This could take a bit of time. Not sure how quickly I'll finish it, but I regret I couldn't wait until after Mother's Day to begin. No loving woman would ever murder her own child. But those who have been up in arms over the leaked SCOTUS draft regarding the poorly decided Roe v Wade decision aren't loving people in the first place if defending the "right" to murder one's own unborn is important to them. So I'll be responding to the fake Christian. His vile blog post is here:
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2022/05/abortion-facts.html
Open a second window and follow along. Here's his first two sentences:
"Some facts about abortion. These are objective, rational, demonstrable facts, no partisanship and no need for disagreement."
With this we see again Dan isn't one to support anything he says, while he demands support for ANYTHING said by an opponent. We'll now see which of what follows are "objective, rational demonstrable 'FACTS'". (Here's where you'll have to follow along. If I copy paste everything, this post with stretch quite a ways.)
1. Right off we see a falsehood. Can one love babies or fetuses while at the same time protecting laws permitting them being brutally murdered in the womb? It seems an obvious question to honest people, but then again, Dan thinks he can love the Lord while rejecting so much of His teaching, so... The only way one could argue this first point is true is to argue pro-aborts disregard the unborn altogether, feeling nothing at all for them. But I don't see that as any better.
2. As far as "facts" go, this one doesn't come close. Of course pro-aborts want to see kids murdered. That's what abortion is, and they support being permitted to abort their children. And if the point is that they don't want to murder their own child in the womb, but have no choice, that's a lie, too.
3. This one is true, because most opponents of abortion know women are at great risk in choosing to abort. But if abortion is murder...which it is...then what do we do with murderers now? How many abortions should be tolerated by a single woman until she's seen as the mass murderer she is? We typically execute mass murderers or sentence them to life in prison.
4 & 5. These are examples of irrelevance. The fact that a human fetus is a human fetus is a new level of Captain Obvious redundancy. Not only was it redundant to say, he said it twice. But Dan does this kind of thing to pad his lists as if it makes the premise any more intelligent.
But it only gets stupider as we go:
5a. The only right in contention in the abortion debate is the right to life of the unborn person. Thus, it's not about "human rights in every possible sense", which is just diversion and not a particularly intelligent attempt at it. (Not surprising given the source)
5b. We don't objectively, factually "know" that anyone has any rights. We true Americans merely accept as self-evident that we do, especially the right to life, which is the only issue of importance in the abortion debate.
5c. "The law" doesn't need to say a damned thing for it to be true that all people...born or soon to be in nine months or less...has the right to life. Honest Christians, or at least honest people of any religion, accept this self-evident truth. Since Dan is neither, one can understand how he might have a problem.
5d. I don't give a flying rat's ass about "allah", "buddha" or the Koran has to say about it. None of that has anything to do with the creation of this nation and it's laws and ideals. But yes, God does say all human life is deserving of having that right protected as all are created in His Image and Likeness. A real Christian...especially one who allegedly seriously and prayerfully studied Scripture... would never ask such a moronic question.
5e. This is the hardest for Dan, for he is lacking greatly the ability to reason. But given what we know about how human life is brought forth, reason absolutely insists the pre-born have the same unalienable right to life as even low-life cretins like Dan. Indeed, more so.
The stupid then continues from questions 6-9, as Dan begins again to speak of "rights" as opposed to "the right to life" which is the only right in contention in the abortion debate. We don't need to pretend "kids driving cars" is an intelligent argument, just because Dan was stupid enough to add it in the mix. We can just blow it off as the stupidity it is and leave it at that.
Then he cites "Encyclopia.com" as if that is relevant, either. It doesn't matter what any past law said or provided. What matters is what is true. If past laws were written to deny the full humanity of full persons, like black slaves or the unborn, we can't pretend such citations add credibility and validity to the position Dan is supporting. Indeed, the issue here is a law on our books which may be overturned by this Supreme Court. It would be just to do so as it is a heinous law which is oppressive to "the least of these" as Dan would say if he wasn't complicit in their murders. I'm told oppression is to be opposed and there's nothing so oppressive as ripping a child limb from limb and crushing its head.
Finally, he gets to the only question which matters:
<i>"10. Okay, but what about the basic "right to life..."? Even a one year old has that, right? But does a fetus? Does a fetus at 2 seeks old have that right? At 20 weeks old?"</i>
He then goes into the usual bullshit dance typical of the pro-aborts:
11. The fact is, we "do not know" why any of us has the right to life without God, Who explained we are all made in His image and likeness and it is that which explains the value each of our lives has. But that does not limit it to the born in any way. The moment of birth (now at risk by the pro-aborts) is an arbitrary line set by human beings who don't have the authority under God to dictate whose life has value and whose doesn't.
12. It's not a matter of legality anymore than it was when the law allowed blacks to be enslaved. Thus, what any state's law says...or any country's...is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the unborn are possessed of the same right to life as any of us fortunate enough to not have a murderer for a mother.
For honest people, especially honest Christian people (ACTUAL honest Christian people, not fake Christians like Dan) the right to life of all people is self-evident. And even if the founders were not scientifically advanced enough to understand the full truth of human procreation (I doubt that was the case), we certainly have the scientific knowledge which supports the premise we were as we are when we were first conceived and as such we all had the right to life from that point in time.
Dan then goes on to do what Dan always does, and that's to corrupt Scripture to appease his own agenda. He cites Exodus 21 and perverts it as others have done to protect the ability to murder their own. But it doesn't work as explained in the following link:
https://www.str.org/w/what-exodus-21-22-says-about-abortion
Note the author of that piece. He's no piker. Dan's troll tries to argue against it in the comments section. Grab some popcorn and prepare for a good laugh if you're thinking about checking it out.
"No," Dan says. "The Bible does not state anywhere that fetuses have an innate right to
life." But neither does it say Dan does. What we can read is that we are not to murder. It refers in Genesis to taking the life of "man", as in "mankind" as opposed to "only adult males". It says we aren't to do this because we're created in His image. No one would suggest it isn't speaking of women and children, too, but the pro-aborts pretend there's this imaginary line somewhere during the development of a child in utero when it's OK to rip it apart limb from limb like a good grace embracing Christian should.
Again, it's self-evident to all honest people. Dan has used the term "self-evident" for many other cases, but somehow this one is too tricky for him. One who exists because a man and woman engaged in the very act intended to bring about another person is somehow not a person when it's inconvenient for either of the parents. This is self-evidently selfishness of a most vile and heinous degree and of course it's right up Dan's alley. He's totally into that degree of evil pretending "we can't know", while at the same time being certain he has the unalienable right to life!
13. When convenient and profitable for Dan, Scripture is required to have exact wording in order for him to act like a Christian (and he's an incredibly bad actor!). He can perceive all manner of teaching he insists is self-evident, or protected by his submission of the "it's my opinion" defense followed by the "if I'm mistaken on this one point, will it cost me my salvation?" plea (my, how many times he uses that one!), but then demand exact wording for that which he does not wish to be prohibited. He demands exactness and specific wording from those who disagree with him, while pretending Scripture is imbued with enough ambiguity to grant him license to live apart from God's will and still claim he's living the Christian life.
Dan thinks this question of the life of the unborn is somehow just as ambiguous, but it's just another vile pile of bullshit no honest person would ever give the time of day. He believes no one has the right to murder him. He believes no one has the right to murder a "gay" person, or a black person, or an illegal immigrant, though he can't provide any reason why that is true other than he believes it to be so. In the meantime, he'll insist we are all obliged to defend those lives from "oppressors". The hypocrisy is among the worst lies which can be told by anyone. We're to stand for the lives of everyone BUT the soon to be born child, the most vulnerable, defenseless and innocent of our kind. What kind of asshole takes a position like that and then pretends he's noble in leaving that decision to murder to the mother of the child?
So yes. Dan DOES support murder. He supports the murder of the unborn. I don't know where he gets this "hate the fetus" crap. I've never heard that said by a pro-child person. The truth is that their view of the child in utero does rise to hatred, because they don't even regard the child as a person, just as Dems of old disregarded the black man, and just as nazis disregarded the Jew and others, and just how the islamist disregards both of them and the LGBT. But at least those people could fight back or run away or hide. The child is without completely.
Dan recommends how we should oppose the murder of the unborn. This contemptible piece of shit should instead reflect on what a piece of shit he is to dare suppose he can question another person's right to life, and worse, to question whether another person is a person. One who claims to be a Christian and leaves the life of a child to the whims of selfish parents is no Christian. He is pure evil.
133 comments:
“He is pure evil.”
Yep, he’s Satan’s Cabana Boy. Thanks for the public service you perform in thoroughly eviscerating his fake Christianity. You can’t say you love your neighbor while you support her being crushed and dismembered.
They're the cheapest of rationalizations, especially the "we can't know" crap while being perfectly confident HE has a right to life.
Last thought: One of the creepy yet illuminating things about him was that he would go from site to site with the same bad arguments, even when he had been corrected about them. And these were truly 2+2=4 kinds of things, like your Exodus 21 example. Yes, lots of pro-aborts use that line, but it is so easy to refute that if they continue using it after being corrected, you know that they are operating from malice instead of ignorance. They might stay pro-abortion, of course, but at least they’d stop using that fallacious argument. But Satan doesn’t mind being inconsistent. He’ll keep using bad arguments if he thinks they’ll work on other people. My advice is never to use bad arguments, as they undermine your good ones. But the Molech-worshipers don’t even try to reach that low bar.
Well, that's his thing. He can't truly contend with the corrections he constantly faces and pretends there's something wrong with the correction. Then of course he'll default to his, well that's my opinion and I'm not saying I can prove it, while disregarding the fact opinions must have some basis which he can never provide. What he does provide is irrelevant, often unrelated and not at all what he'd accept from opponents in support of their positions. There's no way to get around his "Nyuh uh", because "Nyuh uh" trumps all.
Yeah, I figured out quickly that his role on Satan's team is to confuse people by pretending to be a Christian. That way, they could be just like the world and still consider themselves Christian, all the while being on his party bus to Hell.
I doubt he'll engage on enemy territory since he doesn't have the power of deletion on his side. But if he does that bullshit will flow deep and wide in short order. Fortunately there's nothing new in his post, and therefore nothing worth engaging with again.
I don't think you realize how powerful he things the "We don't know" talisman is. He can literally use it against anything regardless of how established it is. Hell, I bet that "We don't know." probably trumps "It's self-evident" in the hierarchy of Dan-isms. It's "self-evident" when he wants to "prove" something without actually providing evidence, and "We don't know" when he wants to dismiss anyone else's argument regardless of evidence.
It's like arguing with a coconut, the outer shell is too hard to penetrate unless you have the right hammer or machete.
It seems we all have him pegged the same way, so we can't read his mind will be the response, or we aren't capable of understanding his words so why bother... I would suppose everyone who's discontinued engaging with him is just as incapable of divining The Wisdom Of DAN!!
The main flaw in his equivocation is somehow knowing the born are possessed of the right to life...and equally so regardless of age, size and location..., but there's no knowing if the same is true of those still in the womb, because...uh...because...you know...just because. The fact of the matter is, born or soon to be, it's all a matter of human choice. The morally bankrupt simply choose according to personal convenience. The rest of us know one's worthiness is not mitigated by any of the arbitrary dividing lines imposed by the immoral.
Come on, boy's. You all aren't this crazy. Just look at what you all are saying. For instance, look at this from Marshal...
"As far as "facts" go, this one doesn't come close. Of course pro-aborts want to see kids murdered."
Come on. You're not this crazy or out of touch. All of you all think twell I think that we wanna see kids murdered?? In spite of the reality that we have kids? That we adopt kids? That we support kids who are not our own?
You can't seriously be THAT detached from reality. Can you recognize how insane this sounds?
"Pure evil..."???
I worry about you fellas.
So, think it all through a bit. You're claiming that I and all the people out here in the world..., the nuns and preachers and Sunday school teachers and Nobel Prize winners, grandmothers and caretakers of all sort who want abortion to be legal...that we all are evil and hate babies and want to see babies murdered, is that what you're saying?
Well, other than disagreeing with your opinions on this topic, where's your evidence for that? If you can provide no evidence - and you can't - then don't you think that maybe you all should tone down the rhetoric? Do you realize how dangerous that kind of rhetoric is? It's this sort of trump-like evil (and truly, it is evil, harmful, divisive, slanderous, false witness) that is poisoning our nation turning neighbor against neighbor and brother against brother.. Is that the sort of divisive And hellish nation you're trying to establish? Do you not see how that sort of poison language is doing that?
Have you considered that this sort of poisonous talk and thinking is precisely why you think that reasonable normal people like me and my wife and my children... my pastor, my co-workers... Justice workers and do-gooders, all, are evil people who support murder??
I can't tell you how really truly crazy that is. Is there no one here who recognizes that?
How about this? Define evil. Is it disagreeing with you while and having an opinion other than the one that you all hold? Does that work in reverse?? Because you all disagree with me you almost be evil?
Or are you suggesting that you are speaking authoritatively for God and disagreeing with you is equivalent to disagreeing with God?
Do you see how arrogant that sounds? And where would your proof be?
Be reasonable.
May 10, 2022 at 4:37 PM
"Come on, boy's. You all aren't this crazy. Just look at what you all are saying. For instance, look at this from Marshal...
"As far as "facts" go, this one doesn't come close. Of course pro-aborts want to see kids murdered."
Come on. You're not this crazy or out of touch. All of you all think twell I think that we wanna see kids murdered?? In spite of the reality that we have kids? That we adopt kids? That we support kids who are not our own?
You can't seriously be THAT detached from reality. Can you recognize how insane this sounds?
"Pure evil..."???
I worry about you fellas."
What's insane and detached from reality is supposing actually allowing some kids to be born doesn't mean you don't want to see other kids murdered. If you didn't want to see other kids murdered, you wouldn't support murdering them and doing so under the fake premise it's a private decision which can't be legally prohibited as any other murder is. That's pure evil. Don't worry about us, Danny-boy. Worry about those kids being torn limb from limb before they see the light of day. Worry about all the women who suffer serious injury and too often death from their "safe and rare" abortions. You're scum.
I'm evil but Trump is a legitimate candidate for president? The SINGLE MOST overtly evil, perverted, dishonest and corrupt politician in our lifetimes... he's cool.
Again, this is just crazy-town, boys. You look utterly foaming at the mouth insane.
May 10, 2022 at 5:12 PM
"So, think it all through a bit. You're claiming that I and all the people out here in the world..., the nuns and preachers and Sunday school teachers and Nobel Prize winners, grandmothers and caretakers of all sort who want abortion to be legal...that we all are evil and hate babies and want to see babies murdered, is that what you're saying?"
I can't speak for the others, but it's damn well what I'm saying...because it's absolutely the case. If they (and you) didn't want to see babies murdered, they (and you) wouldn't support abortion. It's really that simple. So simple, even a simple-minded liar like you should be able to grasp it. But I guess the liar part of you is stronger than the simple minded part. What's really sick is to suppose citing otherwise intelligent people supporting the murder of the unborn somehow legitimizes it, when really it lessens their own legitimacy as intelligent or truly religious. They're frauds just like you are.
"Well, other than disagreeing with your opinions on this topic, where's your evidence for that?"
They support the fictitious right of a woman to murder her own child in utero. How much more evidence do you need? You even testify to that reality.
"If you can provide no evidence - and you can't" (I can and did with your help. Thanks, Cupcake! You're a pip!) "- then don't you think that maybe you all should tone down the rhetoric?"
No. In fact, it needs to be turned up given the level of evil which needs to be overcome.
"Do you realize how dangerous that kind of rhetoric is?"
It's not dangerous at all, and certainly nowhere near as dangerous as pro-aborts are to people in the womb. Thus, I don't give a flying rat's ass about how dangerous it might be to the murderer.
"It's this sort of trump-like evil (and truly, it is evil, harmful, divisive, slanderous, false witness) that is poisoning our nation turning neighbor against neighbor and brother against brother.."
No, murderer. It's more like division caused by taking seriously Luke 14:26. Those of us who truly seek to follow Christ would never be a party to the murder of the unborn. If those like you have a problem with it, that's just the sort of division a REAL Christian is willing to endure. You wouldn't know because you're not a real Christian. But it's pretty basic stuff.
"Is that the sort of divisive And hellish nation you're trying to establish? Do you not see how that sort of poison language is doing that?"
This is typical leftist bullshit, projecting onto the good the evil which is all yours. "Poison language" looks like this: "Women have the right to choose!" It's poisonous because it leaves out what the choice is, which is the choice to murder their own flesh and blood. THAT is what is driving a wedge between the righteous side and yours.
