The definition of sin

[2PhiloVoid]

Obviously it does not use those terms. But it nevertheless describes exactly that. Look for yourself at the bottom half of Numbers 5. Start at verse 11.

I don't know what source on hermeneutics you're using, but being that I'm already familiar with Numbers chapter 5, and after having looked at it yet again, I don't see anywhere where it even hints at any kind of "abortion." How are you arriving at this interpretation? I want you to cite your sources; I don't just want to take your word for it.

NV, sometimes your "instant" conclusions just really astound me, particularly when you seem to artificially insist that such and such a verse, or such and such a passage, must 'mean' this or that. Egads, NV! Where are you getting this stuff? I'm thinking that your earlier experiences with fundamentalism must have really done a number on you. Maybe help yourself out here; go read some good books on hermeneutics and exegesis.

I'm not disallowing qualifications to statements. It's just that this one conversation I'm having with someone else is so unclear that I'm forced to separate the thesis from the justification so I can tell what she is even trying to say.

That's fine.

Ok, thanks for the answer, but you have now killed Christianity. If God decides the rules, and if Jesus is God, and if Jesus absolutely did not want to be crucified, then Jesus/God could have, should have, and would have actualized the "benefits" of the crucifixion without going through with the crucifixion. So his crucifixion - the crux of your religion - is totally pointless.

This response of your's, like many that you put forth, doesn't make a lick of sense. In fact, all I see here in your evaluation is a Non Sequitur, what with all your insistence about what "could'a, should'a, would'a" been.

What's up with all of that? It almost seems to me like you're wanting to take Christianity down....no matter what.

Knowledge and ability... AKA power... AKA might.

Non-sequitur, because in God's case, His might is integrated and qualified by other, additional factors, such as Holiness, Wisdom, Omni-presence, etc., etc., etc. All the additional things that we humans only wish we had ...

2PV, every time we do this it's the same result. How many times do I have to mop the floor with you before you realize that I'm winning because I'm defending the correct position?

Oh, yeah. You're just mopping the Christian ooze off of the floor big time with me ... ...slosh! slosh! slosh!

 

[Oncedeceived]

At this point, I strongly doubt that any direct answers are coming.

You won't even answer my posts, like I said, respond to the long post. I took the time to try to communicate my view and you completely ignore it.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I don't know what source on hermeneutics you're using, but being that I'm already familiar with Numbers chapter 5, and after having looked at it yet again, I don't see anywhere where it even hints at any kind of "abortion." How are you arriving at this interpretation? I want you to cite your sources; I don't just want to take your word for it.

The NIV is quite explicit on it. Please tell me whether you disavow the NIV or not, and if you do, then please tell me which other translations you also disavow. For now, here are the key bits from the NIV:

"[The priest] shall make the woman [who is accused of adultery] drink the bitter water that brings a curse..."

That's the magical part of it. It's a magic potion. Unless, of course, there are "muggle" drinks that bring curses of which I'm somehow unaware.

"If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children."

An artificially induced miscarriage is an abortion, isn't it?

NV, sometimes your "instant" conclusions just really astound me, particularly when you seem to artificially insist that such and such a verse, or such and such a passage, must 'mean' this or that. Egads, NV! Where are you getting this stuff? I'm thinking that your earlier experiences with fundamentalism must have really done a number on you. Maybe help yourself out here; go read some good books on hermeneutics and exegesis.

I'm not sure how it is that you missed it. What version were you reading? Others are less clear.

That's fine.

This response of your's, like many that you put forth, doesn't make a lick of sense. In fact, all I see here in your evaluation is a Non Sequitur, what with all your insistence about what "could'a, should'a, would'a" been.

There's no non sequitur. If you don't want to do something, and you don't have to do it, then it's pointless to do it. Pretty much anything we do is either for pleasure or for productivity. Either a want-to or a have-to. If there's some other reason for doing something, do let me know.

Of course, in classic 2PV style, you'll insist that there is some third option, that I've made some false dichotomy here. Sometimes I wonder how you even use a computer. I mean, you do have to turn it on... from the off state... do you ever stand there arguing with the button, insisting that it reveals the third option? On and off can't be all there is, can it?

What's up with all of that? It almost seems to me like you're wanting to take Christianity down....no matter what.

Well, for one thing, I think it's obvious that the Catholic Church should be forcibly dissolved as a criminal organization. But the other branches of Christianity should be allowed to exist, as long as they actually start paying taxes. Of course I'd personally love to see Christianity whither and die, as it is an evil institution in my opinion, but it would be tyrannical to shut it down without a good legal reason.

