define personhood. You can make your own definition of personhood if you want.

redleghunter said:
Under what circumstances?

It depends on the details of the circumstances that led to the killing and the applicable laws.

redleghunter said:
Which means you have no definition and leave it to any society to determine personhood from as early as conception to after birth sometime as Peter Singer puts it well after the 3rd month after birth.

Yes, there is no Universally accepted definition of personhood.

redleghunter said:
Do you not see a problem with this relativistic subjective position you have?

I haven't stated my definition of personhood yet, which is that it starts at conception.

redleghunter said:
It allows a society to determine who is human and who is sub-human. History is full of examples which I don't think we need to list here.

Yes, I agree.

Brother Billy · Oct 6, 2018

SPF said:
No, I don’t think the court used fallacious reasoning. But I don’t think that’s what you’re actually asking. I think you’re asking if I agree with their position. If that is your question, then I would say that I agree with the 4 dissenting judges.

To be a bit more specific: Do you think the 5 judges who ruled that "Pre-Miranda silence can be used as evidence of guilt" were being logically fallacious? Do you still maintain that my argument was logically fallacious?

SPF said:
Youll need to go back and reread. The point I was making was that you were citing the Talmud as a superior interpretation due to its age.

I was letting you know that first off that is a fallacy, and that second off, as Protestants who disagree with the interpretations of Catholics on issues that can be dated back to pre AD 1,000, you’re simply not going to convince anyone based upon the age of an interpretation.

Protestants are not going to find the Talmud as a reliable commentary.

I never claimed that the Talmud is a superior interpretation specifically because of its age. Rather it's because it reflects the interpretations of the Hebrew scholars who lived in biblical times and so they would have known the language and cultural context of the original texts better than anyone who lived afterwards.

Brother Billy · Oct 6, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:
Well, even if Brother Billy is even partially right, it wouldn't mean that 'abortion' as we now conceptualize it and legally protect it on a mass scale in today's world would be justified.

I couldn't agree with you more.

SPF · Oct 6, 2018

Brother Billy said:
To be a bit more specific: Do you think the 5 judges who ruled that "Pre-Miranda silence can be used as evidence of guilt" were being logically fallacious?

No. I think they were wrong.

Brother Billy said:
Do you still maintain that my argument was logically fallacious?

Yes, your point one from your OP is an example of the fallacy of an argument from silence.

Brother Billy said:
I never claimed that the Talmud is a superior interpretation specifically because of its age. Rather it's because it reflects the interpretations of the Hebrew scholars who lived in biblical times and so they would have known the language and cultural context of the original texts better than anyone who lived afterwards.

i think if you look at the agreed upon date for the composition of Exodus and the date of composition of the Talmud that you’ll see a many year difference. The Talmud is not a superior commentary. And again, you’re using the geanology fallacy.

Brother Billy · Oct 6, 2018

SPF said:
No. I think they were wrong.

Yes, your point one from your OP is an example of the fallacy of an argument from silence.

Why was it not logically fallacious for the 5 judges to conclude that silence can be used as evidence of guilt? Why isn't this an argument from silence?

Southernscotty · Oct 6, 2018

Brother Billy said:
3)The Mosaic Laws (from God), don't consider a fetus to be a person

Exodus 21: 22-25 prescribes death for someone who accidentally kills a pregnant mother, however if only her fetus is accidentally killed (while she is unharmed), then the perpetrator only gets a fine. This implies that the life of a fetus is worth less than it's mother. If both we considered people, then the penalty should be death in both cases, but this is not the case. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. Therefore abortion cannot be murder (in terms of the Mosaic Laws).

Note that I'm not claiming that the Bible says the fetus is unimportant, only that it was worth less than a person

I just started reading and I have to respond with this before I go any further, Simply because it comes to mind. I know your going to say well the OT or the NT but keep in mind Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Jeremiah 1:15 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

SPF · Oct 6, 2018

Brother Billy said:
Why was it not logically fallacious for the 5 judges to conclude that silence can be used as evidence of guilt? Why isn't this an argument from silence?

Really? They weren’t using an argument from silence in their ruling. Duh?

Brother Billy · Oct 6, 2018

SPF said:
Really? They weren’t using an argument from silence in their ruling. Duh?

They agreed with the statement that "silence can be used as evidence of guilt" in this particular case? Why isn't this an argument from silence?

First you said they were being logically fallacious. Then you changed your mind to say they weren't. Make up your mind

Brother Billy · Oct 6, 2018

Southernscotty said:
I just started reading and I have to respond with this before I go any further, Simply because it comes to mind. I know your going to say well the OT or the NT but keep in mind Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Jeremiah 1:15 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

How is this an objection to abortion? If God knew this person before he was conceived, could he also have ordained him before he was conceived as "a prophet unto the nations?".

Southernscotty said:
Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

This assumes that the fetus is a person in terms of the law. As I argued in point (3) of my original post, the bible doesn't consider a fetus to be a person.

Why do some Christians claim that the Bible is pro-life, when it is clearly not?

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads