Why do some Christians claim that the Bible is pro-life, when it is clearly not?

[Southernscotty]

Okay I read the above. I do have one question though. You say "However, nowhere in Scripture can we find where God killed “innocent” people."

What about all the unborn children and young children that were killed in the flood? What were their crimes? Ezekiel 18:20 tells us, “The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.”

No, I would never say that friend. It rains on the just and unjust alike. Sin will infiltrate people and many innocents can be casualties of that. Like school shootings for instance

 

[Brother Billy]

And I don't know of anyone that doesn't think a human fetus is a human being. The argument from pro-choice advocates is usually centered around a make believe definition of personhood and attempting to establish a difference between a human being and a human person.

But who says that a human fetus is not a human being? If it's not a human being what is it?

If God was really against abortion why would he give a husband the option to request a test that will abort his wife's baby if she is pregnant by another man, as per Numbers 5:11-29

 

[SPF]

If God was really against abortion why would he give a husband the option to request a test that will abort his wife's baby if she is pregnant by another man, as per Numbers 5:11-29

We already went over this, and I don’t expect you to understand it. Sin affects more than just the sinner. When I sin, it affects all those around me. Your question is tantamount to why does God allow children to starve in Africa, or why does God allow evil? Or why doesn’t God reveal Himself in a more clear way?

The answer is that this is how God, who is infinitely more knowledgeable than you has chosen to create the universe and operate in it. It may not seem fair to you, but that is understandable because you think God should operate around you, all atheists do.

In this specific passage, abortion and pregnancy are never mentioned. Also, in this passage the wife is swearing an oath before her husband, the priest, and to God Himself that she is innocent. Her sin affects more than just herself, it’s how it works. The “test” is HER testimony to God. She literally is saying may I be cursed if I’m lying. So the question you ought to be asking is why would a woman who might be pregnant and who believes in God do that?

Also, your response doesn’t seem to have anything to do with my quoted words.

 

[Brother Billy]

We already went over this, and I don’t expect you to understand it. Sin affects more than just the sinner. When I sin, it affects all those around me. Your question is tantamount to why does God allow children to starve in Africa, or why does God allow evil? Or why doesn’t God reveal Himself in a more clear way?

The answer is that this is how God, who is infinitely more knowledgeable than you has chosen to create the universe and operate in it. It may not seem fair to you, but that is understandable because you think God should operate around you, all atheists do.

In this specific passage, abortion and pregnancy are never mentioned. Also, in this passage the wife is swearing an oath before her husband, the priest, and to God Himself that she is innocent. Her sin affects more than just herself, it’s how it works. The “test” is HER testimony to God. She literally is saying may I be cursed if I’m lying. So the question you ought to be asking is why would a woman who might be pregnant and who believes in God do that?

Also, your response doesn’t seem to have anything to do with my quoted words.

This is not the same as asking why God allows evil or why he doesn't reveal himself. Also the fact that pregnancy or abortion isn't explicitly mentioned is irrelevant (btw the NIV mentions "miscarries" in verse 22 - I don't know how she can miscarry if she isn't pregnant). If we renamed abortion to "womb flushing" it doesn't change the fact that the procedure will kill the fetus.

Lets consider a simple scenario. Suppose a man suspected his pregnant wife of being unfaithful. If they hadn't had sex recently, her pregnancy may have lead her husband to think she had been unfaithful. What man wants to raise the child of another man? Could he use the "Ordeal of the bitter water" described in Numbers 5:11-29 as a legal means to abort the child if it was not his? To me, this is exactly what this passage is saying!

 

[redleghunter]

Note that Number 5:22 says "May this water that brings a curse enter your bo

Note miscarriage is not present in the Hebrew.

