I really don't know what to make of #108 above.
I was giving my opinion; I am certainly not part of a 'colloquy'. (Not sure what 'decontextaloxed' is.)
And, gosh, I knew that the Bible has been translated.
You don’t know?
Well, let’s review. You apparently thought to throw Christians under the bus, accusing them, or a subset of them, as making claims against abortion that aren’t supported by any verses in the Bible.
Then, when presented with OT verses supporting a Christian rejection of abortion as sinful, your maneuver was to shift the focus from the Bible to Jesus’ words in the NT.
When presented with an argument Jesus was the same God in the OT, and that the OT is practically Jesus’ words, and Jesus specifically stated he didn’t come to abolish the law, and he lived by the OT law,m, your reply was to, once again, move the goal posts, and say the Bible doesn’t “cut any ice” with you.
So, you haphazardly ventured an opinion about the a subset of Christians using the Bible to condemn abortion. When confronted with a substantive rebuttal to your view, the rebuttal specifically being the Bible verses and their translation, you offered nothing substantive but moving goal posts.
Perhaps you shouldn’t have commented upon whether the Bible does provide support against abortion and thr fetus as a person without having done the research first.
I am certainly not part of a 'colloquy'.
To the contrary, you very much were and are, as colloquy is a dialogue.
Not sure what 'decontextaloxed'
Of course, typos are foreign to you, but let’s not operate under the pretense you didn’t have enough information to understand the actual word to be used. You made a comment the textual exegesis I provided was “decontextualized.” Of course, you provided nothing to support this claim.
The larger issue is your claims about what the Bible does or doesn’t say about abortion and the status of the fetus, and a conspicuous lack of any support for your POV.