"Have you considered that this sort of poisonous talk and thinking is precisely why you think that reasonable normal people like me and my wife and my children... my pastor, my co-workers... Justice workers and do-gooders, all, are evil people who support murder??"
No one is reasonable who pretends they don't know that from the moment of conception, there is no difference between a person at that point of development and right before they die of old age. (No difference aside from the degree of biological development) One has the right to life from that first moment Dad's sperm fertilizes Mom's ovum. No one is reasonable who pretends "we can't know that" while insisting he knows he is possessed of the right he denies those still in the womb. That's an incredibly unreasonable position and to stand on it is evidence you are evil. No "do-gooding" can erase that vile evil or cover it up. There's no "justice" in it whatsoever, as the child did nothing wrong...nothing which justifies the taking of its most innocent life you contemptible sonofabitch.
"I can't tell you how really truly crazy that is."
You could if it was. What's crazy is pretending you can dictate who lives and who dies, or that its a woman's right to so dictate.
"Is there no one here who recognizes that?"
I don't think there's anyone here who is as vile and detestable as you. feo's not allowed, so it's just you.
May 10, 2022 at 5:39 PM
"How about this? Define evil."
How about this: Explain why you have an unalienable right to life and you didn't when you were still in your mother's womb? Because not resolving that riddle but holding firmly to it is all the definition of evil I need.
"Is it disagreeing with you while and having an opinion other than the one that you all hold? Does that work in reverse?? Because you all disagree with me you almost be evil?"
These are simply dumbass questions you aren't a good enough liar to put forth as legit.
"Or are you suggesting that you are speaking authoritatively for God and disagreeing with you is equivalent to disagreeing with God?"
This is true enough since God forbids murder because we're all made in His image and likeness. When you can provide the verse where it leaves the unborn out of the equation, you might have an argument in defense of baby murder.
"Do you see how arrogant that sounds?" "And where would your proof be?"
Truth sounds arrogant to Dan. What a surprise!
"And where would your proof be?"
As you claim to have seriously and prayerfully studied Scripture, it's clear you can add the following to that which you've rejected already:
Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man. --Gen 9:6 NIV
This not only proves the preciousness of human life but why it's precious. My NIV puts it like this:
"In killing a human being, a murderer demonstrates his contempt for God as well as for his fellow man."
It references notes on Gen 1:26 by saying:
"God speak as the Creator-King, announcing his crowning work to members of his heavenly court. No distinction should be made between image and likeness, which are synonyms in both the OT and the NT. Since man is made in God's imaged, every human being is worthy of honor and respect; he is neither to be murdered or cursed."
Sadly, that means Dan, too, but there is no verse which says people in the womb aren't included. There's not one which so much as hints at such a thing.
"Be reasonable."
Reason does not describe your abhorrent position on abortion. You have no right to even mention the word "reason", it is so foreign to you.
May 10, 2022 at 7:08 PM
"I'm evil but Trump is a legitimate candidate for president? The SINGLE MOST overtly evil, perverted, dishonest and corrupt politician in our lifetimes... he's cool.
Again, this is just crazy-town, boys. You look utterly foaming at the mouth insane."
I'm not moved by your perverse obsession with Trump. If it wasn't for the fact that he was the first sitting president to attend a Right To Life rally, he's irrelevant to this conversation. But since you brought him up, his defense of the most oppressed people in our country puts him morally head and shoulders above all the lefty assholes who got your vote. Crazy Town is your home. You look demonic in both your obsessive attempts to demonize Trump (so that your choices look angelic by comparison *snicker*) and more so your heinous defense of legalized murder.
Rather than "tone down the rhetoric", I prefer to increase the volume of what is so true and worthy of unanimous scorn, ridicule and criticism. Abortion supporters are vile, murderous assholes who are less worthy of life than those they seek to destroy. There's a special place in hell for the likes of you, and no amount of soup doled out by you to the poor will change that.
Marshal... "Explain why you have an unalienable right to life and you didn't when you were still in your mother's womb?"
Answered and re-answered on my blog. We affirm, as freedom loving, rational humans, that all humans have a right to life, liberty and happiness AND that we believe this because it is self-evident.
You DON'T disagree with that, do you?
Now, YOU answer the same question. And define evil.
Marshal... "This is true enough since God forbids murder because we're all made in His image and likeness. When you can provide the verse where it leaves the unborn out of the equation, you might have an argument in defense of baby murder. "
You speak for God. You can't be mistaken in your hunches about what God thinks, is that ALSO what you think?
And where does God say the fetus has the right to life in the same way as a born human?
God doesn't.
That's the fact.
God does not tell you that. It's not in the Bible and God has not spoken to you. Simple factual reality.
You hold AN OPINION that a human fetus has a right to life in the same way that a born human, and you hold AN OPINION that God affirms this, but you can't prove it.
Now have the common decency to admit that simple observable reality.
When you can provide the verse where it puts the unborn IN the equation, you might have an argument in defense of presuming to speak for God. You don't. Just a simple fact.
Look, you're welcome to hold that opinion for yourself, BUT, you're not free to insist that you can not be mistaken when you can not prove it.
Your arms are way to short to box with God. Or rational adults.
May 10, 2022 at 7:57 PM
"Marshal... "Explain why you have an unalienable right to life and you didn't when you were still in your mother's womb?"
Answered and re-answered on my blog. We affirm, as freedom loving, rational humans, that all humans have a right to life, liberty and happiness AND that we believe this because it is self-evident."
You've clearly misspoken. It should read, "Dodged and re-dodged on my blog." What follows your lie is not an answer to my question. It's not evidence, it's not a reason other than we've chosen to assert it is self-evident. Clearly that's not a position held by the possibly over half the planet. Worse, there's no "we" as I put the question to YOU. What makes it self-evident and conversely NOT self-evident the growing person in a woman's womb is not entitled to the same consideration? Stop dodging the question and explain what makes the child unworthy and a piece of shit like you worthy.
MY answer to the question has actually been stated in a variety of ways to allow the low intellect people like you to perhaps see something your dim brain can fathom. It comes down to this: There is simply nothing which allows us to deny one group of people from enjoying the right to life simply based on irrelevant distinctions such as skin color, sex, ethnicity, size, age, location. If one has been conceived, one has been endowed by its Creator with that unalienable right to life. If you can say without a reason that a person in the womb is not entitled to that right, I can you aren't and I can list a host of reasons why the world would be better without you in it. Your position on the most innocent, defenseless and vulnerable tops that long list. You're an evil scumbag. You've had your chance to live like a Christian and you've chosen to be a scumbag in every way. You accuse decent people of being indecent because they care about the will of God, American ideals and the lives of children you dare write off as unworthy of your concern. If only your mother felt that way about you! If we were face-to-face, I'd demonstrate for you what ginned up rhetoric sounds like. As it stands, I'll leave it at your a murderous asshole.
"And where does God say the fetus has the right to life in the same way as a born human?"
Where does it say God makes any distinction between one human and another based on the stage of development they're in at any given time?
God doesn't.
That's the fact. But you, you hellish piece of shit, think you have some authority to decide a child isn't human enough. And being the asshole king of liars you are, you dare suggest that God has to spell it out for you in crayon so your infantile (ironic) mind can understand the obvious. If God hasn't made the distinction mentioned above, how dare you speak for Him and do it yourself, you syphilitic boil.
I haven't been speaking for God. I've been presenting what he says and noting He makes no distinction between a person walking around and another gestating in his mother's womb. That's because the obvious reality is we all go through those in utero stages of development and no one has any method for determining where person hood starts if not at conception. It's just a selfishly arbitrary point for the convenience of the worst sorts of perverse deviates...those who put their sexual self-gratification above the lives of their own offspring.
You, on the other hand, think because God didn't paint you a freakin picture, you can step in for Him and decide a person isn't worthy of protecting, while you rant on about protecting sexual perverts. So it's you, not merely speaking for God, but speaking against what God has said. But then, your contempt for God is well known.
"Look, you're welcome to hold that opinion for yourself, BUT, you're not free to insist that you can not be mistaken when you can not prove it."
I'm not at all mistaken. Your "Nyuh uh" responses don't prove I am. Your lack of an actual argument with evidence from ANYWHERE makes it all worse for you. You're a murderer of infants. I fight along side God. You're an enemy of His because you're evil.
Art,
This notion that by repeating the words of someone in authority, that you are "speaking for them" is simply absurd. It's like my pointing out that under XYZ section of US Criminal Code, section a, subsection d, that QRS is prohibited by US law, is assuming that I'm "speaking for" the US DOJ. It's a matter of quoting scripture, and taking it at face value. In being convinced that the Holy Spirit superintended the recording of the scripture in question, and that the people that translated it were competent enough to accurately render the meaning from the original language.
For example. When John records that "Jesus wept.", it is completely appropriate to conclude that Jesus actually had tears coming from His eyes, and that perhaps he was making sobbing noises. It's reasonable to conclude that "Jesus" means Jesus, and "wept" means wept/cried/sobbed/etc.
Where I see problems is when someone (hypothetically) says that "Jesus wept." actually meant that Mary and Martha laughed. In the case where someone proposes a meaning that disagrees with or contradicts the text, then it should be on the person offering the alternate interpretation to demonstrate that a. the plain reading is objectively wrong, and b. that their alternative reading is objectively right (or at least significantly more accurate). Strangely enough, I rarely recall anyone providing that level of detail. It seems like "It's figurative language" is the most common response with no explanation of why "Jesus wept." is figurative, and no explanation as to what the figurative language means.
Sorry, that's a long way to agree that repeating someone, is not speaking for someone.
I agree. It's one of the many absurd things Dan likes to accuse us of doing. We could be charitable and agree that saying what God said instead of Him repeating Himself is speaking for him. But that's not much of an accusation of wrongdoing. And if we have any mandate at all to evangelize...spread the Gospel...tell others of Christ, we'd necessarily have to speak for Him to do so, by, again, repeating what He revealed to us in Scripture...where we get all our info on His Will. If that's the case, then yes, I'm speaking for God in that case as well.
But of course, Dan means we're saying something God never said. Sure...we might be paraphrasing. But unlike Dan, our paraphrasing never strays from actual verse to the point of saying something contrary to Scripture. Dan certainly does that. Or, we might make logical conclusions based on what is said in Scripture but not directly related to the issue on the table (like abortion, for example). But our references to Scripture for evidence in support of our positions is tight and on point in ways Dan never comes close to doing to support his positions or rebut ours.
No. The "speaking for God" accusation is just one of many cheap ploys Dan tries to use as if we're moronic "progressive" "Christians" who only claim to have "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture, but only enough to be able to posture as a Christian.
In the meantime, Dan pretends evidence his life is worthy of being respected and not taken unjustly is because it is said to be "self-evident". But that doesn't explain why he doesn't believe it to be true of those still in the womb. For one person it's "self-evident", but he thinks he has the authority to insist it's not for another...just like a nazi or a Klansman.
Craig...
"This notion that by repeating the words of someone in authority, that you are "speaking for them" is simply absurd. "
But God literally never said that the fetus is equivalent to a born living human being. It is literally not in The Bible. Can you just admit that much reality? You all are adding to the text what is not there.
Marshal...
"Dan means we're saying something God never said."
I am stating a simple observable demonstrable fact...
God never said the fetus has a right to life. Period.
Is otten those words and not in any other words. There are no words in The Bible that state that meaning from God. It does not happen literally, factually.
And if you still disagree, ALL you have to do is provide the text where God said that.
You you can't.
You can't do it and you're not going to do it precisely because you can't do it. That's the fact. Anyone can see this when, after this comment, you fail to provide the text where God said a fetus has a right to live.
Craig...
"Where I see problems is when someone (hypothetically) says that "Jesus wept." actually meant that Mary and Martha laughed. In the case where someone proposes a meaning that disagrees with or contradicts the text, then it should be on the person offering the alternate interpretation to demonstrate that a. the plain reading is objectively wrong, and b. that their alternative reading is objectively right"
Do you all never see the irony in this line of statements?
Jesus LITERALLY said that he'd LITERALLY come to preach good news to the LITERAL poor and marginalized. He said that repeatedly, clearly, unambiguously throughout the four gospels, over and over again. It is a (THE?) main theme of Jesus' good news... or at least part and parcel of the main theme of Jesus' way of Grace.
And yet...
Over and over again, Marshal (at least) says the text doesn't mean what it literally says over and over again.
And here, where I point out that God NEVER said "The fetus has a right to life" (or similar words that say the same thing - the unborn have an expectation to live, it is wrong to deny life to the unborn child and equivalent to killing a living human being...) or when I point out the reality that neither Jesus, God nor the Bible literally EVER demands Sola Scriptura, or an inerrant bible, or Penal Substitutionary Atonement, etc, etc... when I point out the absence of these teachings directly in the Bible and how they are literally human interpretations read INTO the text by some people after the first century - usually much later than the first century... when I point out that reality, you all never can even acknowledge it AS reality.
You conflate your interpretations and eisegesis WITH the Bible, AS IF Jesus ever taught a gospel of PSA or Sola Scriptura or "the fetus has a right to life..." when it's just never there.
What I suspect is happening is that you all are so tied into your traditions that it's making you incapable of looking at the text with clear eyes. More's the pity.
May 12, 2022 at 9:49 AM
Thanks, Dan, for providing another example which validates what I said about you. You're so helpful.
May 12, 2022 at 9:03 AM
"But God literally never said that the fetus is equivalent to a born living human being. It is literally not in The Bible. Can you just admit that much reality? You all are adding to the text what is not there."
But God literally never said that the fetus isn't equivalent to a born living human being. It is literally not in The Bible. Can you just admit that much reality? You are again corrupting the text to support your evil agenda. When God said He created man in His image, He either meant all men, or just Adam (who you don't believe existed anyway, so it must mean "all men"). Most intelligent people would insist the verse refers to "mankind", and yet in doing so, there is no mention of which stage of development must be achieved before one is considered a part of "mankind". Thus, on what basis can you suggest a distinction exists at all? Thus, it is you who is adding to Scripture by suggesting that for which there is no evidence to suggest. Mine is a logical understanding as I've just demonstrated.
What you suspect is of no consequence and is not intelligent anyway. It's self-serving crap.
May 12, 2022 at 9:19 AM
"I am stating a simple observable demonstrable fact...
God never said the fetus has a right to life. Period."
I'm sure God perceived of liars like you someday existing when He created all things, but He never said, indicated or hinted a fetus hasn't the right to life of which you feel you're entitled. Period. Thus, your "fact" is moot and nonsensical. What's more, the right to life of the unborn is self-evident given no one gets to live without having to go through conception and every single stage of development which follows until one's natural death. You can't prove otherwise, so you don't try. Instead, you deflect to wasting our time demanding proof of the obvious. You're like a nazi and a Klansman. We're like God's people, erring on the side of life at the very least.
I'm jumping to the end, as I don't want to waste time on what Satan's Cabana Boy has to say. I'll just note that 2nd trimester John the Baptist reacted to 1st trimester Jesus (Luke 1). They were both real people at that moment, just as all preborn humans are. Pro-abortion "Christian" Leftists would have blessed either mother for aborting them. So sick! These ghouls can't even understand a simple command such as, "You shall not murder." The lengths they go to in supporting child murder reveal how fully depraved they are.
You don't understand, Neil. It has to say it explicitly in the exact words Dan will tell you in order for anything to be true. Only pro-abort "progressive" "Christians" have the guidance of the Holy Spirit to discern the plain, unambiguous teaching of Scripture. The rest of us must simply accept what the murderers say.
Marshal...
"But God literally never said that the fetus isn't equivalent to a born living human being. It is literally not in The Bible. Can you just admit that much reality? "
Yes. Yes, I can. Because THAT is reality. You see how it's done? You recognize reality and then you admit it.
Now that I've shown you how it's done, you try.
Neil cites Luke 1, I guess, as "proof" that a fetus has a right to life. But it doesn't say that. He's referring to this ONE verse...
" When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting,
the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth
was filled with the Holy Spirit."
I think that Neil is suggesting that little baby John the B heard Mary and thought, "Wow, that's my cousin... and he's God's Son!! And also, that means that we have an innate right to life that rules out all other interests!" But the text doesn't say ANY of that. It just factually doesn't.
Unborn babies DO respond to sound in the mother's womb, but it's not like they're recognizing family structures or complex philosophical matters of human rights.
You all know this, right?