Hebrew Texts
Numbers 5:22 Hebrew Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)
וּ֠בָאוּ הַמַּ֨יִם הַמְאָרְרִ֤ים הָאֵ֙לֶּה֙ בְּֽמֵעַ֔יִךְ לַצְבֹּ֥ות בֶּ֖טֶן וְלַנְפִּ֣ל יָרֵ֑ךְ וְאָמְרָ֥ה הָאִשָּׁ֖ה אָמֵ֥ן אָמֵֽן׃
KJV with Strong's
And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels to make thy belly to swell and thy thigh to rot And the woman shall say Amenamen
במדבר 5:22 Hebrew OT: Westminster Leningrad Codex
וּ֠בָאוּ הַמַּ֨יִם הַמְאָרְרִ֤ים הָאֵ֙לֶּה֙ בְּֽמֵעַ֔יִךְ לַצְבֹּ֥ות בֶּ֖טֶן וְלַנְפִּ֣ל יָרֵ֑ךְ וְאָמְרָ֥ה הָאִשָּׁ֖ה אָמֵ֥ן ׀ אָמֵֽן׃
במדבר 5:22 Hebrew OT: WLC (Consonants Only)
ובאו המים המאררים האלה במעיך לצבות בטן ולנפל ירך ואמרה האשה אמן ׀ אמן׃

במדבר 5:22 Paleo-Hebrew OT: WLC (Font Required)
ובאו המים המאררים האלה במעיך לצבות בטן ולנפל ירך ואמרה האשה אמן ׀ אמן׃

במדבר 5:22 Hebrew Bible
ובאו המים המאררים האלה במעיך לצבות בטן ולנפל ירך ואמרה האשה אמן אמן׃

Additional Parallel Hebrew

 

[Brother Billy]

Note miscarriage is not present in the Hebrew.

Hebrew Texts
Numbers 5:22 Hebrew Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)
וּ֠בָאוּ הַמַּ֨יִם הַמְאָרְרִ֤ים הָאֵ֙לֶּה֙ בְּֽמֵעַ֔יִךְ לַצְבֹּ֥ות בֶּ֖טֶן וְלַנְפִּ֣ל יָרֵ֑ךְ וְאָמְרָ֥ה הָאִשָּׁ֖ה אָמֵ֥ן אָמֵֽן׃
KJV with Strong's
And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels to make thy belly to swell and thy thigh to rot And the woman shall say Amenamen
במדבר 5:22 Hebrew OT: Westminster Leningrad Codex
וּ֠בָאוּ הַמַּ֨יִם הַמְאָרְרִ֤ים הָאֵ֙לֶּה֙ בְּֽמֵעַ֔יִךְ לַצְבֹּ֥ות בֶּ֖טֶן וְלַנְפִּ֣ל יָרֵ֑ךְ וְאָמְרָ֥ה הָאִשָּׁ֖ה אָמֵ֥ן ׀ אָמֵֽן׃
במדבר 5:22 Hebrew OT: WLC (Consonants Only)
ובאו המים המאררים האלה במעיך לצבות בטן ולנפל ירך ואמרה האשה אמן ׀ אמן׃

במדבר 5:22 Paleo-Hebrew OT: WLC (Font Required)
ובאו המים המאררים האלה במעיך לצבות בטן ולנפל ירך ואמרה האשה אמן ׀ אמן׃

במדבר 5:22 Hebrew Bible
ובאו המים המאררים האלה במעיך לצבות בטן ולנפל ירך ואמרה האשה אמן אמן׃

Additional Parallel Hebrew

What does thigh rot mean? And what would be the consequences if she was pregnant (which is not an unrealistic assumption since the fact that she was pregnant may have sparked her husband's suspicions, especially if they had infrequent or no sex recently)?

 

[redleghunter]

What does thigh rot mean? And what would be the consequences if she was pregnant (which is not an unrealistic assumption since the fact that she was pregnant may have sparked her husband's suspicions, especially if they had infrequent or no sex recently)?

It would be speculation. For all we know the Hebrews copulated like bunny rabbits and had sex every night. I mean there was no HULU or Netflix back then. They tended their flocks, collected mannah in the morning and in some cases quail in the evenings with not much to do after this. Married couples probably spent a lot of time exploring one another.