Non-sequitur, because in God's case, His might is integrated and qualified by other, additional factors, such as Holiness, Wisdom, Omni-presence, etc., etc., etc. All the additional things that we humans only wish we had ...

So my response to what you said was a non sequitur because of new notions you've introduced here that I hadn't yet seen?

Anyway, I think we both know you failed to adequately define what holy means. Omni-presence *is* might. Wisdom... now maybe that could be a legitimate factor that would mean he knows what is best, or that he is right.

Oh, yeah. You're just mopping the Christian ooze off of the floor big time with me ... ...slosh! slosh! slosh!

Yup.

 

[food4thought]

Yes, because to do so might jeopardize all of space, time, and the universe. For that reason, altering any historical event for any reason, or even travelling back in time, would be wrong.

But I assume that you mean this to be a hypothetical in which we can muck around recklessly in the past without damaging the universe. But even then, I would be causing everyone who is alive today to have probably never been born, and instead to be replaced with a totally different population of people. And I can't know what the consequences of that would be. I can't know that polio would be cured, for example.

So perhaps what you really meant was to ask if I would kill the baby Hitler as a denizen of the nineteenth century who somehow had certain knowledge of the future. The problem here is that your peer, Oncedeceived, denied this as a possibility outright. So maybe take it up with her, and then get back to me.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think you see perfectly well the implications of my question, and choose not to address it because you do not like the implications and how it undermines your whole argument against God in this matter. The idea of the question was to indicate that the people of the late 19th century would think the death of baby Adolf or Joseph as a terrible tragedy, not knowing what the child would eventually become. God knew exactly what David's child would become, and chose to let him die as an infant. We cannot say with any certainty that God causing the child to die as an infant was morally wrong. Think about it, the thing David did was common knowledge in the kingdom, and the child would have grown up knowing that he was born from adultery and murder... who knows what that would have done to his psyche in that culture?


Furthermore, we have limited knowledge of what David's child suffered while dying; and besides that your claim that the child was tortured is inconsistent with the accepted definition of torture:

Torture: "the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure" (Merriam-Webster)

There is no reason from the Biblical text to think that God inflicted "intense pain" upon the child, and anyways what the child experienced was not to punish or coerce the child. And no, God did not get sadistic pleasure out of it, for that would be inconsistent with the nature of God as revealed in Scripture.

In the end, you have no sure basis to claim God was morally wrong in causing the child to die, and also your claim of God torturing the child is shown to be absolute rubbish.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I think you see perfectly well the implications of my question, and choose not to address it because you do not like the implications and how it undermines your whole argument against God in this matter. The idea of the question was to indicate that the people of the late 19th century would think the death of baby Adolf or Joseph as a terrible tragedy, not knowing what the child would eventually become. God knew exactly what David's child would become, and chose to let him die as an infant. We cannot say with any certainty that God causing the child to die as an infant was morally wrong. Think about it, the thing David did was common knowledge in the kingdom, and the child would have grown up knowing that he was born from adultery and murder... who knows what that would have done to his psyche in that culture?

The very existence of Hitler undermines your argument. It shows that God does not regularly kill infants to save mass amounts of people. In fact I see no evidence that he has ever done that. If you want to propose that he does it, then it's obviously an irregular practice at best and you can't extrapolate from something unpredictable and irregular. So basically, you pulled this out of thin air.

Also, it's quite clear that God killed the infant to punish David, not as a preemptive judgement on the infant.

Furthermore, we have limited knowledge of what David's child suffered while dying; and besides that your claim that the child was tortured is inconsistent with the accepted definition of torture:

Torture: "the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure" (Merriam-Webster)

What are you saying... that torture must include burning, crushing, or wounding in order to be torture?

There is no reason from the Biblical text to think that God inflicted "intense pain" upon the child, and anyways what the child experienced was not to punish or coerce the child. And no, God did not get sadistic pleasure out of it, for that would be inconsistent with the nature of God as revealed in Scripture.

Torture is not just about pain. Causing one to suffer without nerve pain is still torture. Whether God found pleasure in it or not doesn't change the fact that it was torture.

It was torture because it was one being deliberately causing prolonged suffering in another being. That's torture.

In the end, you have no sure basis to claim God was morally wrong in causing the child to die, and also your claim of God torturing the child is shown to be absolute rubbish.

Christianity: here, it's not common sense that torturing and killing infants is wrong. Join today, give us your money and you'll be paid back when you're dead!

 

[food4thought]

The very existence of Hitler undermines your argument. It shows that God does not regularly kill infants to save mass amounts of people. In fact I see no evidence that he has ever done that. If you want to propose that he does it, then it's obviously an irregular practice at best and you can't extrapolate from something unpredictable and irregular. So basically, you pulled this out of thin air.



