Is the Fetus a Human Being?

redleghunter said:

So sort of kind of follow Augsburg. Ok.

Click to expand...

We also technically have the Book of Concord, in addition. That is what we actually consider the core statement of our distinctive Lutheran identity, even though globally it is Augsburg that is the standard. Augsburg is probably, for practical purposes, the more important document for us, along with the Catechisms (and we interpret those in a similar fashion)

In the ELCA we are not so confessionally rigid that we cannot draw on resources from 20th century Reformed and Catholic thought, since in many ways we are a via media between those two.

Adi-Buddha said:

This is not presupposition. "Fetus" is a Greek word if I am correct.

Click to expand...

Latin, actually.

Adi-Buddha said:

Based on the text that I quoted

Click to expand...

The text that says killing an unborn baby is murder?

“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, 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. (Exodus 21:22-25, NIV)

Adi-Buddha said:

I do not see the fetus as a living thing

Click to expand...

What, you think it is dead, like rock? The heart beating isn't a clue that it's alive?

Adi-Buddha said:

Thus I am pro-choice

Click to expand...

Pro-murder.

Radagast said:

Latin, actually.



The text that says killing an unborn baby is murder?

“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, 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. (Exodus 21:22-25, NIV)



What, you think it is dead, like rock? The heart beating isn't a clue that it's alive?

Click to expand...

That's just more proof in my mind that the NIV is a biased translation, given that the RSV translates it more along the lines of miscarriage.

Elsewhere, there is a fine imposed for killing a slave. So death is not always linked to "life for life" but depends on the status of the individual within the society. That makes sense because the concept of human rights was really quite foreign to the biblical authors of this time period.

This is really not a passage that can answer the pro-choice or pro-life question but is about making satisfaction in a premodern society for harms done in what often amount to property damage.

And that's not even getting at the fact that from the Lutheran standpoint, mosaic law is not necessarily even normative for civil society.

throughfireytrial said:

What may be very important to your faith life is the gift of distinguishing the spirits and that gift extends from the constant use of the Scriptures...every thought must align with the Scriptures. (somewhat sketchy, but I can expound for you if you wish...doubtful.

Click to expand...

The SPIRITUAL gift of discerning of spirits comes from a manifestation of 'the Holy Spirit through whoever He wills, not through whoever doesn't have the baptism of the Holy Spirit but is saved and reads the bible.

1CO 12:10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

So we're right back to what I said and you have just proven. You have replaced the Holy Spirit with the Holy Bible. So maybe, rather than teach me, you might ought to 'study to show yourself a bit more approved. And I could expound quite a bit more on that if you wish, but as you say....doubtful.

ubicaritas said:

That's just more proof in my mind that the NIV is a biased translation, given that the RSV translates it more along the lines of miscarriage.

Elsewhere, there is a fine imposed for killing a slave. So death is not always linked to "life for life" but depends on the status of the individual within the society. That makes sense because the concept of human rights was really quite foreign to the biblical authors of this time period.

This is really not a passage that can answer the pro-choice or pro-life question but is about making satisfaction in a premodern society for harms done in what often amount to property damage.

And that's not even getting at the fact that from the Lutheran standpoint, mosaic law is not necessarily even normative for civil society.

Click to expand...

I believe that when we couple some of the other "life in the womb" passages with this we see it for what it is. How can translators be soooo biased as to change the meaning of these descript verses? No, I do not believe that. Use a Hebrew Greek Interlinear and look it up. Following is another passage which shows both faith beginning from the womb as well as God's judgement of the unborn...
Psalm 51:5-6:
Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb;
you taught me wisdom in that secret place.

throughfireytrial said:

I believe that when we couple some of the other "life in the womb" passages with this we see it for what it is. How can translators be soooo biased as to change the meaning of these descript verses? No, I do not believe that. Use a Hebrew Greek Interlinear and look it up. Following is another passage which shows both faith beginning from the womb as well as God's judgement of the unborn...
Psalm 51:5-6:
Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb;
you taught me wisdom in that secret place.

Click to expand...

The RSV was an earlier translation and was undertaken at a time when abortion politics as we know it today was nonexistant (contraception was a more controversial issue in churches in the 50's), whereas the NIV was translated post Roe v. Wade. The NIV also was dominated by conservative evangelical translators who mostly came from religious denominations who were shaped by the emerging culture wars, whereas the RSV had a broad range of scholarly input from many denominations.