There is not an example of this test actually happening in the OT. But once again the Hebrew is neither supporting abortion nor miscarriage.

 

[Brother Billy]

It would be speculation. For all we know the Hebrews copulated like bunny rabbits and had sex every night. I mean there was no HULU or Netflix back then. They tended their flocks, collected mannah in the morning and in some cases quail in the evenings with not much to do after this. Married couples probably spent a lot of time exploring one another.

What? You think its speculation that some couples had infrequent or no sex? hahaha!
Are you being serious?

There is not an example of this test actually happening in the OT. But once again the Hebrew is neither supporting abortion nor miscarriage.

Now you're using an argument from silence. The fact that something was never mentioned, doesn't mean it never happened. According to Mishnah, Sotah, 9:9 the practice was abolished some time during the first century CE under the leadership of Yohanan Ben Zakkai. Why would they abolish something if it was never used anyway?

Even if it was never used, this point is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The fact is that God designed the "Ordeal of Bitter water" for a specific purpose and he allowed the Hebrews to use it if they wanted to. Why would God do this if he was against abortion?

 

[SPF]

The fact is that God designed the "Ordeal of Bitter water" for a specific purpose and he allowed the Hebrews to use it if they wanted to. Why would God do this if he was against abortion?

Because God is giving the woman what she wants. sin affects more than just the sinner. The woman literally takes an oath and swears to her husband, to the priest, and to God Himself that she is innocent, and she asks God to curse her if she is lying. The question is not how can God do that, it should be how could a woman be willing to do such a thing.

But we already know the answer. We are by nature selfish, and our sin never affects just us.

Why do children have to suffer when their parents get divorced? Why do unborn children die when their mothers get cancer? Why do unborn children have to die when their mothers die in car accidents, or are murdered, or when their mothers have over 40,000,000 abortions for convenience reasons?

Sin never affects just the sinner.

 

[redleghunter]

Now you're using an argument from silence. The fact that something was never mentioned, doesn't mean it never happened.

Your OP is an argument from silence.

 

[redleghunter]

Because God is giving the woman what she wants. sin affects more than just the sinner. The woman literally takes an oath and swears to her husband, to the priest, and to God Himself that she is innocent, and she asks God to curse her if she is lying. The question is not how can God do that, it should be how could a woman be willing to do such a thing.

But we already know the answer. We are by nature selfish, and our sin never affects just us.

Why do children have to suffer when their parents get divorced? Why do unborn children die when their mothers get cancer? Why do unborn children have to die when their mothers die in car accidents, or are murdered, or when their mothers have over 40,000,000 abortions for convenience reasons?

Sin never affects just the sinner.

Yes this inquiry is less about abortion but more about why evil exists in the first place. I mentioned this in the slavery thread.

 

[SPF]

Yes this inquiry is less about abortion but more about why evil exists in the first place. I mentioned this in the slavery thread.

I believe all 3 of his points from the OP have been adequately addressed.

Hopefully everyone following understands a little more now why Christians are pro-life

 

[redleghunter]

Even if it was never used, this point is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The fact is that God designed the "Ordeal of Bitter water" for a specific purpose and he allowed the Hebrews to use it if they wanted to. Why would God do this if he was against abortion?

Taking another life was forbidden by Law.

Exodus 20:13

God never commanded the Israelites nor suggested that they had a right to end pregnancies. I am a few others pointed out the passages where God is the giver of life and intimately involved in our development from the beginning of our existence as we are made in His image and likeness—Imago Dei.

God also said lying was a transgression of the Law (Exodus 20:16).

I heard a lot over the past few weeks that if someone is innocent they have nothing to worry about with regards to an investigation. Same goes for the bitter water test.

 

[Brother Billy]

Because God is giving the woman what she wants. sin affects more than just the sinner. The woman literally takes an oath and swears to her husband, to the priest, and to God Himself that she is innocent, and she asks God to curse her if she is lying.

The question is not how can God do that, it should be how could a woman be willing to do such a thing.

But we already know the answer. We are by nature selfish, and our sin never affects just us.