And if I tell you 1,000 times, Marshal, that I am NOT saying, "It has to be these exact words for it to be correct..." AND each time I tell you that, I whack you in the butt with a 2x4, will you understand that I AM not saying that, that I have NEVER said that and that your stupidly false claim is, well, just another stupidly false claim?
"Yes. Yes, I can. Because THAT is reality. You see how it's done? You recognize reality and then you admit it."
Then you're truly as insipid and moronic as when you said ""But God literally never said that the fetus is equivalent to a born living human being", because the point is that it's an inane to suppose He had to literally say it in Scripture in order for it to be true. He doesn't. He already said He created us in His image and likeness and it's why we aren't to be murdered by each other. We were created when we were conceived. So THE REALITY is that all who are created are possessed of the right to life. Even scumbags like you. Scumbags like you who suggest that because God didn't say something in just a certain way, with the exact words that satisfy the likes of you, then you scumbags can pretend you can ignore His plain meaning. Where does He differentiate between those in the womb and those whose mothers didn't murder them while they were still in there? Answer: no where. Those in the womb are where they're supposed to be at that stage of development and there is no point after conception where they magically become worthy of living unmolested by murderers. We're all worthy from the time we were conceived because each of us is the same person at 100 as we were at the moment of conception. THIS is self-evidently true BECAUSE you can't come up with an intelligent, science or Scripture based argument against it. I don't need to prove what is self-evidently true, just as you suppose you don't need to prove what you say is self-evidently true of your own right to life. Indeed, you were even more worthy when you were gestating and had no exposure to the stupidity upon which you've based your ideology.
The Scripture Neil cites has no purpose for existing except to say that John was aware of the presence of Jesus. If it was just some normal movement in the womb for any other reason, it would have no significance to anything and thus no reason to be mentioned by Luke. So nice try attempting to once again corrupt Scripture. This passage, among other things, does indeed indicate recognition by John, and then his mother, regarding who was approaching.
You can deny you demand exact wording before being man enough to admit you're wrong or I'm right about Scripture, but your constant petulance belies that claim. So again, you do indeed say that "in not so many words". Don't lie about it. That's what YOUR blog is for.
The irony of you saying I demand exact wording when I clearly tell you I DON’T demand exact wording and you saying, "not in so many words..." it's just pathetically funny.
In the Bible, the penalty for causing the death of a fetus is a fine. The penalty for causing the death of a person is death. That seems to me like a pretty clear indication that the Bible does not treat a fetus as equivalent to a person.
"But God literally never said that the fetus is equivalent to a born living human being. It is literally not in The Bible. Can you just admit that much reality? You all are adding to the text what is not there."
1. You're right, those specific words in that specific order, in English, are not there.
2. Like many things, we can take the clear, direct words that are there and derive principles. For example, God objects to the unjustified taking of human life.
"Over and over again, Marshal (at least) says the text doesn't mean what it literally says over and over again."
Actually, I've never seen Art say exactly that. If you're going to make these sorts of claims, you'll have to provide the exact quotes and exact context of those quotes.
I think where Art objects is your insistence on woodenly literally taking that passage as the one and only reason Jesus came, and as the entirety of The Gospel, excluding all of the other reasons Jesus gave. Art might, object to your insistence that the "poor" in that passage are ONLY the materially poor, to the exclusion of all other possible types of poverty. But I'm confident that he has no objection to what the text actually says, in the context of all of Jesus teachings, as opposed you your hunches about what it means, which don't align with the context of the rest of Jesus' teachings.
Neil,
That just can't be possible. Babies in the womb only react to the voices of their immediate families, so it would be impossible for John to have reacted to Mary (who's voice he'd never heard) or to have known that Jesus was anointed by God from conception. Seriously, Dan has told you so, and you should just accept it as Truth.
This raises a question. It's safe to say that the vast majority of the American Political Left would be encouraging Mary to abort Jesus. I wonder how many of the Evangelicals for Biden types would have a problem with Mary aborting Jesus? Or adopting the Roman practice of leaving unwanted children exposed to the elements and predators after they were born?
May 13, 2022 at 7:48 AM
"The irony of you saying I demand exact wording when I clearly tell you I DON’T demand exact wording and you saying, "not in so many words..." it's just pathetically funny."
I'm so happy you're entertained. Here's more irony: Saying "it 'literally' doesn't say that" suggest it literally must in order for it to be true of worthy of your acceptance...as if you accept any truths in Scripture. So you can tell me you don't demand exact wording while you tell me Scripture "'literally' doesn't say that" and continue pretending you're being consistent and honest. But I find that pathetically funny.
Also ironic about your objection is how while you claim a position isn't literally stated in Scripture, you never bring alternative understandings (and certainly not with any supporting evidence) to bolster the claim my understanding of what is so clear is somehow wrong. Well...maybe that's not irony, but it's routine failure on your part.
Vinny!!! What a pleasant surprise. You must have been at a loss for else to do. Whatever the reason, I sincerely welcome you back!
"In the Bible, the penalty for causing the death of a fetus is a fine."
This was suggested in a similar discussion at Dan's...the one which prompted this thread I believe...and the passage cited to back it up was Exodus 21:22–25. If that's your source for your claim, then for you I also offer this from Greg Koukl. Dan and his troll were unable to rebute this in any intelligent manner, in that nothing they said affirmed or confirmed the passage referred to a dead child only. According to Koukl and others he cites in the article, it suggests a premature birth caused by the scuffle. This isn't in any way unheard of. A premature birth would compel a more serious situation than a normal, full term birth, which can mean added expense. This is a far more logical explanation for a fine, while if the premature birth results in a dead child, then the eye-for-an-eye consequence comes into play.
If you have another passage which supports your position, or another scholarly explanation which rebuts Koukl's, I'd be happy to see it.
Again, good to virtually see you. Hope you stop by again. I always found you far more intelligent and challenging than most of those with whom I've contended.
Craig,
You summary of my positions and arguments is a great one. It captures my commentaries really well. Indeed, almost as if it's painfully obvious. Funny.
Among Dan's many problems is his poor understanding of what "literal" means when those like me say I take Scripture literally. What's more, it's a word he employs as it suits his preferences compelled by his socialist bent.
Craig...
"It's safe to say that the vast majority of the American Political Left would be encouraging Mary to abort Jesus."
Yet another damned and stupidly false claim. I have never - not ONE SINGLE TIME -Encouraged anyone to get an abortion. Of all my liberal friends, none of them have encouraged someone to get an abortion. It just doesn't generally happen in the real world.
What we support, as we've been clear, is people making those kind of decisions for themselves. We don't want Craig, Marshal, your preacher, your senator, your political party to make medical decisions for other people.. Get the hell out of people's bedrooms, uteruses, pants, medical decision, life decisions.
And please, just stop with the stupidly false claims. Y'all are an embarrassment to conservatism.
Hi Marshall,
My day used to consist of sitting in front of a computer all day waiting for something to happen, which left me plenty of time to roam the blogosphere. I spend much less time in front of a computer these days, though.
Regarding Koukl:
I have no expertise in ancient languages, but I know that the people who produce the NIV, NKJV, NASB, and NAB are scholars of ancient languages who spend endless hours trying to decide which word best captures the meaning of the ancient Hebrew of the Old Testament and the ancient Greek of the New Testament. I can't tell you why most translators choose to use “miscarry” when translating Exodus 21:22, but I have no doubt that they have reasons. I also have no doubt that Koukl knows why it's translated that way, and the fact that he doesn't deal with those counter-arguments makes me reluctant to accept his position.
There is one aspect of Koukl's argument that I do feel capable of addressing, and that is his explanation of the fine:
Babies born prematurely require special care. Because their prenatal development has been interrupted, they are especially prone to difficulty. Pre-term babies often can’t breast feed, and there can be respiratory problems leading to permanent brain damage. The fine represents reimbursement for the expense of an untimely birth, and punitive damages for the serious trauma.
According to Koukl's interpretation, the fine is for the occasions when there is no injury to either the mother or the baby. Respiratory problems leading to brain damage and inability to breast feed are clearly serious injuries resulting from a premature live birth. In such cases, there wouldn't be a fine under Koukl's interpretation.
In the ancient world, a quarter of the babies born died before their first birthday and another quarter died before they reached adulthood. Without neonatal intensive care units and incubators, there was very little that could be done for premature babies with respiratory problems who couldn't breast feed. When so many live births resulted in early deaths, I doubt that many people spent much time thinking about the souls of fetuses that miscarried.
According to Koukl's interpretation, the fine in Exodus 21:22 is intended to address the narrow situation where two men are fighting and somehow cause a pregnant woman to go into premature labor, but the baby is born alive without injury to the baby or the mother. Under the more common translation, it addresses any situation that causes the mother to lose the pregnancy. The more usual translation makes much more sense to me.
re: Exodus 21:
1. Do you believe in the concept of trying to understand what a text meant to those who first heard/read it?
2. Have you ever looked at what ancient Hebrews (or modern, for that matter) thought of the passage in question?
3. Would it surprise you to know that Jewish and ancient Hebrew people have considered this to mean just what it sounds like? That if you cause a child to die, it's not the same as a murder/killing of a birthed human being?
4. IF you found out that was true, would you be able to admit, "Yes, that verse likely says that a fetus being killed was not handled in the same way a born human being killed would be handled?"
4a. "...And that indeed, they were talking about killing the fetus/causing a miscarriage, and not causing the child to be born early?"
5. Can you see how these are reasonable questions to ask?
6. Would you like me to point out sources that tell us what ancient Hebrews thought on this topic? (the sources I read ALL say that they interpreted it to mean "cause to miscarry" or "cause the fetus to die" and I haven't found any that disagree)
6a. Even if we could find SOME scholars who say that some people think that ancient Hebrews didn't understand it to be miscarry, that it then becomes a "we don't know - some Hebrew scholars say they understood it to be "cause the fetus to die" and others don't?
May 13, 2022 at 12:58 PM
"Yet another damned and stupidly false claim. I have never - not ONE SINGLE TIME -Encouraged anyone to get an abortion. Of all my liberal friends, none of them have encouraged someone to get an abortion. It just doesn't generally happen in the real world."
Have you been confronted by a girl worried about having been knocked up, expressed her fear of being unprepared financially and emotionally, or expressed fear of what her parents might thing of her being proven sexually immoral and stupid? If not, nor if your lefty friends haven't, then puffing up your chest and posturing as noble doesn't impress. However, support for legal abortions is encouragement, as it is the opposite of DIScouragement to enable it in any way.
"What we support, as we've been clear, is people making those kind of decisions for themselves."
Also encouragement, as you support people deciding for themselves to murder their children when providing for them is inconvenient.
"We don't want Craig, Marshal, your preacher, your senator, your political party to make medical decisions for other people."
What you don't want is anyone preventing people from murdering their children if they have their doctor do it for them like a hired gun, under the guise of being a "medical decision". You know, they get real clinical when they inject drugs into criminals sentenced to death. But they're still killing someone without their consent. But at least in the latter case, it's someone who, quite like pro-abort women and their abortionist doctors, murdered someone.
"Get the hell out of people's bedrooms, uteruses, pants, medical decision, life decisions."
If your wife chooses to murder you in your bedroom, should law enforcement not act to prevent he from doing so? Does it matter where you're located if your wife wishes to murder you? If she does it because she says her life or health is at risk (when, like women seeking abortions, it isn't), does it then become a medical decision to murder you? It's clearly, for her, a life decision.
"And please, just stop with the stupidly false claims. Y'all are an embarrassment to conservatism."
Says the guy who insists Bruce Jenner is a woman!
Vinny,
First, I corrected my spelling, which I let slide for quite a while. "Marshal Art" is my correct blog moniker. I did a post on why I the spelling required correction some time ago. Just a FYI. I don't stress anyone using the old way.
"My day used to consist of sitting in front of a computer all day waiting for something to happen..."
How can I get a job like that? I'm all but retired at this point. Still deciding on whether I need to work or not.
Back to business...
"I also have no doubt that Koukl knows why it's translated that way, and the fact that he doesn't deal with those counter-arguments makes me reluctant to accept his position."
I believe his article does just that. He mentions those who are "especially adamant", as he puts it, in interpreting it as those who use the passage in support of abortion. He even mentions one specifically. But Koukl references every use of the original Hebrew, as well as mentions there are better words which could be chosen if miscarriage or delivering a dead child was intended by the verse...words which actually mean miscarriage or abortion. Thus, it's up to others to argue why his explanation is flawed. I would note also, that he begins his article with a bit of an admonition to pro-lifers regarding the verses they use to support their side of the debate. I don't see that he leaves any bases uncovered.
"...his explanation of the fine..."
I spoke to the very point myself in much the same way.
Despite problems experienced by premature infants, this passage still doesn't mean there's no possibility that premature couldn't be, say, a week early. Such a child would likely have no particular problems. The passage simply doesn't insist on the notion the child is dead or setting that aside, that the person causing the premature delivery wouldn't be put to death if the child died because of the premature delivery. So nothing in the passage suggests the child is less than person in any case. Koukl's reference to fines for the death of a slave and how that doesn't mean the slave is sub-human.
Koukl's interpretation is based on the actual language from which we get our translations. It focus on the actual words, their meanings and their usage in this and other passages to determine the best understanding. Thus, it's not enough to disagree because of what "seems to make sense". His covers every angle the situation might present, for which the passage itself presents appropriate actions.
May 13, 2022 at 6:48 PM
"re: Exodus 21:
1. Do you believe in the concept of trying to understand what a text meant to those who first heard/read it?"
Indeed. I'd say I consider that more seriously than you do, and that goes for the writings of our founding fathers.
"2. Have you ever looked at what ancient Hebrews (or modern, for that matter) thought of the passage in question?"
I suppose you have a wealth of resources of thousands of ancient writers?
"3. Would it surprise you to know that Jewish and ancient Hebrew people have considered this to mean just what it sounds like? That if you cause a child to die, it's not the same as a murder/killing of a birthed human being?"
Yeah. It would very much surprise me given the words used in the passage don't express that in the least, as Greg Koukl so expertly explained. Maybe you should seriously and prayerfully study it. He doesn't use big words.
"4. IF you found out that was true, would you be able to admit, "Yes, that verse likely says that a fetus being killed was not handled in the same way a born human being killed would be handled?"
4a. "...And that indeed, they were talking about killing the fetus/causing a miscarriage, and not causing the child to be born early?""
Do you have such proof? If not, then I'll go with one of the most learned of people and how they understand the ancient language they've studied.
"5. Can you see how these are reasonable questions to ask?"
No. I don't see how any of the questions you ask when you're up against the wall are reasonable. "If you found out the sun was ice cold, would you stop saying it's hot?" If I found out what I thought was true was not, then I'd know the truth. But you have no evidence to suggest that God treated the unborn with less respect than the born...that He didn't put on them equal value because they're also created in His image and likeness. You just really want to believe that's the case because you think it gives you liberty to murder the unborn.
"6. Would you like me to point out sources that tell us what ancient Hebrews thought on this topic? (the sources I read ALL say that they interpreted it to mean "cause to miscarry" or "cause the fetus to die" and I haven't found any that disagree)"
Post a list at your blog. Include why they're worth a damn.
"6a. Even if we could find SOME scholars who say that some people think that ancient Hebrews didn't understand it to be miscarry, that it then becomes a "we don't know - some Hebrew scholars say they understood it to be "cause the fetus to die" and others don't?"
There's no "if" about it. Koukl cites two in the article, which you'd know if you actually read the links I offer as if you care about truth (a great stretch for you, I know, but you like to posture as giving a shit about truth and facts). So that makes three right there. He cites those who express your position, but implies they're not keeping in mind how the words used in the passage are used throughout Scripture. You'd know this if you read the article.
However, though you need to believe "we can't know" so as to pretend you won't be held accountable for enabling the murder of millions, the fact that some scholars you prefer are differ only means one side is wrong. If your side can't give as clean and fact-based explanation for their position as did Koukl, then it doesn't matter how many of them you can cite. So, if you make the effort, I'd suggest you pick two or three of the best. If they can prove the original language is used anywhere to mean a dead kid drops out and isn't treated like any other person wrongly killed, then we can talk.
Re: Koukls rather middling effort at biblical eisegesis... here's a response about Koukl and his less-than-astute biblical reasoning in general that is appropos of his hunches about interpreting ancient Hebrew passages.
http://incongruouscircumspection.blogspot.com/2011/11/response-to-greg-koukls-ancient-words.html?m=1
Since you appear to be saying that you don't care about facts, you just want someone to affirm your partisan traditions, I'll do as you say and cite the Jewish sources that dare to disagree with Koukl about this text on my blog.