Hillsage said:

The SPIRITUAL gift of discerning of spirits comes from a manifestation of 'the Holy Spirit through whoever He wills, not through whoever doesn't have the baptism of the Holy Spirit but is saved and reads the bible.

1CO 12:10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

So we're right back to what I said and you have just proven. You have replaced the Holy Spirit with the Holy Bible. So maybe, rather than teach me, you might ought to 'study to show yourself a bit more approved. And I could expound quite a bit more on that if you wish, but as you say....doubtful.

Click to expand...

To have this manifestation of the Holy Spirit on must first have faith. It is clear from Scripture that there is a maturation in the faith and that there are gifts and there are greater gifts.
I Corinthians 12:28-31:
And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.
(The greatest gifts are apostleship and prophecy.)

Prophecy instructs (prophecy is the recitation or dissemination of the Word...as Stephen did before he was stoned in Acts.)
Here's the elevated position of prophecy which also shows our centralizing around the Word...
I Corinthians 14:5:
5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.

ubicaritas said:

The RSV was an earlier translation and was undertaken at a time when abortion politics as we know it today was nonexistant (contraception was a more controversial issue in churches in the 50's), whereas the NIV was translated post Roe v. Wade. The NIV also was dominated by conservative evangelical translators who mostly came from religious denominations who were shaped by the emerging culture wars, whereas the RSV had a broad range of scholarly input from many denominations.

Click to expand...

Your study if you are concerned about an interpretation should lead you to books such as the interlinear which I suggested. Your reasoning leans heavily towards prejudice...pre- or post Roe v Wade...really? That's your reasoning? I have done a lot of Bible research and I find the NIV84 to be excellent though I was raised on the KJV.

throughfireytrial said:

Your study if you are concerned about an interpretation should lead you to books such as the interlinear which I suggested. Your reasoning leans heavily towards prejudice...pre- or post Roe v Wade...really? That's your reasoning? I have done a lot of Bible research and I find the NIV84 to be excellent though I was raised on the KJV.

Click to expand...

Of the two, the KJV is a better translation for serious study as it actually tries to preserve the underlying language structure of the text. The NIV is a dynamic translation not appropriate for serious study. I would not be alone in that opinion.

Hillsage said:

The SPIRITUAL gift of discerning of spirits comes from a manifestation of 'the Holy Spirit through whoever He wills, not through whoever doesn't have the baptism of the Holy Spirit but is saved and reads the bible.

1CO 12:10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

So we're right back to what I said and you have just proven. You have replaced the Holy Spirit with the Holy Bible. So maybe, rather than teach me, you might ought to 'study to show yourself a bit more approved. And I could expound quite a bit more on that if you wish, but as you say....doubtful.

Click to expand...

One could also conclude a person could claim a spiritual gift to promote their own ideas or doctrines. Then what are Christians to do to attempt to settle the matter? The Holy Scriptures.

Don't get me wrong...in the NT we see the Gospel come in word, deed and Power. Yet the apostles themselves did substantiate their message by appealing to the very Law, Prophets and Writings as Christ opened their minds to:

Luke 24: NASB
44Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48“You are witnesses of these things. 49“And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

ubicaritas said:

The RSV was an earlier translation and was undertaken at a time when abortion politics as we know it today was nonexistant (contraception was a more controversial issue in churches in the 50's), whereas the NIV was translated post Roe v. Wade. The NIV also was dominated by conservative evangelical translators who mostly came from religious denominations who were shaped by the emerging culture wars, whereas the RSV had a broad range of scholarly input from many denominations.

Click to expand...

Ubi, the problem with that line of reasoning on 'bias' in translation is the actual Hebrew word for miscarriage or still birth is not in the text. I pointed this out earlier as did others.

Exodus 21: King James Version (KJV)

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Now another word for word literal translation from a modern English version.

Exodus 21: 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. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21:22-25 NASB
http://bible.com/100/exo.21.22-25.NASB


Now we take a look at the Hebrew lexicon.