Why do children have to suffer when their parents get divorced? Why do unborn children die when their mothers get cancer? Why do unborn children have to die when their mothers die in car accidents, or are murdered, or when their mothers have over 40,000,000 abortions for convenience reasons?

Sin never affects just the sinner.

You are focusing on details which are completely irrelevant to the discussion. What difference does it make whether her "thigh rots" because of a oath/curse or an abortifacient? The morals of the woman and her decision to be unfaithful or take the oath are not the subject of this discussion. And neither are the consequences that children in general have to bear because of the sins of their parents.

The only details that are relevant here is the objective of this trial and the consequences for the fetus if its mother had been unfaithful. Could a man who thought his wife was carrying another mans child use the "Ordeal of the bitter water" described in Numbers 5:11-29 as a legal means to abort the child if his suspicions proved true? Yes or no?

 

[SPF]

You are focusing on details which are completely irrelevant to the discussion. What difference does it make whether her "thigh rots" because of a oath/curse or an abortifacient? The morals of the woman and her decision to be unfaithful or take the oath are not the subject of this discussion. And neither are the consequences that children in general have to bear because of the sins of their parents.

The only details that are relevant here is the objective of this trial and the consequences for the fetus if its mother had been unfaithful. Could a man who thought his wife was carrying another mans child use the "Ordeal of the bitter water" described in Numbers 5:11-29 as a legal means to abort the child if his suspicions proved true? Yes or no?

Unfortunately, what you think is unimportant is the most important factor in understanding sin, how it works, and how God related to His creation.

Given that you won’t even acknowledge that your point 1 in you OP is an argument from silence, I certainly wouldn’t expect you to understand this information.

 

[Brother Billy]

Unfortunately, what you think is unimportant is the most important factor in understanding sin, how it works, and how God related to His creation.

Why dodge my question then?

Given that you won’t even acknowledge that your point 1 in you OP is an argument from silence, I certainly wouldn’t expect you to understand this information.

There is no point in discussing this further. You and redleghunter still don't understand what an argument from silence is, even after I tried to explain it to you.

 

[SPF]

Why dodge my question then?



There is no point in discussing this further. You and redleghunter still don't understand what an argument from silence is, even after I tried to explain it to you.

I didn’t dodge your question, I addressed the question as a whole, to which again I’m not surprised that you are not able to understand it.

However, you should be able to understand what an argument from silence is, which I suspect you do, but like so many people on an internet forum, you will only dig your hole deeper instead of acknowledging where you’re wrong.

Before making a vocation change due to the need to actually make money and support my family, I amassed quite an education with multiple degrees in philosophy. I remember actually going over fallacies in my first semester of my undergrad work, so I know you should be able to comprehend what an argument from silence is when someone teaches you.


To make an argument from silence is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence.

In your OP, you said you were providing three reasons as to why the Bible is not pro-life. Your first point was: “The Bible never explicitly condemns abortion”

You then go on to give a list of things the Bible does condemn and then you say that because you think the Bible is silent on abortion that it therefore means that God is not against abortion.

Or, to rephrase your OP as a syllogism, you said:

Premise 1: The Bible does not explicitly condemn abortion.
Premise 2: If God was against abortion then He would explicitly condemn it.
Conclusion: Therefore, God is not against abortion.

Anyone with 1 week, no, 1 day, no no, 1 hour of logic class would recognize that as a fallacious argument from silence.

 

[Brother Billy]

I didn’t dodge your question, I addressed the question as a whole, to which again I’m not surprised that you are not able to understand it.

If you didn't dodge it, then give me a simple yes or no answer?

However, you should be able to understand what an argument from silence is, which I suspect you do, but like so many people on an internet forum, you will only dig your hole deeper instead of acknowledging where you’re wrong.

Before making a vocation change due to the need to actually make money and support my family, I amassed quite an education with multiple degrees in philosophy. I remember actually going over fallacies in my first semester of my undergrad work, so I know you should be able to comprehend what an argument from silence is when someone teaches you.