I held out hope that it would stand to reason that if you were presented with evidence that your more modern traditions are wrong, you'd gladly choose to be right rather than choose to stick with your modern traditions.
More's the pity.
But while I'm waiting to put in on my blog, here's the short version of the passage from a Jewish scholar...
"The Hebrew Bible makes only one reference to abortion, and this is by implication. Exodus 21:22-23 states: “And if two men strive together and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follows, he shall be surely fined, accordingly as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, though shalt give life for life....”
...According to the ancient rabbis, the text is to be read simply as written. The Bible talks of a woman who is hurt by a man in a fight and miscarries as a result. Monetary restitution is paid for her miscarriage. But if the woman dies, then one must give a life for a life. The passage thus implies that the fetus is not alive, but that the mother is.
THE INTERPRETATION is straightforward and matches the Hebrew original precisely. According to the Jewish interpretation the Bible only says that the woman, rather than her fetus, is living...
...the Christian tradition disputing this view goes back to a mistranslation in the Septuagint, the early Greek translation of the Bible that sometimes contains significant errors (see my book Kosher Jesus for a comprehensive list). There, the Hebrew for “no harm follows” was replaced by the Greek for “[her child be born] imperfectly formed.”
This interpretation, distinguishing between an unformed and a formed fetus and branding the killing of the latter as murder, was accepted by Tertullian and by later church fathers and was subsequently embodied as canon law and in Justinian law. In the Christian interpretation, therefore, both parts of the verse refer not to the mother’s life, but to the fetus’s. And the verse concludes that you must “give life for life,” meaning a fetus is fully alive and destroying a fetus constitutes murder, punishable by death.
...Judaism, however, strongly disputes this interpretation, which is not faithful to the Hebrew original.
Therefore, the Talmud declares (Ohalot 7:6): “If a woman is in hard travail [and her life cannot otherwise be saved], one cuts up the child in her womb and extracts it member by member, because her life comes before that of the [the child]. But if the greater part [or the head] was delivered, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person’s life for the sake of another.”
A fetus is only alive when it is born, not before."
Read the whole article. Or read the other articles referencing actual Jewish understanding (ancient and modern) that address this more modern revisionist view accepted (and presumptuously insisted upon) by today's conservatives.
It's written by Shmuley Boteach, an orthodox Jewish rabbi, whom the rather conservative The Jerusalem Post named one of the 50 most influential Jews in the world.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/columnists/is-abortion-in-christianity-a-mistranslation-of-bible
There are many others who say the same thing.
I wonder if Koukl ever studied Hebrew? If he's an expert in it?
I wonder if it makes more sense to trust a modern conservative partisan over many Jewish scholars on matters of ancient Hebrew?
Can you see why many reasonable people might be inclined to trust Jewish scholars over conservative Christian apologists on the matter of ancient Hebrew words?
More.
Ancient Hebrews just did not consider a fetus a child until post birth (indeed, maybe even until 13 or 40 days post birth!)
"An unborn fetus in Jewish law is not considered a person (Heb. nefesh, lit. “soul”) until it has been born. The fetus is regarded as a part of the mother’s body and not a separate being until it begins to egress from the womb during parturition (childbirth). In fact, until forty days after conception, the fertilized egg is considered as “mere fluid.”"
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish-law/
And...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2582082/
Hi Marshal,
I'm not sure whether I ever knew that Marshal was your first name. I thought is might be Art.
I used to sit in front of a computer all day waiting for something to happen when I traded stock options. When I started losing money at it, I stopped trading.
Back to Koukl:
He mentions those who are "especially adamant", as he puts it, in interpreting it as those who use the passage in support of abortion.
I'm not talking about pro-choice people who use Exodus 21:22 to argue against the personhood of the fetus. I'm talking about the scholars who produced the New King James Version, the New International Version, the New American Bible, and all the other versions that use the word “miscarry” or “miscarriage” to translate the verse. Does Koukl actually believe that these men translated the word as “miscarry” because they wanted the verse to supported abortions rights? They did it because they thought it best represented the meaning of the text. Given how many accomplished scholars have reached that conclusion, I place the burden on Koukl to address their reasons for translating the verse they way they did. He doesn't.
Some of Koukl's arguments are just silly:
As you can see, it’s common for yasa to describe the “coming forth” of something living, frequently a child.
I don't get this one at all. It's common for the English word “fall” to describe a living thing that falls. Often that thing is a child. That doesn't mean that the word “fall” implies anything about whether the thing that is falling is alive. The fact that the Old Testament talks about living things “coming forth” doesn't mean that the term “coming forth” tells you anything about whether the thing that is “coming forth” is alive or not. You have to look at the context and most of the eminent scholars who translated the text have come to the conclusion that this usage of coming forth in Exodus 21:22 doesn't refer to something alive.
Moses had words in his vocabulary that literally meant abortion or miscarriage, but he didn’t use them in Exodus 21:22.
This argument is misleading rather than silly. Assuming that Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch, in order to determine what words were in his vocabulary, you have to look at what he wrote. Koukl doesn't. He looks to Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Job, which were written hundreds of years later. You can't use these to determine what words Moses's knew any more than you could use the Wall Street Journal to determine what words were part of George Washington's vocabulary. As Koukl points out, the same Hebrew word used in Exodus 21:22 is used by Moses (assuming again that Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch) to refer to a dead baby “coming forth” in Numbers 12:12.
The fine represents reimbursement for the expense of an untimely birth, and punitive damages for the serious trauma.
This contradicts the passage. The fine is for the situation when there is “no injury.” How is serious serious trauma not an injury? The consensus translation leads to a perfectly logical rule: a fine for the loss of a fetus and the normal legal penalty for any injury to the mother. Under Koukl's translation, there is a fine even though both the mother and baby are unharmed.
I agree that this verse doesn't prove that a fetus isn't a person, but it does show that the death of a fetus is not treated the same as the death of someone who has been born.
Vinny,
Regarding your time with stock options...I've always had an interest. I feel I know just enough to get myself in big trouble. Currently, I'm in a period of flux, having moved to S. Carolina and unsure if I will work or completely retire and how much I'll work if I don't retire totally. In other words, I'm considering no more than part time work if I work at all in order to do things my wife's income (she may never retire...she's weird that way) might not accommodate. I'd be interested in learning of your experience with options. If you're willing, my email should still be on my profile page. If not, that's OK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fact that the Old Testament talks about living things “coming forth” doesn't mean that the term “coming forth” tells you anything about whether the thing that is “coming forth” is alive or not."
But that's the very point Koukl makes about the words being used and how they're commonly used. He cites four verses from Genesis in making that point after saying, "What’s most interesting is to see how frequently yasa refers to the emergence of a living thing:" He then cites the Genesis verses.
"You have to look at the context and most of the eminent scholars who translated the text have come to the conclusion that this usage of coming forth in Exodus 21:22 doesn't refer to something alive."
That's exactly what Koukl's doing...looking at the context. As to eminent scholars who translated the text, I would first need to know that a given scholar actually did the heavy lifting of studying the ancient language for himself. To what extent Koukl may or may not have done this I do not know. But he does reference other scholars who are just as adamant in support of his position (or quite possibly provided the reasoning which informed his position) as those he says believe it supports abortion or the lack of full personhood of the unborn.
For my part, I've been trying to find such eminent scholars...one either side of the issue...and thus far haven't been satisfied with what I've found. Thus, I'm not convinced "most" support one or the other as yet.
"I don't get this one at all. It's common for the English word “fall” to describe a living thing that falls. Often that thing is a child. That doesn't mean that the word “fall” implies anything about whether the thing that is falling is alive."
I don't get this at all. Where was the word "fall" referenced in the article or the passage? But his point regarding the actual word used suggests the coming out of a living thing as his several Genesis verses affirm. To truly question his position here would require finding how many uses of the term don't imply a living thing and seeing if there are more of them than the other. And in just looking at the passage itself, one would can see there is allowances for the child being dead or killed by the action of being physically impacted in the struggle. Thus I would love to see those eminent scholars explain how it means a dead kid and only dead kid is being referenced in the passage. Clearly there such scholars. The question is, are they correct? Being a scholar in no way guarantees that.
"This argument is misleading rather than silly. Assuming that Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch, in order to determine what words were in his vocabulary, you have to look at what he wrote. Koukl doesn't."
Yes he does. As I mentioned above, Koukl cites four passages from Genesis.
"As Koukl points out, the same Hebrew word used in Exodus 21:22 is used by Moses (assuming again that Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch) to refer to a dead baby “coming forth” in Numbers 12:12."
But as he explains, the Numbers verse is not using the word to indicate the child is dead. It says specifically it's dead before the coming out part follows. Thus, the context does not indicate the word in the Exodus passage doesn't mean a living child coming out. More importantly, Koukl demonstrates at least some honesty in acknowledging this can be an exception to the rule. Exceptions to rules don't negate rules.
"Under Koukl's translation, there is a fine even though both the mother and baby are unharmed."
That's because a premature birth is a more difficult situation than a normal birth. But a premature birth doesn't suggest injury, so there's no inconsistency or contradiction in the passage which suggests any flaw in Koukl's translation of the passage.
I think you need to read Koukl's essay again. It does not show a difference in how the fetus is treated versus the mother. Indeed, it clearly argues against that by virtue of what the original language means.
May 14, 2022 at 9:15 AM
Dan loves irony. He loves irony so much he'll bathe in it. He begins this comment thusly:
"Koukls rather middling effort at biblical eisegesis"
First, it is another typical display of Dan's unjustified belief he could legitimately condescend to better people, this time to Koukl. Anyone who's ever read any of Dan's understanding of Scripture gets smacked in the face with this wonderful irony. "Middling effort"??? Dan should be so lucky to have his explanations of Scripture rise to this low level he dares apply to someone clearly so much more knowledgeable!
Secondly, "eisegesis". Again, this drips with irony given Dan's CONSTANT imposition of his own preferences and biases into Scripture. The word can't be honestly applied to Koukl, especially by one like Dan who's "Christ" never existed except in his own fevered imaginings. Koukl's analysis of Exodus 21:22-25 is drawn from a serious study of the original language...the words of that language and how they're used, not only in the passage in question, but in other passages so as to more fully understanding their meaning in this one. That's not "eisegesis" or anything that looks like it. Rather, it's a solid example of "exegesis"...one of many words of which Dan has no intelligent, adult understanding.
Dan then further demonstrates his ignorance by daring again to condescend in his unjustifiable arrogance to Koukl's regarding his "less-than-astute biblical reasoning in general". Nonsense. Dan believes he accomplishes this by citing some dude named Joe Sands, as if Joe Sands is another of Dan's vaunted "experts". Yet I haven't found as yet anything to suggest he's anymore than just a guy with an opinion. That's fine. Unlike Dan and his sock-puppet, feodor, I don't need to see sheepskin to appreciate the ability of a non-scholar-by-trade to beautifully analyze Scripture. And I certainly don't need a degree in theology to know a good argument when I see it, and I clearly see it in Koukl's piece and not in Dan's "expert", Joe Sands. Let's look at a bit of Sands' critique of Koukl (which isn't referencing Koukl's Exodus 21 analysis):
Right from the top, Sands gets it wrong:
"Koukl is squeezing the exact opposite intent of Chapter 23 in Mere Christianity that Lewis was putting forth. Koukl says that the words of the Bible are the map and uses Lewis' quote as an apt pointer to that end. C.S. Lewis, was rather speaking of the importance of experience in life and theology."
This is absolutely not the case. Jumping ahead just a bit, he says:
"Koukl, on the other hand, asserts that the paraphrased quote is proof from a great writer that experience was worthless and should be discounted."
But Koukl isn't say that at all. He's agreeing with Lewis about the need for theology, which in this case Koukl offers Scripture for that purpose, and I would insist Lewis does as well. Indeed, Lewis as much regards experience as worthless without the map just as does Koukl, even lamenting the type of "theology" so common to the "progressives" of today...which is "feelings" based making the actual Word of God subordinate.
(By the way, Sands' link to Koukl's essay didn't work. That's OK. Koukl's link to Lewis' didn't work, either. I had to do my own hunting to find them...which wasn't at all hard. It can be done, Dan.)
Sands then goes on to criticize further:
"What Koukl doesn't do is to cite people he may consider to be real Christians. He never cites stalwarts like George Meuller, Elizabeth Elliot, or even Amy Carmichael - who wrote many books about pain and suffering experiences that taught her about who God was, to her. This is a classic way to use facts to skew your argument toward your agenda. Perfectly legitimate experiences by real human beings that give them an extrabiblical sense of who God is - for THEM!"
What Sands doesn't do is explain why Koukl must when Koukl's premise is "God is the ultimate author and His word is the last word." and that "God has spoken supernaturally in the Bible".
He doesn't crap on the experiences of anyone, but acknowledges their limitations...limitations which necessarily subordinate experience to God's written Word in Scripture. Indeed, to quote Sands, "To start out on this footing is a poor foreshadowing of what to expect in this article."
Then, immediately following the posting of the link to this Sands article, Dan engages in some professional leftist projection in saying (IRONY ALERT!!!):
"Since you appear to be saying that you don't care about facts, you just want someone to affirm your partisan traditions..."
This is exactly what Dan's posting of the Sands' piece is...posting someone who affirms Dan's disdain for Koukl, which he holds due to Koukl's Exodus analysis blowing up his pro-abortion position.
The irony continues:
"I held out hope that it would stand to reason... (I see what you did there, Dan. You must have gotten a tingle in your lady parts when you thought of that one.) "...that if you were presented with evidence that your more modern traditions are wrong, you'd gladly choose to be right rather than choose to stick with your modern traditions."
Koukl presented solid evidence which, were Dan an honest boy, he would choose to be right, rather than right with the modern leftist ideology. In that, Dan pretends it is MY traditions which are modern, which, it stands to reason, is counter intuitive. Traditions are the product of what began in the past, not in modernity. But then, Dan's an idiot.
The response to this comment took me longer than I expected due to interruptions here in Marshal Art Manor. I'll get to the next two soon.
I've read a good bit of Stand to Reason over the years. Never have been impressed by any of their writers. They make the same reasoning errors that you do, Marshal, although they tend to at least sound half-way intelligent. In my estimation, they are unintelligent people's notion of what intelligent people sound like.
I used to ask questions there. Politely. Respectfully. They eventually banned me like so many others have - NOT because I was disrespectful or rude... just because they saw that I didn't agree with them and couldn't be bullied into agreeing with then and so, they just gave up when they couldn't stand up to reason.
Marshal... " In that, Dan pretends it is MY traditions which are modern"
Modern as in medieval/since the middle ages (and much of it even more modern - in the last 200 years and some of it, more Gingrich and Trumpian than anything else), but not ancient like the Bible and certainly not like the New Testament.
May 16, 2022 at 8:07 PM
I got a good laugh at the comment posted at the above date and time. Never have you exposed a reasoning error on my part, and that's conceding I'm no genius...which doesn't speak well for someone who pretends to be one who "reasons" (*snicker*). You're not impressed with those at STR because "...you don't care about facts, you just want someone to affirm your partisan traditions..." You regard them as unintelligent and yet you can't find fault with the Koukl piece I presented here. You regard them as unintelligent, yet you get a stiffy from Joe Sands' poor attempt to rebut Koukl at his blog. Like "reason", "conservatism", "morality", Christianity" and a host of other words and terms, you clearly don't understand what "intelligence" is. At least you've never demonstrated any. It's why you delete my comments at your blog.
"I used to ask questions there. Politely. Respectfully. They eventually banned me like so many others have - NOT because I was disrespectful or rude... just because they saw that I didn't agree with them and couldn't be bullied into agreeing with then(sic)..."
That's hilarious, too. Knowing at least a few who have banned you or have chosen to no longer engage with you, I can attest and confirm it had never been because "you couldn't be bullied into agreeing with them". That's just stupid on its face. They likely banned you because you're a moron who doesn't accept "evidence that your more modern traditions are wrong", among a host of other valid and well known reasons (well known to all of us who engage with you or used to). It is YOU who crumbles before reason yet like the Black Knight with no arms or legs still thinks he's winning. You're a putz.
May 16, 2022 at 8:14 PM
You support abortion and sexual immorality. Neither of these are Judeo-Christian traditions. You support taking money from those who have in order to pretend YOU are helping the poor. This is not a Judeo-Christian tradition. Everything I believe about these three things are exactly aligned with Jude-Christian teaching as clearly revealed in Scripture.
You support abortion and sexual immorality. Neither of these are Judeo-Christian traditions.
