Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Show me where abortion is mentioned ?Of course it does. You can deny the translation if you like .. claim the translators got it wrong - in every English version of the Bible.
For now I will take their word over yours. Do you speak ancient Hebrew ? If not what is the point of giving you an ancient Hebrew Translation ?
These threads do sometimes bring out the ancient heresies.What on earth are you talking about ? Where do you get that Christianity is based on objective standards from.
Regardless - what does this have to do with whether or not the zygote is a living human ?
No .. the Divine Logos was never a zygote. The zygote created the Logos- in the same way every other human is created.
In fact the Logos did not become the Logos - until he was Baptized.
Actually she takes the bitter water to test if she is truthful. There is no mention of a pregnancy nor miscarriage in the literal rendering of the passage.God declares that the woman is to take some concoction which cases the woman to miscarry - otherwise known as chemical abortion.
There’s no colloquialism in the Hebrew.That the Hebrew text uses the colloquialisms of the day which meant shakol, rather than the word, shakol is nothing unusual.
What is silly is your claim that translators did not know what those colloquialisms meant and just made stuff up.
Actually both above is exactly what you have been supporting.I did not say the human zygote was not alive ? Why are you making up nonsense and attributing that nonsense to me ?
I did not say a human heart was a human zygote. Why are you making up nonsense and attributing that nonsense to me ?
Yes it does if you believe Jesus Christ is truly God and Truly human. One Person with two natures, a human and Divine. If not then in a Christian only area discussing non Christian doctrines such as Modalism and Oneness is forbidden by the site statement of purpose and statement of beliefs to be posting as a Christian.Incarnation has nothing to do my perspective on human life in the womb.
Nowhere in Mark’s Gospel is Modalism or Oneness supported.If you think the Gospel of Mark is "Heresy" you are welcome to your opinion.
I did not say they made it up. I pointed out the most literal translations don’t have miscarriage because the Hebrew word does not appear in the text. Versions like the NIV do use miscarriage but that is the translator adding what they think is happening. The NIV is not a literal word for word translation. It is a functional equivalent. When you have a passage where people (as you are) make a claim as you are making, we must go to the literal rendering of the passage to see if the claim is true. Shakol is not in the text but everywhere else God is speaking of a barren woman or one who suffers miscarriage, shakol is there.While I disagree with your claim that translators would just make stuff up in this case - there are other cases where translators deliberately mistranslated or omitted certain things. In these other cases the reason was to make the Bible better conform to the dogma of the day. There is no such rational in this case.
Regardless there are other places in the Bible where YHWH shows no regard for the unborn and has them slaughtered.
That is your interpretation of the text.Of course there was colloquialisms in Hebrew.. there are in every language.
What does the use of the term rot - in connection with womb or thigh denote ?
Obviously this means something other than a rotting thigh = a colloquialism.
If I take a heart cell from the mother and one from the father and compare both with the DNA of their child in the womb, at any stage the DNA will be different. The human being from conception in the woman is a distinct human being with their own DNA.Similar is not the same as. Both the zygote and a heart cell are single human cells. They both have the same DNA.
I said their distinct from parents DNA. This is not a falsehood but scientific fact.You claimed that the reason the zygote is a human was because it has human DNA. All I did was point that your claim is patently false as having human DNA does not - in of itself - make a single human cell into a human ... using a heart cell as an example.
Procreation is one. The fact a human zygote is an individual developing in the woman is proof enough it is not something else.You failed to give any significant difference between a zygote and other human cells that makes the zygote a human.
Actually embryology makes the point.Unbelievable that you would engage in a debate on whether or not a zygote is a human (one of the main debates in the Abortion debate) by standing on a soapbox twirling around saying nothing but "My claim is right My claim is a fact .. my claim is a fact".
Because a baby can’t nurse if it is aborted. All of the verses support the sanctity of life from the beginning of human development.Why do you post such nonsense ? What does "Can a mother forget the baby at her breast" have to do with abortion ?
Imago Dei.God created man in his own image .. OK .. thats nice .. what does that have to do with God caring about a zygote ?
You are putting YHWH on trial?YHWH made a rule saying children are not to be killed for the sins of their parents - he then turns around and orders the Israelites to kill children, babies - because of the sins of their parents and of course women - regardless of whether or not they were pregnant - were to be killed as well.
Are you ascribing to Marcionism with the above? That the Old Testament God was a tyrant or demiurge and not the God of the New Testament?Your claim that this xenophobic genocidal, flip flopping irrational God with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics and emotions had some concern for a zygote - simply does not pass the giggle test.
If it is not human then what is it.What kind of nonsense post is this ? You have not been able to come up with one valid reason why zygote should be classified as a human.
A zygote is human. Where did you get the idea that it was not ?
What kind of nonsense post is this ? You have not been able to come up with one valid reason why zygote should be classified as a human.
This post certainly does not advance your cause.
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?