Also, it's quite clear that God killed the infant to punish David, not as a preemptive judgement on the infant.



What are you saying... that torture must include burning, crushing, or wounding in order to be torture?



Torture is not just about pain. Causing one to suffer without nerve pain is still torture. Whether God found pleasure in it or not doesn't change the fact that it was torture.

It was torture because it was one being deliberately causing prolonged suffering in another being. That's torture.



Christianity: here, it's not common sense that torturing and killing infants is wrong. Join today, give us your money and you'll be paid back when you're dead!

I see that you spent all of several minutes considering what I said before twisting what I said to fit your desire to mock and ridicule my faith. I made it painfully clear that we have no knowledge as to what the child might have become, so we cannot impugn God with wrongdoing for causing the child to die. The fact that it was a punishment for David's sin does nothing to change the fact that we, having incomplete knowledge, do not know for certain that it was morally wrong for God to end the child's life. I am not justifying human action, but Divine action. Humans will always be imperfect in our knowledge and motives. God does not suffer from these limitations, so He can rightly do things that we can't. Your obtuseness on this point is frustrating.

This is how I consider this event:

I. Based upon the testimony of the whole of Scripture, God is good.
II. God chose to cause the child to die.
Therefore I believe that God had good moral reason to end the child's life.

Obviously, you would not agree with I, even if you were to grant me II as a hypothetical. When I run across something in Scripture I do not understand, I lean on what I do understand in order to interpret that Scripture, or at the very least to simply trust God that He knows what He is doing. This is also how the writer of Hebrews rightly assessed the situation:

And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
(Hebrews 11:6 NASB)

You, denying His very existence, have no desire to please God, and have no faith that He is good. Your presuppositions color your interpretation of those events just as mine do, so we end up with wildly differing results.

Again, what the Scripture tells us about the child's experience gives us no reason to believe that what he did experience was torture by the accepted definition of the word because we have no reason to believe he experienced intense pain or even mental anguish. He simply got sick and died. Your assertion that it was torture is entirely based upon your mental construct of what happened, not on what happened according to the text, and certainly not based upon all that could be known of what actually happened (which neither of us knows).

I stand by what I said.

 

[Oncedeceived]

A point to the discussion of why the baby died. It was not a punishment for David. God forgave David, the baby died for several reasons:
1. David's actions concerning Bathsheba and her husband were widely known and know of course to be sinful. If it were without consequence then God would be shown to be ok with sin, which He is not and could not allow it to seem like that or others would think sin would have no consequence.
2. David was important to the future of God's plans. He also had spent his entire life pleasing God. So while His actions were free will, there needed to be extreme consequences to David for this act. So not punishment but consequences of sinful free will actions rather than punishment for the act.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The NIV is quite explicit on it. Please tell me whether you disavow the NIV or not, and if you do, then please tell me which other translations you also disavow. For now, here are the key bits from the NIV:

"[The priest] shall make the woman [who is accused of adultery] drink the bitter water that brings a curse..."

That's the magical part of it. It's a magic potion. Unless, of course, there are "muggle" drinks that bring curses of which I'm somehow unaware.

"If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children."

An artificially induced miscarriage is an abortion, isn't it?

In the words of that famous artificial poet, C-3PO, "Oh my! How dreadful!" [In which case, I am referring to your wanton use of the NIV, not to the sad topic to which you've taken us.]

I'm not sure how it is that you missed it. What version were you reading? Others are less clear.

Yes, I missed it, and for good reason; I was using other translations. You might say that the NKJV and the NASB are quite a bit "less clear" on this verse from Numbers which you've attempted to quote (without exactly citing it, I noticed: Numbers 5:27). Of course, I guess when one deals with a 'dynamic equivalent' (i.e. the NIV) rather than a fuller translation, some expressions become more possible, or at least sound more plausible, in a matter of speaking. But who wants to mess with all of that study of dead ancient languages and various competing commentaries on foreign mumbo-jumbo so as to make sure of the translation... ? Would you?

There's no non sequitur. If you don't want to do something, and you don't have to do it, then it's pointless to do it. Pretty much anything we do is either for pleasure or for productivity. Either a want-to or a have-to. If there's some other reason for doing something, do let me know.

Of course, in classic 2PV style, you'll insist that there is some third option, that I've made some false dichotomy here. Sometimes I wonder how you even use a computer. I mean, you do have to turn it on... from the off state... do you ever stand there arguing with the button, insisting that it reveals the third option? On and off can't be all there is, can it?