Sexual immorality isn't a Judeo-Christian tradition? Have you never read the Old Testament?
That I do not think the government should criminalize either sexual immorality (between consenting adults) or abortion does not mean that I support either one. It means that I recognize that criminal penalties are not an effective means of dealing with some problems. One reason I vote for Democrats is because I think that their policies are more likely than those of the Republicans to reduce the number of abortions.
"Sexual immorality isn't a Judeo-Christian tradition? Have you never read the Old Testament?"
Sounds like a snarky rejoinder. The tradition to which I referred, and Dan pretends isn't true, regards Biblical teaching regarding sexual morality and the taking of innocent life. Scripture opposes both and that's Judeo-Christian tradition, regardless of whether or not stories in Scripture contain depictions of either.
"That I do not think the government should criminalize either sexual immorality (between consenting adults) or abortion does not mean that I support either one. It means that I recognize that criminal penalties are not an effective means of dealing with some problems."
Clearly there are no criminal penalties which have a perfect effect on behavior, or else capital punishment would result in no murders being committed. But it is effective when allied with other methods of changing hearts and minds. Even if one doesn't oppose a particular behavior personally, criminal penalties for engaging in a given behavior affect whether or not one engages in that behavior. For example, prior to my having obtained a CDL, I liked to take a toke now and then. With the rules regarding that behavior and the testing which could expose it were I to continue, I could lose my license and thus, I have chosen to abstain from the doobage ever since. Thus, the penalty affected by behavior.
As regards abortion, the Roe v Wade ruling did indeed affect the number of abortions which occurred after it's passing versus before. It exploded, in fact, before leveling off to the approximately 800K of them per year we now see. What's more, along with laws allowing the practice which were already in place, this ruling led to more women (and scumbag dudes) believing it was somehow "OK" and not the vile practice it is. "Legal" is too often associated in the minds of too many as "moral". We've seen this also with general attitude towards perversions associated with LGBTs becoming more widely tolerated, or at least regarded with a higher degree of toleration, and worse, penalties for opposing it forcing tolerance where it wouldn't normally exist.
"One reason I vote for Democrats is because I think that their policies are more likely than those of the Republicans to reduce the number of abortions."
I'd be greatly interested in hearing why you think this is even possibly true.
Let's get back to Koukl:
That's because a premature birth is a more difficult situation than a normal birth. But a premature birth doesn't suggest injury, so there's no inconsistency or contradiction in the passage which suggests any flaw in Koukl's translation of the passage.
That's not what Koukl said. He talked about inability to feed, oxygen deprivation, brain damage, and trauma. That's why his explanation for the fine makes no sense.
I was curious to see if there were any other situations in which a fine was imposed on someone when no one had suffered an injury, so I did a keyword search. The only other fine I found in the Pentateuch is in Deuteronomy 22:19, where a bridegroom is fined 100 shekels for falsely accusing his bride of not being a virgin. Of course, if the bridegroom is right, the girl is stoned to death.
You are correct that there needn't be any injury simply because a baby is a week or two early. It also needn't be a difficult situation in any way. Both my children were a couple weeks early, and they were healthy with uncomplicated deliveries. In fact, my son was more than three weeks early and weighed eight and one half pounds. He would have been over ten pounds if he wasn't early, which might have been a difficult situation.
I don't get this at all. Where was the word "fall" referenced in the article or the passage?
“Fall” isn't in the passage or the essay. I gave it as an example of a verb that doesn't tell you whether its subject is a living thing or not even though it's subject often is a living thing. Another example might be “sweat”: the subject of “sweat” is usually a living thing, i.e., a person. Nevertheless, a cold bottle of beer “sweats” on a hot humid day and cheese “sweats” when it ferments, so the verb itself doesn't tell you whether the thing doing the sweating is al or not. By the same token, the Hebrew verb meaning “come forth” doesn't tell you whether the thing coming forth is living or not.
As I mentioned above, Koukl cites four passages from Genesis.
Koukl cites the verses from Genesis to show that the subject of “coming forth” is often something alive (which is irrelevant). To show that Moses had another word meaning “abortion” or “miscarriage,” Koukl cites books written several hundred years later. That's like citing today's Wall Street Journal to show that a particular word was in George Washington's vocabulary.
I'm curious about something you said earlier:
As to eminent scholars who translated the text, I would first need to know that a given scholar actually did the heavy lifting of studying the ancient language for himself. To what extent Koukl may or may not have done this I do not know.
I don't know which translation of the Bible you prefer for your personal study, but aren't you confident that the people who published that translation hired the most accomplished scholars of ancient languages that they could find? Why didn't you need to know what heavy lifting Koukl did before you accepted his reading of the passage? Isn't the real reason you embrace Koukl's translation is that it confirms what already you want to believe?
"That's not what Koukl said. He talked about inability to feed, oxygen deprivation, brain damage, and trauma. That's why his explanation for the fine makes no sense."
Here's the full passage of what Koukl said:
"Babies born prematurely require special care. Because their prenatal development has been interrupted, they are especially prone to difficulty. Pre-term babies often can’t breast feed, and there can be respiratory problems leading to permanent brain damage. The fine represents reimbursement for the expense of an untimely birth, and punitive damages for the serious trauma."
The italicized words indicate possibilities, not absolutes. Pre-term babies often can't, not never can, and there can be respiratory problems, there always will be. The "expense of an untimely birth" would be those situations where more care...and thus more attention by the mother and others involved with a birth...is required to bring the baby along. There's a clear concept of like consequence throughout the Exodus passage which precludes any notion it only speaks of a dead kid.
"I was curious to see if there were any other situations in which a fine was imposed on someone when no one had suffered an injury, so I did a keyword search."
The injury here is to the bride's reputation, which at that time was far more important than today. They took moral purity a lot more seriously than modern western cultures do today (to our detriment) and the false charge against the bride would ruin her chances for future matrimonial options if the charge was wrongly believed. She could be cast out or otherwise shunned. It's not small thing at that time.
"Both my children were a couple weeks early, and they were healthy with uncomplicated deliveries."
If those deliveries were the result of a situation as described in the Exodus passage, there would likely have been expenses related to it, such as an ambulance or some such, due to the spontaneous, unexpected nature of the situation. It might not have added bank breaking extra expense, but it would have been money you wouldn't have otherwise had to spend were it not for your wife being aggressively pushed about.
"By the same token, the Hebrew verb meaning “come forth” doesn't tell you whether the thing coming forth is living or not."
But the context in which it is used, or more to this issue, most commonly used, does and that's his point.
"To show that Moses had another word meaning “abortion” or “miscarriage,” Koukl cites books written several hundred years later."
Koukl does cite two passages where the words (or at least one of them) were used by Moses. Once in both Genesis and Exodus. But more to your point, it doesn't matter if Moses used them at all. The only thing which matters is whether the words existed in his time and thus were available to him. You may recall, he had a better than average education. He wasn't totally dim.
"I don't know which translation of the Bible you prefer for your personal study, but aren't you confident that the people who published that translation hired the most accomplished scholars of ancient languages that they could find?"
Sure. But the point is that I don't find it compelling for one to say what was understood back in ancient times when other scholars provide explanations like Koukl, which indicate the heavy lifting to which I referred.
"Why didn't you need to know what heavy lifting Koukl did before you accepted his reading of the passage?"
It's pretty evident in his explanation. When he cites so many references to the words and their usage, it becomes increasingly clear his conclusion is an accurate reflection of the meaning of the passage with regard to the life of the unborn. It now becomes the obligation of his detractors to show where he's wrong. Of course, he's far from the only person who reads and analyzes the original language as he does, so it's not like he's the Lone Ranger here.
"Isn't the real reason you embrace Koukl's translation is that it confirms what already you want to believe?"
More like he validates my position with regard to the humanity of the unborn and their having the exact same right to life as you do. But I could ask the same of you or Dan. The point is if Koukl's analysis can be honestly rebutted, and will those who try be as willing to concede their position as I am ready to concede mine for a more compelling argument. The safe money is on "no", and Dan will at some point prove that should he make good on his word to provide in that regard.
Of course it matters whether Moses used that word for “miscarriage” or “abortion.” The best evidence that a word was part of George Washington's vocabulary would be him using it in his writing. The next best evidence would be contemporaneous writings by people George Washington knew. It's a pretty good bet that words used by John Adams or Thomas Jefferson were part of Washington's vocabulary as well. The next best would probably be contemporaneous American writings by people Washington didn't know. It's likely that Washington knew most words that were part of common usage, but his usage is much better evidence than common usage.
Documents written hundreds of years later are terrible evidence. Do you think that “misunderestimated” was part of Washington's vocabulary just because. George W. Bush used it? I suppose it's possible that Koukl wasn't actually being dishonest. Maybe he just doesn't understand that a word in use today might not have been in use 300 years ago.
I looked at Koukl's CV and he has a masters degrees in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics and a one in Christian Apologetics. He teaches apologetics. While I have no doubt that he took the Greek and Hebrew classes that most seminarians are required to take (which is much more than I ever did), I can't see anything that suggests he is an expert translator. When I look at the translation committees for the different version of the Bible, I see them filled with men with doctorates who teach ancient languages at the university level.
I don't see any evidence that Koukl did any heavy lifting. Word searches are easy. I can tell you how many times “fine” is used in the Pentateuch because I searched it on BibleGateway.com last night. That was in English of course, but the Greek and Hebrew texts are on line as well and anyone with a seminarian's knowledge of the languages can find out how many times a particular Greek or Hebrew word was used. What I cannot tell you is whether there are any other instances in the Pentateuch of monetary penalties that were not translated using the word “fine.” That would require heavier lifting than I have done.
But unlike you, Koukl also spoke of how words were used. If there are no uses of the words used in the passage in question anywhere else which has a different connotation, how can anyone then presume it somehow has a different connotation in the passage in question, especially with as detailed an analysis of the entire passage which provides the context. And aside from Moses' education level (educated as if Pharaoh's own son), it's quite absurd that he would know "miscarry" (if it's truly the proper translations) and not other words associated with pregnancies. As if that wasn't enough, he was said to have had a close personal relationship with the Deity providing the Law he recorded for the people.
Back to Koukl, regardless of what you think of his credentials, he's still not only deep into Scripture, but has other scholars to help him sort it all out. He names a couple right in the article.
And again, you get hung up on the books Moses didn't write despite being shown where the words in question (all of them) were indeed used by him in the books he did write. Worse, you insist there must have been some change in how words were used between the time of Moses and the next book in which the words in question later appear. On what basis other than you desire it's so? Throughout the OT, God was in contact directly or through His prophets. What makes you think it would have been strange under those conditions for His Word to have remained understood in the same way without alteration? Where's an example of an original word being used so differently as to result in the opposite lesson or rule being taught?
None of these questions required much thinking to provide regarding your objections. In my mind, that is an indictment of your objections rather than my ability to be persuaded from what I believe has been proven well. Dan disparages this as refusing to allow facts to persuade, while in reality, there's been nothing persuasive if so many questions damn near ask themselves.
From the OT to the new, very little changes aside from being made more clear. Between us, we're dealing with a choice between white and black, day and night with regard to what is being said in the Exodus passage. It requires evidence either way, and Koukl provides quite a bit.
I'll say this: I've been reading several other sources about the meaning of this passage with regard to abortion and the right of the unborn to live. I'm waiting for Dan to come through with his alleged evidence which disputes the conclusion Koukl and others have so clearly revealed. I'm not holding my breath that any of it will succeed in rendering it worthless.
The injury here is to the bride's reputation, which at that time was far more important than today. They took moral purity a lot more seriously than modern western cultures do today (to our detriment) and the false charge against the bride would ruin her chances for future matrimonial options if the charge was wrongly believed. She could be cast out or otherwise shunned. It's not small thing at that time.
Really? The Lord God Almighty ordered the Jews to stone to death thirteen-year-old girls because their culture considered purity important? What about God's culture? What I find very interesting is that your reaction is that you wish we took purity as seriously as they did. You realize of course that a thirteen-year-old girl who lost her virginity in that culture might very well have been raped. In fact, I suspect that most thirteen-year-old girls who lost their virginity before marriage in those days did not lose it consensually.
You may not know this, but I wasn't always pro-choice. I became pro-choice as a result of conservative Christians who would defend such practices rather than denouncing their barbarity.
I don't know what words were in Moses's vocabulary other than the ones he used. (Again this is assuming that Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch, which most scholars do not believe). Koukl made an affirmative claim: “Moses had words in his vocabulary that literally meant abortion or miscarriage, but he didn’t use them in Exodus 21:22.” I'm simply pointing out that the passages Koukl cited don't support that claim.
Koukl never cites Moses using the word that “literally meant 'abortion' or 'miscarriage'.” He cites two instances of Moses using a word that, according to Koukl, meant “to be bereaved.” That would indicate that Moses didn't have a word that meant “miscarriage” because he had to resort to a euphemism. Why would he talk about goats “being bereaved” in Genesis 31:38 if he knew a word that literally meant “miscarriage”? Of course Koukl has no problem with the translation of that word.
It's pretty clear that the Pentateuch passages that use “to be bereaved” are referring to spontaneous miscarriages, whereas in Exodus the miscarriage was brought about by an intentional of a third party. That would explain why he uses a different euphemism.
"Really? The Lord God Almighty ordered the Jews to stone to death thirteen-year-old girls because their culture considered purity important?"
No. God ordered the Jews to stone sexually immoral people because HIS culture considered moral purity important. Why did you feel it necessary to presume the bride is only 13 years old? That's a Dan-level tactic...to project onto the issue in contention more evil than it would otherwise contain without doing so. If you don't like the idea of stoning people who sleep around, there's no need to pretend the text is referring to stoning those we now consider children.
"What I find very interesting is that your reaction is that you wish we took purity as seriously as they did."
Of course I do. Our culture would be far better off if we did. There's no denying this. Perhaps you're confused about what that means. It does NOT mean that taking purity as seriously as they did means stoning those who reject it. I wish people took their marital vows more seriously. That doesn't mean I would support stoning adulterers. I hope you better understand my meaning now.
"You realize of course that a thirteen-year-old girl who lost her virginity in that culture might very well have been raped. In fact, I suspect that most thirteen-year-old girls who lost their virginity before marriage in those days did not lose it consensually."
Perhaps. It was a different time and these laws were enacted in a time of rather primitive, unsophisticated attitudes and behaviors. Don't forget...it was about this time justice was refined to "an eye for an eye" from what justice was before it (mostly revenge). I'm unaware of age limits on marriages, for example, and if a girl's body was developed enough to bear children, they were likely married off. But more to the point and far more importantly, you're suggesting that all men would reject a girl or woman as a spouse because they were raped, as if that's the same thing as being slutty. Even in a case where the rape victim was afraid of being rejected were her victim status be made known, it doesn't follow it would necessarily result in a stoning if she was found out. I feel confident there were reasonable people back in those days, regardless of the general primitive nature of the times.
"You may not know this, but I wasn't always pro-choice. I became pro-choice as a result of conservative Christians who would defend such practices rather than denouncing their barbarity."
Not exactly sure what you mean here and what follows might not be what you have in mind. But say two people were exposed as having engaged in some sexually immoral act which the Law required death. The fact of the matter is that the engaging in the act requires it, not the Law. The Law merely reflects that. Thus, I would not disagree that a practicing homosexual couple are deserving of death. But that doesn't mean we as a culture and society is immoral for not imposing such a penalty for those so exposed.
I would add, even if my response doesn't accurately reflect your meaning, it's curious that you would alter your opinion about the sanctity of life because of what some allegedly conservative Christians say. As a conservative Christian myself, I'm not afraid to oppose boldly other ostensibly conservative Christians for positions I believe are wrong.
"I don't know what words were in Moses's vocabulary other than the ones he used."
But it's far more logical to presume his vocabulary extensive given his upbringing and his close personal relationship with God. Just the first part of that sentence is enough. Thus, one must presume with his education, words he didn't use weren't used because he didn't know them. If one is to take that presumption seriously, one then must presume the same for every author who ever wrote a book. "I've read all that guy's books and not once did he use the word 'persnickety' and thus he was unaware of the word." It just doesn't wash.
"(Again this is assuming that Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch, which most scholars do not believe)."
We can list a host of situations where "most" scholars or experts were found to be wrong about what they held to be true. It's a logical fallacy and it requires assuming "most scholars" are right about what they say in order for such a citation to mean anything. To hold an assumption as fact puts one on shaky footing.
"I'm simply pointing out that the passages Koukl cited don't support that claim."