If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

So that her fruit:

Hebrew: יֶלֶד yeled

The KJV translates Strongs H3206 in the following manner:child (72x), young man (7x), young ones (3x), sons (3x), boy (2x), fruit (1x), variant (1x).


child, son, boy, offspring, youth

1. child, son, boy
2. child, children
3. descendants
4. youth

Yeled is not not miscarriage nor still birth, it's a live child.

Is there a Hebrew word for miscarriage and stillborn? Yes and it is not Yeled.

Exodus 23: KJV


26 There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfil.

The above now in the Hebrew lexicon:
שָׁכֹל shakol


The KJV translates Strongs H7921 in the following manner:bereave (10x),barren(2x), childless (2x), cast young(2x), cast a calf (1x), lost children (1x),rob of children(1x), deprived (1x), misc (5x).


שָׁכֹלshâkôl, shaw-kole'; a primitive root; properly, to miscarry, i.e. suffer abortion; by analogy, to bereave (literally or figuratively):—bereave (of children), barren, cast calf (fruit, young), be (make) childless, deprive, destroy, × expect, lose children, miscarry, rob of children, spoil.


So we can see shakol is not used in Exodus 21:22ff.

Yaled is alive; shakol is miscarriage.


I am good friends with an elderly theologian (Church of Christ) who was on the NASB revision committee. He is also close friends to Dr. JP Moreland and Pastor John Piper who were on the committee as well. Here is Pastor John Piper's explanation but from the perspective of the NIV which matches the NASB translation (the article below was prior to the 1995 NASB revision):

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-misuse-of-exodus-21-22-25-by-pro-choice-advocates

It still sounds ambiguous. Even pro-choice people speak of a "baby" in the womb but don't necessarily ascribe the same connotation to that as pro-life individuals. That's really what I'm emphasizing. There is a difference between a words connotation and its denotation.

Given the enslavement and bloodshed in the Old Testament, and the fact that a death of a slave was met with a fine, I find it unlikely that there was any strong principle of a genuine pro-life ethic in the ancient Hebrew mind, at least as we would understand it today. That seems to me to be engaging in historical anachronism.

This really hit home watching Handmade's Tale on Hulu recently, something I've started watching, and I realized that just the idea of Old Testament slavery would be completely repugnant to our moral sensibilities today. Even if the show/book takes obvious liberties with the concept of biblical slavery that may indeed be speculative, it does so to put together a constellations of themes present in a certain kind of Christian biblicism, unmasking their horrific implications. We sentimentalize the Old Testament far too much as Christians, I am afraid, and sometimes we need fictional works to make us see that what we consider sacred is really quite problematic.

ubicaritas said:

Of the two, the KJV is a better translation for serious study as it actually tries to preserve the underlying language structure of the text. The NIV is a dynamic translation not appropriate for serious study. I would not be alone in that opinion.

Click to expand...

There are two major views held and which is the majority I do not know, but most Christian denominations adopted it as their church service and Bible study Bible...so I am doubting your "research". I can go into much more detail on the NIV84 which I quite thoroughly researched if you wish, but that is not the topic here on this thread and we are to adhere to the OP.

ubicaritas said:

It still sounds ambiguous. Even pro-choice people speak of a "baby" in the womb but don't necessarily ascribe the same connotation to that as pro-life individuals. That's really what I'm emphasizing. There is a difference between a words connotation and its denotation.

Given the enslavement and bloodshed in the Old Testament, and the fact that a death of a slave was met with a fine, I find it unlikely that there was any strong principle of a genuine pro-life ethic in the ancient Hebrew mind, at least as we would understand it today. That seems to me to be engaging in historical anachronism.

Click to expand...

Who or what exactly are you responding to above?

ubicaritas said:

This really hit home watching Handmade's Tale on Hulu recently

Click to expand...

Ah, the hermeneutics of the Handmaid's Tale....sorry I have not thought about applying that to my exegesis.

Book of Hulu where?

ubicaritas said:

Of the two, the KJV is a better translation for serious study as it actually tries to preserve the underlying language structure of the text. The NIV is a dynamic translation not appropriate for serious study. I would not be alone in that opinion.

Click to expand...

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

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.

redleghunter said:

Who or what exactly are you responding to above?


Ah, the hermeneutics of the Handmade's Tale....sorry I have not thought about applying that to my exegesis.

Click to expand...

It's always good to see things from other peoples perspectives.