Why, yes I do argue with the on button! How did you know?

Well, for one thing, I think it's obvious that the Catholic Church should be forcibly dissolved as a criminal organization. But the other branches of Christianity should be allowed to exist, as long as they actually start paying taxes. Of course I'd personally love to see Christianity whither and die, as it is an evil institution in my opinion, but it would be tyrannical to shut it down without a good legal reason.

Well, at least you're upfront about it.

So my response to what you said was a non sequitur because of new notions you've introduced here that I hadn't yet seen?

...I think these have been brought up in the past, so they're nothing new for you as far as I can tell. So, again; it's a non-sequitur.

Anyway, I think we both know you failed to adequately define what holy means. Omni-presence *is* might. Wisdom... now maybe that could be a legitimate factor that would mean he knows what is best, or that he is right.

Omni-presence is a form of 'might'? No, I don't think so. I think there is a difference in the plenary nature of Omni-presence and the nature of an Omni-potence that has to act (or think) in order to bring about possibilities that have not yet come about in our world. In the former case, the state has already obtained and there is no exertion required--God is already there, there, there, and there, and as I understand it, has been so for quite some time; however, in the later case, the fruits of God's labor depend on His decision as to if and when something is to come about, and He has to 'make it' happen to manifest, such as in the case of a Virgin Birth.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I see that you spent all of several minutes considering what I said before twisting what I said to fit your desire to mock and ridicule my faith. I made it painfully clear that we have no knowledge as to what the child might have become, so we cannot impugn God with wrongdoing for causing the child to die. The fact that it was a punishment for David's sin does nothing to change the fact that we, having incomplete knowledge, do not know for certain that it was morally wrong for God to end the child's life. I am not justifying human action, but Divine action. Humans will always be imperfect in our knowledge and motives. God does not suffer from these limitations, so He can rightly do things that we can't. Your obtuseness on this point is frustrating.

So you whine about how I didn't spend enough time pondering your point of view, and then you completely ignore my response.

This is how I consider this event:

I. Based upon the testimony of the whole of Scripture, God is good.
II. God chose to cause the child to die.
Therefore I believe that God had good moral reason to end the child's life.

Obviously, you would not agree with I, even if you were to grant me II as a hypothetical. When I run across something in Scripture I do not understand, I lean on what I do understand in order to interpret that Scripture, or at the very least to simply trust God that He knows what He is doing.

So let's assume that David's infant son = Hitler, based on no evidence whatsoever. Then let's assume that God killed David's son because, remember, he's a li'l Hitler. Then let's completely ignore the atheist when he asks why God didn't also kill Hitler. Check, check, and check.

This is also how the writer of Hebrews rightly assessed the situation:

And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
(Hebrews 11:6 NASB)

You, denying His very existence, have no desire to please God, and have no faith that He is good. Your presuppositions color your interpretation of those events just as mine do, so we end up with wildly differing results.

Again, what the Scripture tells us about the child's experience gives us no reason to believe that what he did experience was torture by the accepted definition of the word because we have no reason to believe he experienced intense pain or even mental anguish. He simply got sick and died. Your assertion that it was torture is entirely based upon your mental construct of what happened, not on what happened according to the text, and certainly not based upon all that could be known of what actually happened (which neither of us knows).

I stand by what I said.

Well, the next time a checkout clerk asks me if I want to round up my bill to donate to the children's hospital, I'll remind them how absurd that question is since sick and dying children obviously do not suffer.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

In the words of that famous artificial poet, C-3PO, "Oh my! How dreadful!" [In which case, I am referring to your wanton use of the NIV, not to the sad topic to which you've taken us.]

Yes, I missed it, and for good reason; I was using other translations. You might say that the NKJV and the NASB are quite a bit "less clear" on this verse from Numbers which you've attempted to quote (without exactly citing it, I noticed: Numbers 5:27). Of course, I guess when one deals with a 'dynamic equivalent' (i.e. the NIV) rather than a fuller translation, some expressions become more possible, or at least sound more plausible, in a matter of speaking. But who wants to mess with all of that study of dead ancient languages and various competing commentaries on foreign mumbo-jumbo so as to make sure of the translation... ? Would you?

Why, yes I do argue with the on button! How did you know?

Well, at least you're upfront about it.

...I think these have been brought up in the past, so they're nothing new for you as far as I can tell. So, again; it's a non-sequitur.

