kiwimacahau
Well-known member
The Hebrew of this passage is quite clear as indeed is the English just so long as you don't have a point to prove, it would seem. The "harm" refers to damage to the woman not the foetus. Note the following :
Source:
Abortion is wrong and should be abolished
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
The Hebrew of this passage is quite clear as indeed is the English just so long as you don't have a point to prove, it would seem. The "harm" refers to damage to the woman not the foetus. Note the following :
Source:
Talk about missing the forest for the trees, Kiwi.
What does the verse say? It says "a woman with CHILD!"
It explicitly calls the baby in the womb a child, TWICE IN THE SAME SENTENCE!
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h2030
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h3206
And the word "miscarry" tends to imply the death of the baby.
The word used in the verse is יָצָא (yatsa'), which means to come out, to go out, to exit, to go forth.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h3318
`And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges; - Exodus 21:22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:22&version=YLT
“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. - Exodus 21:22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:22&version=NKJV
In this verse, we see (in the example provided by God) that the woman gives birth prematurely. What we don't see is the woman or the baby dying.
The verse says that "the woman is harmed, so that she gives birth to her child earlier than she should," and then it says "but if no harm follows..."... but wait a minute, the woman was already harmed, so the man is already going to be punished, why add the "yet no harm follows"?
Because it's talking about the baby. If the baby is not harmed from the commission of the crime, then the criminal, on top of being punished for committing the crime, would be (as the judge allows) punished by the husband.
But the passage doesn't stop there.
and if there is mischief, then thou hast given life for life,eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. - Exodus 21:23-25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:23-25&version=YLT
But if any harm follows, then you shall give 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 21:23-25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:23-25&version=NKJV
It then says, "but if any harm follows." But the previous verse just said that the woman was harmed, and caused the baby to be born prematurely, which would already be reason for punishment. The "if any harm follows" is not talking about the mother, because the person who harmed the mother will have already been sentenced for harming her. It's talking about the baby, the child. If the mother dies, the punishment is already laid out for causing death during the commission of a crime, and the punishment for such is death. But if the mother lives, and the baby dies because it was born prematurely ("but if any harm follows"), then life for life, meaning the criminal should be put to death, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, and stripe for stripe.
It's not talking about punishment for harming the mother, it's talking about punishment for harming the baby, because the baby was made in God's image, human, a person, and causing the death of an innocent person is murder.
`And when a man smiteth any soul of man, he is certainly put to death. - Leviticus 24:17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus24:17&version=YLT
‘Whoever kills any man shall surely be put to death. - Leviticus 24:17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus24:17&version=NKJV
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
Your eisegesis is flawed. You are imposing your interpretation on the passage AND ignoring the Rabbinical exegesis of the passage because it does not seem to reflect your opinion.Talk about missing the forest for the trees, Kiwi.
What does the verse say? It says "a woman with CHILD!"
It explicitly calls the baby in the womb a child, TWICE IN THE SAME SENTENCE!
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h2030
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h3206
And the word "miscarry" tends to imply the death of the baby.
The word used in the verse is יָצָא (yatsa'), which means to come out, to go out, to exit, to go forth.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h3318
`And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges; - Exodus 21:22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:22&version=YLT
“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. - Exodus 21:22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:22&version=NKJV
In this verse, we see (in the example provided by God) that the woman gives birth prematurely. What we don't see is the woman or the baby dying.
The verse says that "the woman is harmed, so that she gives birth to her child earlier than she should," and then it says "but if no harm follows..."... but wait a minute, the woman was already harmed, so the man is already going to be punished, why add the "yet no harm follows"?
Because it's talking about the baby. If the baby is not harmed from the commission of the crime, then the criminal, on top of being punished for committing the crime, would be (as the judge allows) punished by the husband.
But the passage doesn't stop there.
and if there is mischief, then thou hast given life for life,eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. - Exodus 21:23-25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:23-25&version=YLT
But if any harm follows, then you shall give 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 21:23-25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:23-25&version=NKJV
It then says, "but if any harm follows." But the previous verse just said that the woman was harmed, and caused the baby to be born prematurely, which would already be reason for punishment. The "if any harm follows" is not talking about the mother, because the person who harmed the mother will have already been sentenced for harming her. It's talking about the baby, the child. If the mother dies, the punishment is already laid out for causing death during the commission of a crime, and the punishment for such is death. But if the mother lives, and the baby dies because it was born prematurely ("but if any harm follows"), then life for life, meaning the criminal should be put to death, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, and stripe for stripe.
It's not talking about punishment for harming the mother, it's talking about punishment for harming the baby, because the baby was made in God's image, human, a person, and causing the death of an innocent person is murder.
`And when a man smiteth any soul of man, he is certainly put to death. - Leviticus 24:17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus24:17&version=YLT
‘Whoever kills any man shall surely be put to death. - Leviticus 24:17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus24:17&version=NKJV
Tihei Mauri ora
:thumb:
Translated: Assert, pound the podium, throw out a few overworked, stock cliches, he found employing GOOG/Bing, such as "Your eisegesis is flawed....your opinion, declare, "victory!," return to "You are wrong...I showed them" echo chamber.
Please show how I'm wrong. Saying something doesn't make it so.
I'm simply reading what the verse says. How is that imposing my interpretation?
I'll take verbatim scripture over what any man says about that scripture any day.
The passage says that if a woman with child is harmed in the commission of a crime which causes her to give birth prematurely to her child, but no harm follows, then the man should be punished for his crime and whatever the husband imposes on him, AND that if a woman with child is harmed in the commission of a crime which causes her to give birth prematurely to her child, AND HARM FOLLOWS, then in addition to the punishment for the crime he was committing, he should be punished for harming the child as well, because the woman was already harmed, and harm followed from her being injured, that her child was born prematurely. The passage DOES NOT SAY that the woman died, nor does it imply that. It's talking specifically about the woman giving birth prematurely because of injury caused by the commission of a crime. Yes, if the woman died, then the criminal should be put to death because he killed someone. But this isn't saying that he killed the woman, it's saying if harm comes to the child after harming the woman, then life for life, etc.
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
No, the passage is quite clear in that it refers to the woman alone being harmed because it never refers to the foetus being harmed as the foetus was not a person under Jewish law. This is why I say your interpretation is eisegesis. You are imposing your belief (a Christian one) on JEWISH legal texts.
Source
Further
Source: ibid
When we look at OT passages we must not attempt to interpret them through the lens of later Graeco-Roman thought especially that of Augustine. They were not written with that understanding in place.
Source
Further
Source: ibid
When we look at OT passages we must not attempt to interpret them through the lens of later Graeco-Roman thought especially that of Augustine. They were not written with that understanding in place.
Kiwi, I'm starting to question your knowledge of logic.
Here's a few questions real quick before I get to your post:
Does truth exist?
Is truth knowable?
Are there absolutes?
"Absolute truth is something that is true at all times and in all places. It is something that is always true no matter what the circumstances. It is a fact that cannot be changed. For example, there are no round squares. ... One way or another, these are all truths because they are logically true." -Wikipedia
I await your response to my questions.
Here's a few questions real quick before I get to your post:
Does truth exist?
Is truth knowable?
Are there absolutes?
"Absolute truth is something that is true at all times and in all places. It is something that is always true no matter what the circumstances. It is a fact that cannot be changed. For example, there are no round squares. ... One way or another, these are all truths because they are logically true." -Wikipedia
I await your response to my questions.
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
Interesting questions but a diversion. Here the question is the imposition of a Christian view on the Hebrew scriptures. It is eisegesis of the worst kind to do so.
Tihei Mauri ora
Is that a yes or a no?