Sometimes we need to be honest about the worldview the OT is coming from and separate out human culture and what God's Word is for us. Looking to the OT for ethical guidance, at least in this fine-toothed comb manner scrutinizing what amounts to a single verse, is almost as problematic as Calvin setting up a committee in Geneva to construct a sewer system in a "biblical" manner.

"Is the Fetus a Human Being?"

Yes. What else could it be?

throughfireytrial said:

To have this manifestation of the Holy Spirit on must first have faith. It is clear from Scripture that there is a maturation in the faith and that there are gifts and there are greater gifts.
I Corinthians 12:28-31:
And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.
(The greatest gifts are apostleship and prophecy.)

Click to expand...

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.

Prophecy instructs (prophecy is the recitation or dissemination of the Word...as Stephen did before he was stoned in Acts.)
Here's the elevated position of prophecy which also shows our centralizing around the Word...
I Corinthians 14:5:
5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.

Click to expand...

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.

ubicaritas said:

Sometimes we need to be honest about the worldview the OT is coming from and separate out human culture and what God's Word is for us. Looking to the OT for ethical guidance, at least in this fine-toothed comb manner scrutinizing what amounts to a single verse, is almost as problematic as Calvin setting up a committee in Geneva to construct a sewer system in a "biblical" manner.

Click to expand...

If you are referring to Exodus 21:22-25, then it was the pro-choice (abortion on demand) OP who was trying to make the argument from the text. I and other responded with a literal exegesis of the text.

Here's the OP statement:

Adi-Buddha said:

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.

Click to expand...

redleghunter said:

One could also conclude a person could claim a spiritual gift to promote their own ideas or doctrines. Then what are Christians to do to attempt to settle the matter? The Holy Scriptures.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. Lots of theology has come from those claiming spirituality which they don't have. But most will all claim we should 'do as the Bereans do', that's for sure. But hopefully, in contextually quoting that verse, we do realize that the Bereans were unsaved Jews right? What they were searching for wasn't correct theology, it was determining if Jesus was the Messiah, hopefully then leading them to getting initially saved, or born again if the Spirit "drew, called, chose and ultimately "ordained TO believe" by gifting them the faith to do so. But the Bereans certainly weren't trying to figure out correct doctrine. Although that comes from revelation from the Holy Spirit too....whose job it is to "Lead and guide us into ALL the truth".

Don't get me wrong...in the NT we see the Gospel come in word, deed and Power. Yet the apostles themselves did substantiate their message by appealing to the very Law, Prophets and Writings as Christ opened their minds to:

Click to expand...

I agree again, but if there's one thing the church is lacking miserably in, it is the 'supernatural' power of the Holy Spirit that the first century church walked in. I'm not just talking about tongues here either, I'm talking about all the SUPERNATURAL giftings, but of 1Cor 12 especially. And I'm talking about the watering down of those Spirtiual gifts by those "ungifted/unlearned" Christians' (as I talked about in my last post). I've actually had a Baptist patient of mine come to me and declare how wonderful it was that God had given me 'the gift of healing'. I explained to her that the 'calling' I received as well as the 'talent' talent to achieve my degree, was the same God given talent utilized by a non Christian peer of mine, down the sidewalk from my office. A peer who walked out on his family and ran away with his secretary. I told her she was bringing a 'spiritual healing gift' down to her biblical level of experience and understanding. And she needed to lift her experience to the spiritual and supernatural level of the bible instead.

Luke 24: NASB

Click to expand...

44Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48“You are witnesses of these things. 49“And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

Click to expand...

Proof in point. Here we are with 'believers' (gifted or ungifted?) walking with Jesus and HE has to OPEN their mind to understand the scriptures" YES YES and AMEN...HE opened their minds. Therein lies the fault of the church today. Too many brilliant minds aren't being opened by 'the Holy Spirit upon us, or the spirit of Christ in us' to lead us into 'the truth'.
We have educated theologians writing so much error which has led to more and more division in the 'only church' God sees when he looks down. He is not looking at all the 'ISMS' which should have long ago died out as 'WAS-IMS'. Rather than grow with the leading of the Spirit's revelation as to His unfolding of 'the truth' they have moved on and started another denomination. And the religious spirit of denominationalISM is very good at building doctrinal walls of separation with every one of those ISMs.

1CO 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

EDIT PS. We are again 'off topic' so no response is fine with me.