Omni-presence is a form of 'might'? No, I don't think so. I think there is a difference in the plenary nature of Omni-presence and the nature of an Omni-potence that has to act (or think) in order to bring about possibilities that have not yet come about in our world. In the former case, the state has already obtained and there is no exertion required--God is already there, there, there, and there, and as I understand it, has been so for quite some time; however, in the later case, the fruits of God's labor depend on His decision as to if and when something is to come about, and He has to 'make it' happen to manifest, such as in the case of a Virgin Birth.

So you disavow the NIV. Good to know. Why didn't you tell me what Numbers 5 really says? Are your tapdancing shoes still being refitted?

 

[food4thought]

So you whine about how I didn't spend enough time pondering your point of view, and then you completely ignore my response.

Pot, meet kettle.

So let's assume that David's infant son = Hitler, based on no evidence whatsoever. Then let's assume that God killed David's son because, remember, he's a li'l Hitler. Then let's completely ignore the atheist when he asks why God didn't also kill Hitler. Check, check, and check.

That's because I don't know why God did not prevent Hitler from growing up (even though I have some ideas that cannot be substantiated). I assumed you would understand from the rest of my post, but you really didn't bother to engage the substance of what I said.

Well, the next time a checkout clerk asks me if I want to round up my bill to donate to the children's hospital, I'll remind them how absurd that question is since sick and dying children obviously do not suffer.

For all we know the child sank into a coma and experienced nothing. Again, you have a mental construct of what happened to the child that is not stated in the text, and what the child actually experienced is something neither of us knows.

This is obviously going nowhere. I hope you find what you are looking for...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So you disavow the NIV. Good to know. Why didn't you tell me what Numbers 5 really says? Are your tapdancing shoes still being refitted?

Oh, I don't 'disavow' the NIV, I just don't prefer it for academic reasons. I have an NIV, but I hardly reference it these days. I tend to read the NKJV for personal study, and if I want something more robust, I'll read my NASB Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible. Anyway, as for Numbers 5:27, here's what is in the print for the latter two versions:

NKJV

27 When he has made her drink the water, then it shall be, if she has defiled herself and behaved unfaithfully toward her husband, that the water that brings a curse will enter her and become bitter, and her belly will swell, her thigh will rot, and the woman will become a curse among her people.

NASB

27 When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will waste away [fall], and the woman will become a curse among her people.

Note on the NIV ...... and one thing I find interesting is that in my NIV Thompson Chain Reference, the text in Numbers 5:27 reads more like the NKJV, but with a supercript reference to a note at the bottom of the page which states that it could be read as 'miscarry.' But only at the bottom of the page. ...and actually, when I read the note at the bottom of the page, it states, "Or suffering; she will have barrenness and a miscarrying womb." So, it doesn't really sound like it has anything to do with abortion as we'd think of it, but rather with a fallen state of the woman's womb which sadly prevents her from fulfilling her Israelite duty to have children.
​

So, as you can see, it's an exegetical stretch to say that this verse definitely--and in no uncertain terms--infers "abortion," or that it somehow gives authorization to abortion in today's terms, especially if the reverse statement provided in verse 28 which follows refers merely to the ongoing ability to have children.

Thus, imputing the distinction made in verse 28 back into verse 27 would imply that for the womb to [fall] means "not being able to have children," or to become barren, rather than that the woman will suffer a miscarriage right then and there. From what I see, it definitely isn't clear that there is any direct reference to a necessary occurrence of miscarriage, although I can understand how it could be ... inferred ... somewhere ... in there ... if one is so inclined to ... keep ... stretching ... the Hebrew ... text ... beyond ... it's ... usual ... measure. Or if one just slaps open a current NIV and assumes that whatever is on the page in English MUST be what the original writer in the original language intended. (see this link for the Hebrew, interlinear version...)

Of course, since it isn't clear by any stretch of the imagination, and since people really do have imaginations by which they can read back today's more American type of social possibilities into the text rather than thinking about what ancient Israelites would have thought, one can find positions on both sides of Numbers 5:27 in various commentaries.

 

[Oncedeceived]

From what I see, it definitely isn't clear that there is any direct reference to an occurrence a miscarriage, although I can understand how it could be ... inferred ... somewhere ... in there ... if one is so inclined to ... keep ... stretching ... the Hebrew ... text ... beyond ... it's ... usual ... measure. Or if one just slaps open a current NIV and assumes that whatever is on the page in English MUST be what the original writer in the original language intended. (see this link for the Hebrew, interlinear version...)

Of course, since it isn't clear by any stretch of the imagination, and since people really do have imaginations by which they can read back today's more American type of social possibilities into the text rather than thinking about what ancient Israelites would have thought, one can find positions on both sides of Numbers 5:27 in various commentaries.