I'm saying it's a very weak angle for you to play, especially to maintain a position on the meaning of the passage in question.
"Koukl never cites Moses using the word that “literally meant 'abortion' or 'miscarriage'.” He cites two instances of Moses using a word that, according to Koukl, meant “to be bereaved.”"
"5309 nephel neh'-fel or nephel {nay'-fel}; from 5307; something fallen, i.e. an abortion:--untimely birth.
7921 shakol shaw-kole' a primitive root; properly, to miscarry, i.e. suffer abortion; by analogy, to bereave (literally or figuratively):--bereave (of children), barren, cast calf (fruit, young), be (make) childless, deprive, destroy, X expect, lose children, miscarry, rob of children, spoil." --Strong's Hebrew Lexicon
Koukl spells the words above differently in his article, which isn't much of a problem given English spellings of words written with the Hebrew alphabet and spoke in the Hebrew language often results in multiple English spellings. These words, which he identified as having been used as Moses, satisfies your demand. But what you ignore, or of which you are unaware, is that precision in translation is not perfect. I met a man who taught English to Japanese immigrants. The toughest part of his job was teaching them American idioms for which there is no Japanese equivalent. He said they don't really employ idioms in their own language (the extent to which this is true is another issue, but the point does not require it). Note the word "love". We know there are multiple words for it in Greek (philos, eros, etc.) for which context isn't important in understand the meaning conveyed by the use of the words. In English, we do. We have words which mean different things depending on usage as well. "Read" can be either something one is doing, or something one did. "Treat" can be something received or something one does. "Fair" can be a carnival-like event or a standard of justice. You get the point. Koukl explains understanding the original words requires understanding the context in which they are used and gives multiple examples to support his interpretation of the passage in question. Thus, to say a word Moses used "literally means..." is a matter of the context in which the word appears.
"He cites two instances of Moses using a word that, according to Koukl, meant “to be bereaved.”"
I'm pretty sure his citations were examples of "abortion" or "miscarriage" being intended, not "bereaved". So the words Moses used do mean what Koukl says because of the context in which they were used.
I would also add to what I've already said, that even the English word "abortion" didn't always mean exactly what it means now. It didn't always denote intent. Thus, this too must be taken into account when understanding why original translations used a given word and why it might not be appropriate for use today to accurate render the intended meaning of an ancient language.
I'm saying it's a very weak angle for you to play, especially to maintain a position on the meaning of the passage in question.
You are right. It's not huge, and it doesn't prove that Koukl's overall conclusion is wrong (nor am I claiming it does). What it does is show that Koukl is an apologist rather than a scholar. A scholar presents the evidence fairly and honestly. A scholar also presents alternatives and objections fairly and honestly, and he deals with them, especially in a case like this when his viewpoint is in the extreme minority. An apologist, on the other hand, overstates the evidence and then pretends that there are no plausible alternatives to his view, and that the only possible reason anyone could have for reaching a different conclusion is bias. Koukl admits that he hasn't been able to persuade any Jewish scholars of his interpretation, but he doesn't explain their objections and he makes no attempt to deal with them.
I will concede that Koukl isn't as bad as many apologists: at least I've never seen him make a ludicrous claim like “the resurrection is the best attested event in history” (although I haven't read everything he's written). That's probably because he still wants to pass himself off as enough of a legitimate scholar to get published in mainstream journals.
God ordered the Jews to stone sexually immoral people because HIS culture considered moral purity important.
No. Yahweh ordered the Jews to stone thirteen-year-old girls who had lost their virginity. Nothing in the passage distinguishes between a girl who loses her virginity by rape and one who loses it voluntarily. Moreover, if it had anything to do with sexual immorality, there would be comparable penalties for the man who raped the thirteen-year-old girl. Instead, he gets to marry the girl if he pays fifty shekels to the father. Interesting that it was cheaper to rape a girl than it was to question her virginity.
Why did you feel it necessary to presume the bride is only 13 years old?
I'm not presuming anything. As you point out, it was common for girls to be married off as soon as they reached the age of fertility, so it's twelve-year-olds and thirteen-year-olds who would have been getting stoned for having lost their virginity. I am always amused when a Christian thinks it's a dirty trick to point out what the Bible actually teaches.
It was a different time and these laws were enacted in a time of rather primitive, unsophisticated attitudes and behaviors.
Once again, you are trying to excuse Yahweh's barbarity by blaming it on the culture of the time. This is the unchanging creator of the universe that we are talking about. Why is He stooping to the level of His people?
[T]t's curious that you would alter your opinion about the sanctity of life because of what some allegedly conservative Christians say.
I didn't change my opinion about the sanctity of life. I changed my opinion about the role the government should play in the issue and the efficacy of criminal penalties.
The Republican party first started pandering to the anti-abortion crowd in the late 1970s. In those days, if the quarterback of the high school football team knocked up the head cheerleader after prom, he could marry her and still hope to have a decent middle class life. He might be able to get a union job in manufacturing that paid well enough that he could buy a house and his wife could stay home with the children. If he wanted to go to college, it might not be easy, but he could still hope to do it without taking on crushing debt. Health care was affordable and he could look forward to retiring with a pension. Then of course, Reagan took office.
When Ronald Reagan took office, the United States was the world's biggest creditor. The United States is now the world's biggest debtor. The United States had a strong manufacturing base, which is now gone. In 1978, the average CEO's compensation was a little over 31 times greater that of the average worker. Today, the average CEO makes more than 350 times the average worker at his company. In 1980, the cost of the average home was about 2.5 times an average worker's yearly salary. Today the average home 4.5 times yearly income and in some markets it's as high as 10 times. The costs of education and health care have skyrocketed.
If today's quarterback marries the cheerleader he knocked up, his prospects would be dismal. This is the direct result of Republican backed economic policies that have funneled the nation's wealth to those who are already massively wealthy while everyone else falls behind.
In my younger days, I used to vote for Republicans from time to time because I thought that they would be better for the economy and that a better economy would benefit the majority of Americans. What happened, though, was that all the benefits of a better economy went to those who were already wealthy. Some Republicans talked a good game about a rising tide lifting all boats, but they weren't going to do anything when it didn't.
I vote Democratic because I believe that a living wage is pro-life. I believe that affordable housing is pro-life. I believe that economic security is pro-life. I believe that economic equality is pro-life. I believe that opposition to white supremacy is pro-life. I believe that affordable health care is pro-life. I believe that affordable education is pro-life. I believe that making things better for women who choose to bring a new life into this world is a better approach than criminalizing women who choose not to.
"What it does is show that Koukl is an apologist rather than a scholar."
A distinction without much difference, particularly as it concerns Koukl's piece about the passage in question.
"A scholar presents the evidence fairly and honestly."
I can't, for the life of me, see how one can suppose Koukl might have done so in any other manner.
"A scholar also presents alternatives and objections fairly and honestly, and he deals with them, especially in a case like this when his viewpoint is in the extreme minority."
Perhaps in a book. Not so much in a simple article striving to get to the point, as with Koukl's. He states the alternative as the reason for the piece and the piece is in response to the alternative understandings to which some adhere. Whether that alternative is the majority opinion is in great doubt. It's just what we hear more often because the pro-aborts are among the left, who are in greater control/influence of media and education.
"An apologist, on the other hand, overstates the evidence and then pretends that there are no plausible alternatives to his view, and that the only possible reason anyone could have for reaching a different conclusion is bias."
I don't see any mention of bias as the sole reason others take a different view, other than perhaps bias in favor of the different view. So what? Everyone who feels anything about a point of view they hold is necessarily biased in favor of it. All that matters is the evidence to confirm or contradict it. He's only concerned with providing confirming evidence for his view, which may indeed be a view he holds because of his study of the passage, not because he simply rejected the alternative view because he didn't like the implications of it. He doesn't really say which came first. I would submit a likely scenario in which he already believed Scripture promotes all human life as equally worthy of protection and veneration, and then he heard how this passage was being interpreted and began an investigation because it conflicted with his belief. I have no problem with this, especially as I find his explanation (shared by many more than some would like to believe) quite sensible and logical assuming his understanding of the language is correct. I've yet to see an argument from those who don't agree which renders Koukl's wrong. Dan claims he's working on that. We'll see. In the meantime, what suggests he's "overstating" the evidence he presents, and how is that different than how anyone else of either stripe presents theirs?
"Koukl admits that he hasn't been able to persuade any Jewish scholars of his interpretation, but he doesn't explain their objections and he makes no attempt to deal with them."
Well, quite clearly, the article is a response to those objections, which is that the passage is appropriate for the support of abortion because it demonstrates God treating the unborn differently than the mother. That's the gist of the objection to which he responds with this article and again, he begins it with this premise. That any Jewish scholars won't be persuaded doesn't at all mean his interpretation is wrong. Those scholars he references might just be assholes. We'd need to see something like a link to their discussions. Perhaps at StandToReason such exists.
"I will concede that Koukl isn't as bad as many apologists: at least I've never seen him make a ludicrous claim like “the resurrection is the best attested event in history” (although I haven't read everything he's written). That's probably because he still wants to pass himself off as enough of a legitimate scholar to get published in mainstream journals."
You seem to feel the need to suppose evil intent on the part of people like Koukl. Why is that? There are many apologists who have multiple articles and books published. It's not rare nor do I believe difficult.
As to that distinction, I don't see much difference because I don't see that many religious scholars begin from atheism and then get into it. I such exists, and I know one or two, like Bart Ehrman, rejected his faith. But most begin as people of faith and that's what drives them to scholarship. Thus, they don't really do that which is much different than apologists.
"Yahweh ordered the Jews to stone thirteen-year-old girls who had lost their virginity. Nothing in the passage distinguishes between a girl who loses her virginity by rape and one who loses it voluntarily."
Actually it does. You're referring to Deuteronomy 22:25-29, but now we're in another situation where the proper understanding of the original language comes into play.
These days I'm less patient with tangents, but we can go through this dance on this passage if you really want to. You've been away for awhile, so I'm willing to cut you more slack. But I'd rather stick to the topic of the post and your citation of this Deuteronomy passage helps my case more than hurts it.
"I am always amused when a Christian thinks it's a dirty trick to point out what the Bible actually teaches."
And I'm equally amused when a non-Christian or "progressive" "Christian" thinks they're relating actual teachings to dispute a point. This whole Koukl thing, and now this Deut. thing indicates that's not as easy as the non-Christian and "progressive" thinks it is. At the risk of suggesting I'm more scholar than I truly am, I do spend time with interpretations in order to better understand my faith.
"Once again, you are trying to excuse Yahweh's barbarity by blaming it on the culture of the time. This is the unchanging creator of the universe that we are talking about. Why is He stooping to the level of His people?"
This is like saying all the native tribes inhabiting our country before the evil white man came were peaceful people communing with nature and minding their own business. Mankind was not ever like that, and far worse where the God of Scripture was not known. Again, an "eye for an eye" was an improvement over how people responded to personal affronts. It was the first step toward bringing us to "turn the other cheek" and the rejection of hate, etc. Non-Christians like to pretend they can dictate to the Creator of all things how to deal with His Creation and how angry He's allowed to be when we reject His Will. Another amusing trait.
"I didn't change my opinion about the sanctity of life. I changed my opinion about the role the government should play in the issue and the efficacy of criminal penalties."
Civil law reflects the sentiment of the people toward given behaviors. With regard to the sanctity of life, there's a different perception about, say, capital punishment, where some say it demonstrate less regard for life (the convicted's), while others say it demonstrates an appropriate regard for life (the victim's). Were court rulings made with more devotion to the reality the unborn is every bit as much a person as the born, I would suggest Roe would not have passed and it would have reflected societal value of human life which would influence people over time. The reverse happened because there was no devotion to first affirming the humanity of the unborn. From that point, abortion rates skyrocketed before leveling off to the current 800K or so per year. Law make a difference. Good laws make a more beneficial difference and good laws reflect and influence the culture.
The rest of your last comment is a litany of unrelated false lefty talking points. Perhaps we can get into them in detail some other time.
The rest of your last comment is a litany of unrelated false lefty talking points.
They are not unrelated. You were curious about why I changed my position on abortion, and I explained my reasons. Of course, dismissing anything you don't see on Fox News as "lefty talking points" is easier than actually dealing with reality.
Were court rulings made with more devotion to the reality the unborn is every bit as much a person as the born, I would suggest Roe would not have passed and it would have reflected societal value of human life which would influence people over time.
I don't think the sentiment of the people has ever been that a fertilized egg that never attaches to the uterine wall is every bit as much of a person as the born.
You said:
"You may not know this, but I wasn't always pro-choice. I became pro-choice as a result of conservative Christians who would defend such practices rather than denouncing their barbarity."
I responded:
"... it's curious that you would alter your opinion about the sanctity of life because of what some allegedly conservative Christians say."
Then you said:
"I didn't change my opinion about the sanctity of life. I changed my opinion about the role the government should play in the issue and the efficacy of criminal penalties."
My response referred to alleged conservative Christians "who would defend such practices rather than denouncing their barbarity." I assumed the barbaric practices was a reference to the OT laws we were discussing and how alleged conservative Christians defended them. None of your revisionist history, bad understanding of economics and deflection of personal responsibility was related to what your original comment implied.
Even so, to pretend your version of things is true with regard to GOP v Dem politics, there's no such thing as an "accidental" pregnancy which the high school quarterback and the head cheerleader couldn't prevent by being moral kids. No option which results in tearing the unborn limb from limb, crushing its skull or chemically scalding the kid is the moral option over the parents or families of the parents, busting ass to provide for the mother during pregnancy and delivering that child to which they are obligated and allowing it to have the life their parents allowed for them. Reagan didn't get in the way of their choice. Mythical "trickle down" economics didn't get in the way. None of that stuff did. It's all on them. Boo-hoo that their sexual gratification led to responsibilities for which they didn't care to consider when they got jiggy.
"Of course, dismissing anything you don't see on Fox News as "lefty talking points" is easier than actually dealing with reality. "
I've all of what you wrote on sources like FoxNews and other places the left hasn't the wisdom or wit to out think. We on the right can actually draw direct lines from policy to effect. And it's not hard, given there's incredibly little under the sun which hasn't been tried and from which we've been unable to learn. (Whether either side puts all the goods stuff into practice is another story, but we at least know 2+2=4). So it's another amusing thing we hear from the left...that we're the ones who are uninformed and unfamiliar with reality.
"I don't think the sentiment of the people has ever been that a fertilized egg that never attaches to the uterine wall is every bit as much of a person as the born."
More's the pity that anyone is so confused as to that obvious truth. I've no idea the plans God has for every fertilized egg which comes and goes without our notice. But that's not related to the issue of how we regard those whose existence is known to us. Indeed, it's a ploy and nothing more to bring up the miscarried embryo. But science tells us what that unattached fertilized egg is, and that's another person in the earliest stages of development. If people don't know the science or choose to reject it when they do, it doesn't alter the reality. The pro-aborts make all manner of cheap rationalizations rather actually dealing with reality.
"Personhood" is not defined by science. It is a social construct. Conservative Supreme Court Justices declared corporations to be "persons." I suppose that will be very handy next time Republicans tank the economy and need to bail out the banks. They can simply announce that because the banks are "persons," they have the right to life and must be bailed out.
And aside from Moses' education level (educated as if Pharaoh's own son), it's quite absurd that he would know "miscarry" (if it's truly the proper translations) and not other words associated with pregnancies.
If Moses really was educated as Pharoah's son, I suspect that he learned Egyptian rather than Hebrew.
""Personhood" is not defined by science. It is a social construct."
No kidding.
Science determines which mammal is human. A human fetus is a human stage of physical development, just as is a fertilized human egg, a human embryo, a human infant, toddler, child, adolescent, teenager and adult. All are different stages of development of the same human; the same person. There's no other stage of development when one became a person which wasn't dictated by someone serving his/her own interests, just as those who insist those of different races or ethnicity aren't persons.
"Conservative Supreme Court Justices declared corporations to be "persons.""
That's because a corporation is an organization of people, also known definitionally as "persons". It comes in handy when treating them justly under law.
"I suppose that will be very handy next time Republicans tank the economy and need to bail out the banks."
Yeah...like they're tanking the economy now. OH, WAIT!!! The GOP isn't in the White House nor do they have the majority in Congress!! How the f**k did that happen with the economically brilliant Dems in charge???
"If Moses really was educated as Pharoah's son, I suspect that he learned Egyptian rather than Hebrew."
