Boom!Since I believe thst Jesus is God Incarnate and was formed in the womb, all stages of development of the body in the womb from conception to birth are sanctified human life. Since God was once a one celled zygote I don't understand how a Christian wouldn't recognize the sanctity of any human in the same stages of growth. Abortion is anti Incarnation of God.
Actually historic Christianity has always focused first on the Incarnation.I'm a Lutheran, so the answer is easy. I was born dead, made alive in baptism and adopted as a child of God.
In Lutheranism the emphasis is on redemption, not creation. You put creation first you make an idol out of your ideas of God instead of how God has revealed himself in Christ.
Actually historic Christianity has always focused first on the Incarnation.
Boom!
And what does the Hebrew say in Jeremiah 8:8?Of course English translations vary. That's why the English isn't considered inspired.
I have no problem with any of this. Nor do I have a problem with a 'still born' child being dead in a miscarriage. I think that fits the Hebrew and the RSV.Rather, we have to look at the Hebrew.
The noun yeled, refers to something born (boy, child, fruit, son, etc.) http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3206.htm
This is the same term used of other infants and children, such as Lamech's sons, David's young infant, the boy Elijah brought back to life, etc.
Either way a 'fine' is imposed. But if the woman dies from the blow then it is life for life. That is how it was interpreted long ago, before abortion became a hot button topic. That's what I learned when studying it in 1972 anyway.The verb yatsa is to go out or come forth, such as water coming forth from the rock. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3318.htm
Note that nothing in the Hebrew requires that the child is coming out dead (miscarriage.) Nothing in it requires that the child definitely come out alive. The woman's child coming forth as induced by the blow she received could potentially result in the child dying OR the child living.
I do see how you get that interpretation, but I also see how the RSV got miscarriage which doesn't mean 'born early' as NIV says. And that changes 'our' assumptions about how we "rightly divide" the rest of those two verses.The rest of the verse deals with those two potential outcomes. If 'ason' happens (harm, mischief) because of this then the man must pay in equal measure. Hence, if the child dies, the man dies. If the mother dies, the man dies. If the child lives but with a foot maimed, the man has his foot maimed. If the mother loses an eye, he loses an eye. Etc.
But if no harm comes to the mother or her delivered child, then the man pays a fine as determined by the husband.
I don't see what that has to do with ethics. Lots of things are potentially seen as holy but our ethics aren't driven by moral purity.
And what does the Hebrew say in Jeremiah 8:8?
I have no problem with any of this. Nor do I have a problem with a 'still born' child being dead in a miscarriage. I think that fits the Hebrew and the RSV.
Either way a 'fine' is imposed. But if the woman dies from the blow then it is life for life. That is how it was interpreted long ago, before abortion became a hot button topic. That's what I learned when studying it in 1972 anyway.
I do see how you get that interpretation, but I also see how the RSV got miscarriage which doesn't mean 'born early' as NIV says. And that changes 'our' assumptions about how we "rightly divide" the rest of those two verses.
Miscarriage or still born is shakol. Which does not appear in the passage:And what does the Hebrew say in Jeremiah 8:8?
I have no problem with any of this. Nor do I have a problem with a 'still born' child being dead in a miscarriage. I think that fits the Hebrew and the RSV.
Either way a 'fine' is imposed. But if the woman dies from the blow then it is life for life. That is how it was interpreted long ago, before abortion became a hot button topic. That's what I learned when studying it in 1972 anyway.
I do see how you get that interpretation, but I also see how the RSV got miscarriage which doesn't mean 'born early' as NIV says. And that changes 'our' assumptions about how we "rightly divide" the rest of those two verses.
Then modern science caught up with the Puritans.Abortion was widely illegal in the past in many states in the US not so much because the Protestant majority took principled religious or moral stands but because many other things we consider perfectly innocent today, such as birth control or sex education, were also illegal. Society was much more patriarchal and considered women better pregnant and in the kitchen, and talking about the human body was considered obscene.
The Puritans in New England actually permitted abortion until the time of quickening, or when the fetus moved, and this was actually common in many Protestant countries in Europe, such as in England.
Judaism has no absolute ban on abortion in all cases in its tradition, in fact in conservative Judaism it is widely recognized that it may be considered an option for instance in severe genetic conditions such as Taye-Sachs, a horrible fatal genetic disease that occurs mostly among Ashkenazic Jews.
Then modern science caught up with the Puritans..
Since I believe thst Jesus is God Incarnate and was formed in the womb, all stages of development of the body in the womb from conception to birth are sanctified human life. Since God was once a one celled zygote I don't understand how a Christian wouldn't recognize the sanctity of any human in the same stages of growth. Abortion is anti Incarnation of God.
Modern science has no say on if or when a human being has a soul or what the moral worth of a human life is. That is a philosophical or ethical question . Stop pretending to have some kind of scientific high ground here.
Here we go, categorizing God out of Science, as though He did not create everything we call Science. And it seems a common trait in man is the tendency towards in the words of the serpent "you shall become like gods knowing good and evil". So man is ever ashamed of God and ever seeking to stand in His sovereign stead.
Can't do it, just like you can't show me 'born prematurely' in the Hebrew. That's why I don't rest on this one verse either.Show me the Hebrew word miscarriage is in that passage. It’s not. Has nothing to do with politics. Has to do with the RSV not being accurate in that verse.
What you are talking about is religion masquerading as science, a kind of pseudoscience. Modern science is naturalistic and does not answer questions that are philosophical or religious in nature.
The burden of proof is in your side of the court. You have to establish why a fetus is not a human being and why it does not have a soul.Modern science has no say on if or when a human being has a soul or what the moral worth of a human life is. That is a philosophical or ethical question . Stop pretending to have some kind of scientific high ground here.
Interesting points I've never heard of before also. But I suppose none of this really is a 'lock down' as to what we're all discussing tonight either IMO. What did the Puritans and Judists base their 'actions' upon I wonder?Abortion was widely illegal in the past in many states in the US not so much because the Protestant majority took principled religious or moral stands but because many other things we consider perfectly innocent today, such as birth control or sex education, were also illegal. Society was much more patriarchal and considered women better pregnant and in the kitchen, and talking about the human body was considered obscene.
The Puritans in New England actually permitted abortion until the time of quickening, or when the fetus moved, and this was actually common in many Protestant countries in Europe, such as in England.
Judaism has no absolute ban on abortion in all cases in its tradition, in fact in conservative Judaism it is widely recognized that it may be considered an option for instance in severe genetic conditions such as Taye-Sachs, a horrible fatal genetic disease that occurs mostly among Ashkenazic Jews.
Show me miscarriage in the Hebrew text."If any mischief follow" is not refering to fetal homicide but to the death or injury of the adult people in the altercation.
"If her fruit depart from her" could easily be understood as refering to miscarriage, and is the obvious sense since a blow to the abdomen of a pregnant woman could well cause a miscarriage (a common, but dangerous way that illegal abortions were done on the cheap pre Roe, and even increasingly today among desperate people living in certain areas). Satisfaction is made in money, not in blood, in this case.
The burden of proof is in your side of the court. You have to establish why a fetus is not a human being and why it does not have a soul.
Then when you come to terms with your view ask the question....Was Jesus of Nazareth as much a human being as we are at conception? If not there are a few historical heresies we could discuss.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?