Or find any ol' atheist website citing all those nasty pesky problems with the Bible and use them as the resource for one's opinion?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Or find any ol' atheist website citing all those nasty pesky problems with the Bible and use them as the resource for one's opinion?

...you probably hit the nail on the head, but I think I'll wait to see if NV affirms this implication...or not.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Oh, I don't 'disavow' the NIV, I just don't prefer it for academic reasons.

OK, you don't prefer it but you don't disavow it, and it's clearly talking about a magical abortion brought on by a magical potion. QED.

I have an NIV, but I hardly reference it these days. I tend to read the NKJV for personal study, and if I want something more robust, I'll read my NASB Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible. Anyway, as for Numbers 5:27, here's what is in the print for the latter two versions:

NKJV

27 When he has made her drink the water, then it shall be, if she has defiled herself and behaved unfaithfully toward her husband, that the water that brings a curse will enter her and become bitter, and her belly will swell, her thigh will rot, and the woman will become a curse among her people.

NASB

27 When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will waste away [fall], and the woman will become a curse among her people.

Note on the NIV ...... and one thing I find interesting is that in my NIV Thompson Chain Reference, the text in Numbers 5:27 reads more like the NKJV, but with a supercript reference to a note at the bottom of the page which states that it could be read as 'miscarry.' But only at the bottom of the page. ...and actually, when I read the note at the bottom of the page, it states, "Or suffering; she will have barrenness and a miscarrying womb." So, it doesn't really sound like it has anything to do with abortion as we'd think of it, but rather with a fallen state of the woman's womb which sadly prevents her from fulfilling her Israelite duty to have children.​

​

The Bible uses funny words for body parts, sometimes. Consider Isaiah 7:20 in two different translations.

KJV:

In the same day the Lord will shave with a hired razor,
With those from beyond the River, with the king of Assyria,
The head and the hair of the legs,
And will also remove the beard.

NIV:

In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the Euphrates River—the king of Assyria—to shave your head and private parts, and to cut off your beard also.

This passage is saying that King Ahaz will be humiliated, as if his head, beard, and pubes were shaved off. It's not talking about shaving his legs. Similarly, when Numbers 5 is talking about an unfaithful woman who will be forced to become barren, and her "thigh" will rot, it's referring to her womb. If it's literally her thigh rotting, there will still be guys willing to look past whatever black, rotted mess is in her thigh in order to fornicate with her. And then, what, she goes through with this again and her other thigh rots? What happens after that? She can fornicate as often as she wants because she has no third thigh that can be rotted?


The reality is that there's no mistaking what it is saying. Her "thigh will rot" = she "will become barren" because she is unfaithful and they don't want little bastards running around.

So, again, we have a procedure for a magical abortion in the Bible.

By the way, keeping in mind that the Bible often uses feet, thigh, or leg in place of "private parts," we can re-examine one of my favorite passages, Exodus 4:25. God is approaching Moses to kill him, so, logically, Moses' wife grabs a crude knife and performs an emergency circumcision on her two boys. Then she puts the foreskin on Moses' "feet." This passage will make more sense if we consider that "feet" is perhaps "penis." Well, OK, there's no way this passage can ever make sense, really, but if she has to put her sons' foreskin on some specific part of her husband's body in order to appease the homicidal spirit of God, I think most people's first guess would be that she would put the devil umbrellas on his penis.

So, as you can see, it's an exegetical stretch to say that this verse definitely--and in no uncertain terms--infers "abortion," or that it somehow gives authorization to abortion in today's terms, especially if the reverse statement provided in verse 28 which follows refers merely to the ongoing ability to have children.

The purpose of the ritual is for when a man suspects one of his wives of unfaithfulness. Without evidence, or even a reason, he can force her to go through with this. If she was indeed unfaithful, then she will magically become barren. Now, yes, you're right in that this does not automatically entail an abortion because she might not be pregnant, no matter how unfaithful she might have been. But if she is pregnant, and if she was unfaithful, then the magical potion will induce a magical abortion without consent. That much is quite clear - barrenness and a miscarrying womb.

So the Bible is simultaneously anti-life and anti-choice. Right? Or do you want to try these on?

Thus, imputing the distinction made in verse 28 back into verse 27 would imply that for the womb to [fall] means "not being able to have children," or to become barren, rather than that the woman will suffer a miscarriage right then and there.

But what if she's pregnant, bro?

From what I see, it definitely isn't clear that there is any direct reference to a necessary occurrence of miscarriage, although I can understand how it could be ... inferred ... somewhere ... in there ... if one is so inclined to ... keep ... stretching ... the Hebrew ... text ... beyond ... it's ... usual ... measure. Or if one just slaps open a current NIV and assumes that whatever is on the page in English MUST be what the original writer in the original language intended. (see this link for the Hebrew, interlinear version...)