Well, that's quite a convenient suspicion to make. I would imaging he learned more than one language. Maybe several. I would imagine were that not true, he'd have people...before and after he returned to his Hebrew roots...who could translate just what he needed them to if that was how his work writing the Torah took place.
It's clear where supporters of abortion are concerned, science, logic and morality get in the way.
That's because a corporation is an organization of people, also known definitionally as "persons". It comes in handy when treating them justly under law.
Is that what they told you on Fox News? Those poor mistreated corporations weren't getting a fair shake because they couldn't spend as much money buying politicians as they wanted.
So what you're now suggesting, in a desperate attempt to find fault, is that anytime a person or a group of persons donates to a political campaign, they're "buying" politicians. Maybe you're pissed your contributions aren't recognized as are those of larger groups of people or of people of greater means. Boo-hoo. I don't reference any news source for definitions:
corporation:
1. an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.See also municipal corporation, public corporation.
2. Corporation, the group of principal officials of a borough or other municipal division in England.
3. any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body.
Note #3. That would be pretty much every person who is of like mind in their support for a candidate. That some are considered legal entities makes no difference to their rights of political speech and action...the primary reason speech is protected.
So what happens to the souls of all those fertilized eggs that never attach to the uterine wall? Do they go to hell because they weren't saved or do they go to heaven because they never reached the age of accountability or do they go someplace else?
Who knows, and who can say for sure one way or the other? But more importantly, how is it this kind of question comes up in any discussion debating the personhood of the unborn? God will do what God will do and we need not know every detail in order to take a position that is in line with the teachings of the faith. That would be that every human life is sacred because each was created in His image and likeness. Speculation with regard to the person at that stage of development in that scenario is a worthy exercise. But that's all it is. No one can make a case one way or the other based on such speculation. All we know for certain is that each is a human being and we know that because it is a human conceived.
The question is a ploy used to rationalize a pro-abortion stand. But it fails because there is no intent behind it. It is a natural death just as death from old age. People die unexpectedly and no scenario in which that happens justifies the intentional taking of innocent life. One can't even make the case without opening up justifying the taking of any life at any stage of development for any reason. All attempts to block this reality require the same arguments used to defend the life of the unborn.
For the non-religious, the secular, the atheist, there is no legitimate argument against murder other than subjective and arbitrary arguments, for there is no morality which isn't also subjective, arbitrary and typically self-serving. So what happens to the miscarried embryos is meaningless anyway, and as such, the question is insincere and rather deceitful.
Still wondering if it matters to you that the ancient Israelis who wrote these words didn't think of the fetus as fully human?
May 24, 2022 at 3:44 PM
"Still wondering if it matters to you that the ancient Israelis who wrote these words didn't think of the fetus as fully human?"
What I'm wondering is when you're going to try to prove it? That's called an unsupported claim. The very type of claim you would delete if I posted it at your joke blog. The difference is my claims are always true.
But more importantly, how is it this kind of question comes up in any discussion debating the personhood of the unborn?
It comes up because you keep invoking your religious beliefs. How is it that you know exactly how God feels about abortion even though it's never mentioned in the Bible, but you haven't any idea what happens to the souls of the aborted fetuses?
I understand why you wish to avoid the question since neither answer is particularly appealing. If you hold to infant damnation, the souls of the unborn die in a state of sin and spend eternity in hell, in which case the soul of the unattached fertilized egg is subjected to eternal punishment despite the fact that it never had the capacity to even think about sinning. If you hold that the unborn go to heaven because they haven't reached the age of accountability, then every fertilized egg that never attaches and every embryo that spontaneously miscarries in the first two months goes to heaven, along with every fetus that miscarries after the first trimester, every baby that is stillborn, and every fetus that is aborted. Because as many as half of fertilized eggs do not result in live births, heaven would have to be at least half full of souls that never saw the light of day. Of course, of souls that do see the light of day, most will choose the broad path to destruction rather than the narrow path to salvation, so souls that never walked the earth would form a large majority in heaven.
Of course, the main point you wish to avoid is the logical possibility that the aborted fetus is much better off than the baby that is born alive. The aborted fetus gets to enjoy eternal bliss with God while the baby born alive runs the risk that he may die without accepting Christ as his personal savior, thereby suffering eternal punishment.
?? I posted multiple links to actual Jewish scholars who said that ancient Israelis would not have considered a fetus a life with a soul. Again, I'm no expert on what ancient Hebrew folk interpreted these passages so I looked at Jewish scholars. And I cited the data. You've cited nothing. Nothing. Not a thing.
You've cited NOTHING for your support your position or that contradicts what these Jewish scholars have said.
Until you have anything, anything whatsoever, I have to think that you have a bad understanding of the text in context. Not because I want to but because that's just what the data says.
Some of the data I cited on May 14th at 9:34. There were multiple links to actual experts.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/columnists/is-abortion-in-christianity-a-mistranslation-of-bible
Thus, it's demonstrably and objectively stupidly false for you call it an unsupported claim. I supported it with three links at least to actual Jewish scholars.
"It comes up because you keep invoking your religious beliefs."
Actually, I didn't, Vinny. Nor do I have to in this debate. But as for this thread, it was Dan who brought it up as indicated in the post and Dan's post to which it's a response.
"How is it that you know exactly how God feels about abortion even though it's never mentioned in the Bible, but you haven't any idea what happens to the souls of the aborted fetuses?"
What I know regarding how God feels about human life is the result of reading Scripture, wherein Genesis He speaks of the consequences of murdering someone. Despite the passage using the word "man", it would be ludicrous that it refers to an adult male, as opposed to "mankind", or that it's OK to murder women and children. The Exodus passage pro-aborts pervert clearly rebuts that notion.
As to aborted fetuses or miscarried embryos, I have no reason to think they won't be accommodated by God. You have no reason they wouldn't be, either. God's portrayed as all powerful, so what would lead you to think that Heaven might be too crowded with all those dead unborn, or that it matters to God whether one who dies died at one age or another? It's absurd on its face and without basis.
So clearly I haven't avoided the question. I just think it's a cheap ploy and nowhere near as clever as a pro-abort imagines it to be. I'm fine with speculation about that which is not mentioned or unclear in Scripture. There's no foul in doing so. But to suppose the worst about God or those who abide His command about human life just to defend an indefensible act like abortion is not really a contest on which I feel compelled to spend any serious time. The greater issue is mankind's lusts and the consequences of them, in this case those consequences being the murder of the unborn and the lame-ass arguments for supposing the unborn aren't people equal in value to those who make them.
"Of course, the main point you wish to avoid is the logical possibility that the aborted fetus is much better off than the baby that is born alive."
Do you feel you would've been better off aborted? Who are you to decide a child born in the worst of circumstances can't transcend them to have not only a great life for itself, but do great things for others? That's one of the worst arguments there is. Shame on you.
"The aborted fetus gets to enjoy eternal bliss with God while the baby born alive runs the risk that he may die without accepting Christ as his personal savior, thereby suffering eternal punishment."
You're making assumptions for which you have no basis as well as no true concern, so who do you think you're kidding?
May 26, 2022 at 3:21 PM
"I posted multiple links to actual Jewish scholars who said that ancient Israelis would not have considered a fetus a life with a soul."
No, actually they don't do that at all. They merely cite other scholars who say the same thing. Of all your posts, none actually reference and ancient Hebrew at all. The earliest scholar any of your links reference is from the 1100's AD. I had to do my own research to find anyone who has any "authorship" of the Mishnah, which is still 3rd century. This is important, especially given what they are actually doing. They're simply supporting the notion of an "Oral Tradition" for which there is absolutely no reference in the Pentateuch.
It's also helpful to understand that within the Talmud, there are commentaries in conflict with each other. At least one sect of Jews reject the Talmud outright as having no basis in fact or evidence, just the claim that it was handed down from the time of Moses until written down around 70AD. It's all very suspiciously self-serving to the rabbinic tradition, most often regarded as the descendant faction of what were once called the Pharisees. This is interesting as Mark 7:8-9 is said to be a reference to that "Oral Tradition"...the very charge you often bring up to disparage those of us who call you on your "progressive" "Christian" corruption of Scripture.
In any case, far more relative to this discussion is that none of your links provide a better explanation for the Exodus passage in question as does Koukl. One would think these rabbis, so highly regarded by you as unassailable, would do just that in their defense of the view of the unborn as less than. Yet it is Koukl who looks at the original language, provides examples of how definitive words are used elsewhere for context and does little, indeed nothing, to project a thing onto the passage in any way. This isn't the case with any of your offerings, including the Shmuley Boteach fellow in your re-posted link.
continuing...
Let's be clear. If you're going to assert the ancient Hebrews felt about the unborn as you need them to in order to cleave unto your position, you need to present some evidence they actually did. None of your rabbis do that. They simply assert the Exodus passage suggests it without as much effort to explain just how as provided by Koukl and either of the scholars he cites in his article.
Indeed, Boteach cites Ex 21:12 to back up his assertion the unborn is not akin to a man. But like the Genesis verse I cited above, it demands that ONLY adult males are so valued to the extent that murdering one requires capital punishment. Yet, those like Boteach would insist Exodus 21:22-25 requires lex talionis for the mother who lost her child in the scuffle. It simply doesn't wash.
So the conflict here is in how the Ex 21:22-25 passage is interpreted and it does not by itself do anything to distinguish a difference between the born and unborn; it does not by itself do anything to distinguish a difference in value between adult males and any other person, including the unborn; it does not by itself reference the delivered child as dead: it does not by itself in any way suggest abortion is ever OK.
Furthermore, you seem to suggest...as muslims do with the Quran...that only Jewish people can properly interpret ancient Scripture. If this is true, it is extraordinarily absurd and self-serving for anyone to so assert. Koukl alone is no slouch. Those he cites, especially Gleason Archer less so. I say again, and it is obvious in the reading of your links, none of your offerings provides as detailed an explanation for your favored interpretation as does Koukl for his (and mine, because it makes far more sense).
Thus, "it's demonstrably and objectively stupidly false for you" to pretend you've supported your claim...which again was that the ancients agreed with the interpretation you favor. None of your offerings mentions anyone I would regard as from the time of Moses or even a few generations afterwards. What does "ancient" mean when you use it here? Before you answer, remember that the further from Moses' time, the less applicable the word is for the purposes of this debate.
What I know regarding how God feels about human life is the result of reading Scripture, wherein Genesis He speaks of the consequences of murdering someone. Despite the passage using the word "man", it would be ludicrous that it refers to an adult male, as opposed to "mankind", or that it's OK to murder women and children. The Exodus passage pro-aborts pervert clearly rebuts that notion.
What about the part where God commands the execution by stoning of a thirteen year old girl who has been raped? Let's not forget the part where the man rapes the girl, but his penalty is that he gets to marry her? Clearly the rules for an adult male are not the same as they are for women and children.
Do you feel you would've been better off aborted? Who are you to decide a child born in the worst of circumstances can't transcend them to have not only a great life for itself, but do great things for others?
How can any life be great if it leads to an eternity in hell? If it were possible to guarantee eternity in heaven by being aborted, that seems vastly preferable to risking an eternity in hell on the chance that I might transcend the circumstances of my birth.
You have no reason they wouldn't be, either. God's portrayed as all powerful, so what would lead you to think that Heaven might be too crowded with all those dead unborn, or that it matters to God whether one who dies died at one age or another? It's absurd on its face and without basis.
I didn't say that heaven was too crowded—after all, fertilized eggs don't take up much space. I just wonder what the point of this life is. If it's some sort of test to see who gets to spend eternity in heaven, why did most of the souls in heaven get there without taking the test?
You're making assumptions for which you have no basis as well as no true concern, so who do you think you're kidding?
Yes. I am assuming that not being born and getting a free pass to heaven is better than a being born and having a 90% chance of going to hell.
"...Exodus passage suggests it without as much effort to explain just how as provided by Koukl and either of the scholars he cites in his article."
So it's your belief in your head that this Koukl guy - with no apparent serious amount of study of ancient Hebrew as a language or or field of study - knows more about and understands better ancient Hebrew then all these various Hebrew scholars?
Do you have anything to suggest that Koukl even reads Hebrew? That hes actually studied in a scholarly manner ancient Hebrew traditions and understandings? I get that you really really really really really want Koukl to be right because he's saying what you want him to hear, but why would anyone else accept him as an expert over all these various actual Hebrew scholars? At the very least, can you see how people reject your hunches as , to be kind, lightweight?
Thus, "it's demonstrably and objectively stupidly false for you" to pretend you've supported your claim.
I've literally cited multiple Jewish scholars on the topic. You have cited ONE conservative so-called "apologist" with no apparent background in the Hebrew language. I have literally offered information from people who are more knowledgeable than you or Koukl...
You may choose to trust the scholarly knowledge than these more scholarly people, but that you don't agree with the scholars does not mean that I have not offered support for what I'm saying.
Earlier, I asked...
"3. Would it surprise you to know that Jewish and ancient Hebrew people have considered this to mean just what it sounds like? That if you cause a child to die, it's not the same as a murder/killing of a birthed human being?"
...and you replied...
"Yeah. It would very much surprise me..."
and...
"Do you have such proof? If not, then I'll go with one of the most learned of people and how they understand the ancient language they've studied."
First of all, I have seen no evidence that Koukl is a Hebrew scholar. Do you have any such evidence?
Secondly, why would it surprise you? It's not secret knowledge? Is it possible you've been so cocooned in conservative circles where you only listen to what those who agree with you have to say that you are entirely ignorant of the world outside of your small conservative circles?
If so, is that the best way to gain wisdom?
cont'd...
Regarding my sources, I cited Jewish rabbi Shmuley Boteach, who has studied Hebrew for years as a rabbi. He said...
"THE INTERPRETATION is straightforward and matches the Hebrew original precisely. According to the Jewish interpretation the Bible only says that the woman, rather than her fetus, is living."
and...
"Judaism, however, strongly disputes this interpretation, which is not faithful to the Hebrew original."
Is Koukl MORE well-informed on Hebrew and ancient Hebrew interpretations than this actual rabbi?
I also cited Dr Fred Rosner, "a professor of medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine and the director of the Department of Medicine at Queens Hospital Center. He is also the chairman of the Medical Ethics Committee of the State of New York. He is, moreover, an expert on Jewish medical ethics and on the medical writings of Moses Maimonides."
Rosner said... "An unborn fetus in Jewish law is not considered a person (Heb. nefesh, lit. “soul”) until it has been born. The fetus is regarded as a part of the mother’s body and not a separate being until it begins to egress from the womb during parturition (childbirth)."
Is Koukl a better medical and Hebrew scholar than Rosner? Says who? What would you base that upon? Can you at least see how arrogant that sounds, that this white evangelical who has never seriously studied Hebrew is a better authority on the topic than these experts?
I also cited Joseph George G. Schenker, a Jewish doctor who attended the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Schenker said...
"From the interpretation of this passage it can be inferred that the killing of an unborn child is not considered murder punishable by death in Jewish law. What is explicitly stated in the Jewish law is that murder is an offense that is punishable by death: “He that smiteth a man, so that he dieth, shall surely be put to death” (Exodus 21:12).
The Responsa literature reached from these two passages the conclusion that the capital charge of murder should be used for death of “a man, but not a fetus”. It means that complete human life does not begin at the embryonic or fetal stage of development."
Is Koukl a better medical and Hebrew scholar than Rosner? Says who? What would you base that upon? Can you at least see how arrogant that sounds, that this white evangelical who has never seriously studied Hebrew is a better authority on the topic than these experts?
And here's yet another expert who repeats much the same, that the fetus is not considered to have a soul until post-birth and thus, aborting a fetus is not the same as murder. And she contends that this has long been Jewish understanding.
https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/abortion
I could go on. You know that, right?
In fact, I have been entirely unable to find ANY ancient Hebrew scholars that would attest to anything other than the notion that ancient Israelis would not view the pre-born fetus as having a soul and thus, ending its life to be a crime.
I GET that many modern conservatives like to think that this is the case, but I see no reason to place their guesses above the understanding of Jewish scholars.
Marshal... "Furthermore, you seem to suggest...as muslims do with the Quran...that only Jewish people can properly interpret ancient Scripture"
Never suggested that at all.
What I'm stating as COMPLETELY rational and observable is: We have NO reason to think that some conservative apologist who is quite clear that his role and training has been specifically for making cases for conservative traditions... that such a person who has NO serious training in Hebrew or ancient understanding of Jewish concepts (ie, how Jewish folk would have viewed such passages) is in ANY reasonable way, in a better place to understand ancient Scripture written in ancient languages than actual Hebrew scholars.