To make an argument from silence is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence.

In your OP, you said you were providing three reasons as to why the Bible is not pro-life. Your first point was: “The Bible never explicitly condemns abortion”

You then go on to give a list of things the Bible does condemn and then you say that because you think the Bible is silent on abortion that it therefore means that God is not against abortion.

Or, to rephrase your OP as a syllogism, you said:

Premise 1: The Bible does not explicitly condemn abortion.
Premise 2: If God was against abortion then He would explicitly condemn it.
Conclusion: Therefore, God is not against abortion.

Anyone with 1 week, no, 1 day, no no, 1 hour of logic class would recognize that as a fallacious argument from silence.

The argument you stated above in syllogistic form is a valid deductive argument since the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. There is nothing fallacious about it. You might not agree with the premises, but that is a separate issue.

Regarding your "degrees in philosophy", you might want to ask for your money back because they didn't teach you very much. You just proved yet again that you don't understand what an argument from silence is. Where exactly did you get your "degrees" from? A Bible college?

 

[Halbhh]

At the start of the OP we find this statement --

The Jews were very meticulous in the keeping of the laws.

But anyone who reads in Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and on and on knows instantly that's wrong.

Israel broke the laws from God consistently...over and over and over and over.

Widespread.

Of those that left Egypt, only 2 even had sufficient faith and fidelity -- "meticulous in the keeping" of God's laws and intent -- to be allowed to cross over the Jordan.

Because all of the rest failed somewhere in a key way.

So, the premise in the OP is already wrong in the first sentence.

It's often very valuable to be skeptical of a first or 2nd or 3rd sentence, especially when it's an assertion that characterizes.

That's when to stop and ask: "is that true?"

Very often that's where a key false premise is set up.

The Old Testament should not have been part of the Bible.

Those who put the Bible canon are in grave error and ignored the warnings of The Christ, concerning the evil religion and the false/evil god of the Pharisees whose core theology is the Torah and found in the OT (where many of your quoted verses came from).

They also ignored the warnings of the Christ against false prophets, false apostles, and the signs that will reveal them.

I didn’t dodge your question, I addressed the question as a whole, to which again I’m not surprised that you are not able to understand it.

However, you should be able to understand what an argument from silence is, which I suspect you do, but like so many people on an internet forum, you will only dig your hole deeper instead of acknowledging where you’re wrong.

Before making a vocation change due to the need to actually make money and support my family, I amassed quite an education with multiple degrees in philosophy. I remember actually going over fallacies in my first semester of my undergrad work, so I know you should be able to comprehend what an argument from silence is when someone teaches you.


To make an argument from silence is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence.

In your OP, you said you were providing three reasons as to why the Bible is not pro-life. Your first point was: “The Bible never explicitly condemns abortion”

You then go on to give a list of things the Bible does condemn and then you say that because you think the Bible is silent on abortion that it therefore means that God is not against abortion.

Or, to rephrase your OP as a syllogism, you said:

Premise 1: The Bible does not explicitly condemn abortion.
Premise 2: If God was against abortion then He would explicitly condemn it.
Conclusion: Therefore, God is not against abortion.

Anyone with 1 week, no, 1 day, no no, 1 hour of logic class would recognize that as a fallacious argument from silence.

 

[Brother Billy]

At the start of the OP we find this statement --



But anyone who reads in Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and on and on knows instantly that's wrong.

Israel broke the laws from God consistently...over and over and over and over.

Widespread.

Of those that left Egypt, only 2 even had sufficient faith and fidelity -- "meticulous in the keeping" of God's laws and intent -- to be allowed to cross over the Jordan.

Because all of the rest failed somewhere in a key way.

So, the premise in the OP is already wrong in the first sentence.

It's often very valuable to be skeptical of a first or 2nd or 3rd sentence, especially when it's an assertion that characterizes.

That's when to stop and ask: "is that true?"

Very often that's where a key false premise is set up.

By "keeping" I meant recording all the laws that God had revealed to them. I didn't mean obeying the laws