When I used the term "magical abortion" I didn't mean that a woman is magically impregnated and then the baby is aborted. I'm just saying that IF she is pregnant and IF she was unfaithful THEN her baby will be magically aborted.

Of course, since it isn't clear by any stretch of the imagination,

You wish. No really, you wish it isn't clear. Because there is no other possible conclusion you can *conceive* of (see what I did there?), so the best possible scenario for you is that we simply cannot make sense of it. Nice try.

and since people really do have imaginations by which they can read back today's more American type of social possibilities into the text rather than thinking about what ancient Israelites would have thought, one can find positions on both sides of Numbers 5:27 in various commentaries.

Or find any ol' atheist website citing all those nasty pesky problems with the Bible and use them as the resource for one's opinion?

...you probably hit the nail on the head, but I think I'll wait to see if NV affirms this implication...or not.

LOL, yes, just like how all the atheists complain that Christians go to gotquestions.org instead of dealing with the issue head-on... oh wait, that's right, I've never in my life seen an atheist complaining about a Christian going to a Christian answer site. Meanwhile, it's the go-to response for Christians who have no answer of their own.

"Hmm, this atheist is obliterating me... I have no legitimate response available... I'll just complain that they're stealing material from other atheists, despite having no evidence or even a plausible source to cite, and I'll leave it at that! Maybe any Christian reading this will think I've won... because... erm... I assumed that the atheist did his research and it's obviously well known that research is invalid! That's it! A point in a debate is only valid if the person presenting it is the one who originally came up with it! Gosh, I'm so clever!"

 

[2PhiloVoid]

OK, you don't prefer it but you don't disavow it, and it's clearly talking about a magical abortion brought on by a magical potion. QED.

​

The Bible uses funny words for body parts, sometimes. Consider Isaiah 7:20 in two different translations.

KJV:

In the same day the Lord will shave with a hired razor,
With those from beyond the River, with the king of Assyria,
The head and the hair of the legs,
And will also remove the beard.

NIV:

In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the Euphrates River—the king of Assyria—to shave your head and private parts, and to cut off your beard also.

This passage is saying that King Ahaz will be humiliated, as if his head, beard, and pubes were shaved off. It's not talking about shaving his legs. Similarly, when Numbers 5 is talking about an unfaithful woman who will be forced to become barren, and her "thigh" will rot, it's referring to her womb. If it's literally her thigh rotting, there will still be guys willing to look past whatever black, rotted mess is in her thigh in order to fornicate with her. And then, what, she goes through with this again and her other thigh rots? What happens after that? She can fornicate as often as she wants because she has no third thigh that can be rotted?


The reality is that there's no mistaking what it is saying. Her "thigh will rot" = she "will become barren" because she is unfaithful and they don't want little bastards running around.

So, again, we have a procedure for a magical abortion in the Bible.

By the way, keeping in mind that the Bible often uses feet, thigh, or leg in place of "private parts," we can re-examine one of my favorite passages, Exodus 4:25. God is approaching Moses to kill him, so, logically, Moses' wife grabs a crude knife and performs an emergency circumcision on her two boys. Then she puts the foreskin on Moses' "feet." This passage will make more sense if we consider that "feet" is perhaps "penis." Well, OK, there's no way this passage can ever make sense, really, but if she has to put her sons' foreskin on some specific part of her husband's body in order to appease the homicidal spirit of God, I think most people's first guess would be that she would put the devil umbrellas on his penis.





The purpose of the ritual is for when a man suspects one of his wives of unfaithfulness. Without evidence, or even a reason, he can force her to go through with this. If she was indeed unfaithful, then she will magically become barren. Now, yes, you're right in that this does not automatically entail an abortion because she might not be pregnant, no matter how unfaithful she might have been. But if she is pregnant, and if she was unfaithful, then the magical potion will induce a magical abortion without consent. That much is quite clear - barrenness and a miscarrying womb.

So the Bible is simultaneously anti-life and anti-choice. Right? Or do you want to try these on?

But what if she's pregnant, bro?



When I used the term "magical abortion" I didn't mean that a woman is magically impregnated and then the baby is aborted. I'm just saying that IF she is pregnant and IF she was unfaithful THEN her baby will be magically aborted.



You wish. No really, you wish it isn't clear. Because there is no other possible conclusion you can *conceive* of (see what I did there?), so the best possible scenario for you is that we simply cannot make sense of it. Nice try.

LOL, yes, just like how all the atheists complain that Christians go to gotquestions.org instead of dealing with the issue head-on... oh wait, that's right, I've never in my life seen an atheist complaining about a Christian going to a Christian answer site. Meanwhile, it's the go-to response for Christians who have no answer of their own.

"Hmm, this atheist is obliterating me... I have no legitimate response available... I'll just complain that they're stealing material from other atheists, despite having no evidence or even a plausible source to cite, and I'll leave it at that! Maybe any Christian reading this will think I've won... because... erm... I assumed that the atheist did his research and it's obviously well known that research is invalid! That's it! A point in a debate is only valid if the person presenting it is the one who originally came up with it! Gosh, I'm so clever!"

Ok. So, since you seem to go all literal...no, I take that back.....ultra-literal in your interpretation, do we want to say that the Bible is pro-abortion as long as the church leaders perform the abortion at the behest of a flustered husband? Just for the sake of argument, I could go along with that...because it would mean that in a New Testament society, practically no abortions are allowed (other than those needed to save a mother's life with a very difficult pregnancy).

Is this where you'd like to take this little (ugly) debate, NV? Because, that's where you seem to be taking it ... literally.

So, obviously, even if miscarriages are involved from ... time to time, (which is what I alluded to in the previous post, if you were paying attention), and God authorized it, then the whole set up in the Old Testament still has little to nothing to do with today's massive abortion problem(s); and there's almost nothing in the Bible to suggest that "hey, it's all ok ladies, since it's your body anyway" kind of abortions.

Do we want to instead say that God is sovereign over life, even that of a conceptus, fetus, infant, child, even up to an adult? Why, yes we do!! And that should be no surprise here. That would go along with everything else I've said.

You seem to be getting all out of sorts because I won't say that the Bible condones abortion, and by that I mean 'abortion' in the way that we think of it today.

So, if it's 'OK' for God to impose an adulterous test and 'cause' a miscarriage, then why are you whining about God taking the life of David's infant son? Do we want to say that God is Sovereign and you just don't like it?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Ok. So, since you seem to go all literal...no, I take that back.....ultra-literal in your interpretation, do we want to say that the Bible is pro-abortion as long as the church leaders performs the abortion at the behest of a flustered husband? Because, that's where you're taking it ... literally. So, obviously, even if miscarriages are involved from ... time to time, and God authorized it, then the whole set up in the Old Testament still has little to nothing to do with today's massive abortion problem(s); and there's almost nothing in the Bible to suggest that "hey, it's all ok, since it's your body" kind of abortions. Do we want to say that God is sovereign over life, even that of a conceptus, fetus, infant, child, even up to an adult. Why, yes we do!! And that should be no surprise.

You seem to be getting all out of sorts because I won't say that the Bible condones abortion, and by that I mean 'abortion' in the way that we think of it today.

I said that the Bible advocates magical abortions, so obviously it's not advocating what is done today. You can argue that it's not advocating teen pregnancy abortions, or "my body my choice" abortions, and you can say that this would have to be done only "as long as the church leaders performs the abortion at the behest of a flustered husband" and you'd be right. But it's still advocating the termination of a pregnancy, which *is* an abortion.

Being pro-abortion doesn't mean that you advocate the killing of every unborn child in the whole world. It obviously entails conditions. The Bible, clearly, is pro-abortion and anti-choice.

Have I worded this to your satisfaction? Can you finally concur?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I said that the Bible advocates magical abortions, so obviously it's not advocating what is done today. You can argue that it's not advocating teen pregnancy abortions, or "my body my choice" abortions, and you can say that this would have to be done only "as long as the church leaders performs the abortion at the behest of a flustered husband" and you'd be right. But it's still advocating the termination of a pregnancy, which *is* an abortion.

Being pro-abortion doesn't mean that you advocate the killing of every unborn child in the whole world. It obviously entails conditions. The Bible, clearly, is pro-abortion and anti-choice.

Have I worded this to your satisfaction? Can you finally concur?

That sounds find to me. So, if it's ok in one instance, or you ready to let it be OK for God to take life in another instance?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That sounds find to me.

*Wipes a hard day's worth of sweat off brow* Thank you, we can move on now...

So, if it's ok in one instance, or you ready to let it be OK for God to take life in another instance?

I don't understand this question. When is it OK to kill a living thing?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

*Wipes a hard day's worth of sweat off brow* Thank you, we can move on now...



I don't understand this question. When is it OK to kill a living thing?

When you're God, it's OK ... I thought we went over that already, what with there not being some extra-Platonic existence of morality apart from God Himself.