In short: I don't trust modern often white, often male partisan conservative apologists who insist a passage should be interpreted a given way that just so happens to coincide with modern white conservative thinking and relatively modern human traditions. And I especially don't trust them when they have no scholarly background in a given topic.
I don't trust such white conservative men who tell us that they are the best ones to tell Muslims what the Quran says, to tell Jewish folk what the Old Testament or Hebrew says, to tell women that they know what is best for them, to tell LGBTQ folks what is best for them, to tell doctors and scientists that they understand science better than them. Such men are part of a mansplaining, "We know best" tradition that has been part of the oppression of all these other groups over the centuries and it is arrogance-based, more often than scholarly-based.
Why would anyone give such men more credence than actual experts?
"What about the part where God commands the execution by stoning of a thirteen year old girl who has been raped? Let's not forget the part where the man rapes the girl, but his penalty is that he gets to marry her? Clearly the rules for an adult male are not the same as they are for women and children."
This comment is an example of what I now call "a Trabue". You're once again making false suggestions about what the passages you're citing teach. We've covered this passage before. It does not say what you want and desperately need it to say in order to bolster your immoral position on human life.
"How can any life be great if it leads to an eternity in hell?"
How do you stay out of jail, Vinny? Are you devoid of choice?
"If it were possible to guarantee eternity in heaven by being aborted, that seems vastly preferable to risking an eternity in hell on the chance that I might transcend the circumstances of my birth."
Again, to speculate about what happens to embryos miscarried without the mother's knowledge she was even pregnant is a reasonable exercise in which to participate. But to pretend a possibility for which their is no evidence to be submitted as a fact in order to defend and indefensible position in favor of unjustly killing the unborn is simply lying.
It should be kept in mind that we are not the precious necessities to God some insist we must be in order to give Him His due. If it turns out that God has absolutely no regard for any human being who refuses to acknowledge Him, I'm fine with that. He's still the Creator of al things and totally in charge, and without Whom we don't exist to enter into these "good faith" discussions about Him.
And I think you may have misspoken. It is the duty of each of us to transcend the circumstances of our birth to become "the best we can be", as it were. There is no circumstance of birth which guarantees a damned thing. One way we can be "the best we can be" is to acknowledge the value of human life in all its stages of development and not arrogantly presume we can dictate one is more worthy of protection than another based on immutable characteristics, such as age, size and location.
"I didn't say that heaven was too crowded—after all, fertilized eggs don't take up much space."
Assuming they don't grow to full adulthood in heaven, in which case there's still plenty of room.
"I just wonder what the point of this life is."
To love, honor and serve God.
"If it's some sort of test to see who gets to spend eternity in heaven, why did most of the souls in heaven get there without taking the test?"
You seem dedicated to making provocative statements as if they indicate a true desire to understand. In answer to your question, what would it matter with regard to how you live your life? All that matters is what you do. No one is judged on the basis of what others do or how they "made it". You're ostensibly an adult and are now in full control of your own eternal destiny.
"Yes. I am assuming that not being born and getting a free pass to heaven is better than a being born and having a 90% chance of going to hell."
Yes. You are assuming that. But to what practical end for your own situation? And how does it matter to the topic of this post and thread? Once again, there is no Scriptural basis for suggesting one person has more right to life than another. Not the Exodus passage nor any other. And for one who seems not to buy in to the spiritual, why continue this line of questioning in the first place? Can it be your secular reasons have failed so miserably? (They have. Every one of them.)
So, of all the babies born who live to be adults, the vast majority of them will eventually go to be tortured for an eternity in hell, according to many conservatives. According to SOME conservatives, these tortured souls don't even have a choice. God only saves those God predestined to save and the rest don't even have a choice.
If I believed in that bit of irrational evil, I'd think killing as many babies and fetuses would be the most moral thing to do! Every one of them could be saved from eternal torture!
This irrational eternal torture for most people angle is, of course, not even the point of the post, but it is hard for many of us to take moral advice from people who advocate such an evil mindset.
May 28, 2022 at 11:40 AM
"So it's your belief in your head that this Koukl guy - with no apparent serious amount of study of ancient Hebrew as a language or or field of study - knows more about and understands better ancient Hebrew then all these various Hebrew scholars?"
First, I have no idea as to the extent of Koukl's scholarship with ancient languages of any kind. Conversely, you have no idea he's devoid of it. What I do know is none of those you've cited have done anything close to explaining why they believe as they do as has Koukl in explaining his position. They merely assert. He breaks things down. Whether he's done so all on his own, or through investigating the work of Biblical scholars he cites in the article is neither here nor there. All that matters is who is doing the better job of it to lead to the conclusion at the end. Clearly, that's seen in the Koukl article and in none of those you've offered.
"Do you have anything to suggest that Koukl even reads Hebrew? That hes actually studied in a scholarly manner ancient Hebrew traditions and understandings? I get that you really really really really really want Koukl to be right because he's saying what you want him to hear, but why would anyone else accept him as an expert over all these various actual Hebrew scholars? At the very least, can you see how people reject your hunches as , to be kind, lightweight?"
All I can see is a Louisville Loser who rejects Koukl on the basis he isn't Jewish, allegedly hasn't (or might not have) the same level of scholarship as you rabbinic offerings, and most importantly, doesn't agree with those like you keen to defend an abhorrent practice for unjustly terminating the life of an actual person. What's more, you seem to believe that your dudes can't possibly be wrong because they're Jewish.
May 28, 2022 at 11:57 AM
"I've literally cited multiple Jewish scholars on the topic. You have cited ONE conservative so-called "apologist" with no apparent background in the Hebrew language. I have literally offered information from people who are more knowledgeable than you or Koukl...
You may choose to trust the scholarly knowledge than these more scholarly people, but that you don't agree with the scholars does not mean that I have not offered support for what I'm saying."
You merely cited people who say the same thing you're saying. That's not what I've been after from you. Merely asserting the same thing isn't support for anything more than that there are scholars who agree.
But Koukl, as I've said, breaks down the passage and is actually analyzing it almost word by word to support the premise the passage not only is unusable as a support for abortion or that the unborn isn't as much a person as is even the likes of an oppressor such as yourself. Basically, what you"re saying is, "I have 'experts' who say the unborn isn't a person, so therefore the unborn isn't a person." Well, I don't doubt there are such "experts", and in this case their ethnicity and titles don't mean shit. What matters is how they defend the premise they embrace. Based on your offerings, they don't even try. Koukl does.
Thus, "it's demonstrably and objectively stupidly false for you" to pretend you've supported your claim.
May 28, 2022 at 1:01 PM
Good gosh, you're vacuous.
"First of all, I have seen no evidence that Koukl is a Hebrew scholar. Do you have any such evidence?"
Irrelevant. All that matters is whether or not his analysis of the passage in question is accurate. Your "experts" haven't rebutted it at all. They merely say something different. They don't break it down as he (or those scholars he's used as sources) has done. They simply assert it means something different than what Koukl's more detailed analysis affirms.
"Secondly, why would it surprise you? It's not secret knowledge? Is it possible you've been so cocooned in conservative circles where you only listen to what those who agree with you have to say that you are entirely ignorant of the world outside of your small conservative circles?"
Because it conflicts with every other indication of how God regards mankind. To put it in the bluntest manner possible, there's no reason for me to regard your life as worthy of continued existence except that my Creator prohibits me from so much as hating, much less putting one between your eyes just for the fun of it. But you are actually just such a person, who has no regard for human lives except as it promotes and agrees with your "progressive" and fake Christian world agenda.
"If so, is that the best way to gain wisdom?"
I wouldn't know. That's not how I do it. Clearly, the same can't be said of you.
"You merely cited people who say the same thing you're saying."
You keep saying things like this as if they mean anything. Don't you understand?
I'm not Jewish, and I don't know Hebrew. I don't know what Ancient Hebrews vault or how they interpreted words.
I therefore have NO OPINION in the topic.
Instead, I look to what experts in the language say. And I'm telling you what experts in the language say. Then I form my opinion on this topic based upon expert opinion and known data.
And to be clear, the topic in question is how did ancient Hebrews understand this text? It's entirely possible there's some scholarship that could say that ancient Hebrews took this to mean that the fetus had all rights from day of conception. That may or may not change my opinion on abortion, but as things stand, and the expert data that we have suggests that your interpretation is not historical or contextually correct.
What's hard to understand about that?
...continued from above...
May 28, 2022 at 1:01 PM
"Regarding my sources, I cited Jewish rabbi Shmuley Boteach, who has studied Hebrew for years as a rabbi. He said...
"THE INTERPRETATION is straightforward and matches the Hebrew original precisely. According to the Jewish interpretation the Bible only says that the woman, rather than her fetus, is living."
and...
"Judaism, however, strongly disputes this interpretation, which is not faithful to the Hebrew original."
Is Koukl MORE well-informed on Hebrew and ancient Hebrew interpretations than this actual rabbi?"
You presume Boteach is unassailable and beyond question. There's no way he can be wrong. It would be easier to defend that contention if you presented him giving reasons why his position is correct and superior to Koukl's. And that's assuming Koukl isn't more well-informed that Boteach, which neither of us has confirmed or denied thus far.
In the meantime, Boteach does no more than say "this is how we always took it". He doesn't explain why that's how it should be taken.
"I also cited Dr Fred Rosner, "a professor of medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine and the director of the Department of Medicine at Queens Hospital Center. He is also the chairman of the Medical Ethics Committee of the State of New York. He is, moreover, an expert on Jewish medical ethics and on the medical writings of Moses Maimonides."
Rosner said... "An unborn fetus in Jewish law is not considered a person (Heb. nefesh, lit. “soul”) until it has been born. The fetus is regarded as a part of the mother’s body and not a separate being until it begins to egress from the womb during parturition (childbirth)."
Is Koukl a better medical and Hebrew scholar than Rosner?"
He doesn't need to be "a better medical" scholar, or even a better Hebrew scholar. He just needs to have someone provide a reason why he is wrong in his assessment of the Exodus passage that is more compelling than "because this or that Hebrew scholar says different."
"What would you base that upon?"
How about Maimonides upon whom you say Rosner has expertise?:
In his interpretation of the Third Noahide Law, Maimonides, the great twelfth-century interpreter and codifier of Jewish law, writes in his Mishneh Torah that abortion is a capital crime for the Jews: “A descendant of Noah who kills any human being, even a fetus in its mother’s womb, is to be put to death.”
Maimonides ruled that abortion is allowable only if the pregnancy definitely and without question endangers the life of the mother (Hilkhot Rozeah 1:9 and Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat 425:2):
This also is a negative precept: not to have compassion on the life of a pursuer. Therefore, the Sages’ rules [regarding] a pregnant woman in hard travail that it is permitted to dismember the fetus in her womb, whether by chemical means or by hand, for it [the fetus] is as one pursuing her in order to kill her.3
This passage refers to “hard travail,” which was a delivery complicated by the size or position of the baby, so that a normal birth was impossible. At the time this commentary was written (prior to the development of obstetrical forceps and, later, safe surgical techniques for Cesarean section), this sort of problem would often result in the deaths of both mother and baby. The only way available to remove a baby that was “stuck” was to dismember it. In most cases, the baby would have already died due to anoxia.
But this is only because there wasn't the means to deliver the child any other way without still risking the life of the mother. Much different today.
"Can you at least see how arrogant that sounds, that this white evangelical who has never seriously studied Hebrew is a better authority on the topic than these experts?"
Only to those cretins so desperate to protect the practice of unjustly killing the unborn in order to preserve their ability to gratify themselves sexually. Not to those who seek to live morally and responsibly. More importantly, Koukl needn't study a language himself if he has at his disposal those who have to present an argument which reflect better scholarship. He's done that in the article I presented.
"I also cited Joseph George G. Schenker, a Jewish doctor who attended the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Schenker said..."
The same bullshit which requires rejecting reason. By the "logic" of his "inference", only an adult male can be murdered, not a fetus, not a woman, not a boy. It's patently absurd and if that's what "scholarship" and "expertise" looks like to you, there's no hope for you.
"And here's yet another expert who repeats much the same, that the fetus is not considered to have a soul until post-birth and thus, aborting a fetus is not the same as murder. And she contends that this has long been Jewish understanding.
https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/abortion"
Again, no actual explanation for how anything she says suggests what she needs it to say, but only that some pretend it was understood in that manner from the time Moses wrote it down. In other words, more assertions with no actual evidence or true analysis of the original language.
"I could go on. You know that, right?"
Yeah, like diarrhea. But can you actually support your wildly stupidly false claim? Clearly not.
"In fact, I have been entirely unable to find ANY ancient Hebrew scholars that would attest to anything other than the notion that ancient Israelis would not view the pre-born fetus as having a soul and thus, ending its life to be a crime."
Well, I did that for you above, with Rambam. More to the point, you been entirely unable to find ANY evidence that ancient Hebrews actually regarded the unborn as less than. Indeed, not one of your citations actually make the point at all, but simply repeat the assertion the passage in question means what Koukl, and others, demonstrates it does not.
Maybe you just don't understand what supporting a stupidly false claim looks like. You just puke that demand out when you don't like a claim.
"I GET that many modern conservatives like to think that this is the case, but I see no reason to place their guesses above the understanding of Jewish scholars."
Because they're not Jewish. Got it.
"You presume Boteach is unassailable and beyond question. There's no way he can be wrong."
You just don't understand how language works, do you?
I don't know any of these Jewish people people any more than I know your man. I have no stake in his being correct and I've never said he's unassailable. All I know is that these are all Jewish scholars and your man is not. It's as simple as that. They've studied Hebrew for years... maybe all their lives. He hasn't.
Given just that much reality, they have more credibility on the face of it than he does.
May 28, 2022 at 1:09 PM
"What I'm stating as COMPLETELY rational and observable is:"
...not the least bit supported with actual evidence from you.
"We have NO reason to think that some conservative apologist who is quite clear that his role and training has been specifically for making cases for conservative traditions..."
So clearly you have some link to some expression by him that his role is to make the case for for anything other than conservative positions because they're more accurately reflective of reality. Great. Let's see it.
"...that such a person who has NO serious training in Hebrew or ancient understanding of Jewish concepts (ie, how Jewish folk would have viewed such passages)..."
You have not presented anything that confirms the extent of his training with regard to Hebrew or "ancient Jewish concepts (ie, how Jewish folk would have viewed such passages) is in ANY reasonable way, is insufficient for the purpose of providing understanding of any OT passage he chooses to analyze.
"...in a better place to understand ancient Scripture written in ancient languages than actual Hebrew scholars."
Yet, unlike your offerings, his article provides more understanding of the passage in question, until you can provide something which provides a more compelling alternate understanding. This is so Trabue of you: disparage another without actually and unequivocally providing a more compelling alternative that contradicts the other beyond questioning.
"In short: I don't trust modern often white" (you racist dickhead)", often male" (you sexist dickhead)" partisan conservative apologists who insist a passage should be interpreted a given way that just so happens to coincide with modern white conservative thinking and relatively modern human traditions."
You have this backwards and in doing so are projecting your personal dysfunction onto better people. Conservative principles/ideology, as it currently exists, is the consequence of objective observation of life and an objective observation of history and human behaviors. Interpretations inform conservative principles and ideologies, not the other way around in the manner you so deceitfully and desperately try to pretend.
More importantly, if you can't provide evidence which compels a change of heart, you default to this lame crap as if it's actually true (you lying dickhead).
"And I especially don't trust them when they have no scholarly background in a given topic."
We're not talking about Bil Nye, here. Koukl's background is in theology. Given your laughable understandings you've presented over the years, you'd be doing yourself a favor following him if he was a garbage collector by trade. It's funny...your diaper stain, feo, likes to pretend one's understanding can be dismissed because they aren't accredited scholars. YOU like to think the extent of one's education must be at some undetermined level or degree, and one has reached that degree when they validate your non-Christian positions.
"I don't trust such white conservative men who tell us that they are the best ones to tell Muslims what the Quran says,..."
Uh...they actually tell all white people what the Quran says so that they won't be taken in by muslim lying.
"...to tell Jewish folk what the Old Testament or Hebrew says,..."
Once again, you clearly indicate that one must to Jewish to understand Hebrew, the OT or ancient Hebrew people. That's the same argument muslims give about white people reading the Quran. So you lied right to me when you insisted you weren't saying that, and here you're saying it yet again.
"...to tell women that they know what is best for them,..."
What the men you deceitfully disparage tell women is no different than what they're willing to tell anyone when it comes to obvious bad behaviors and their consequences. These days, someone ought to tell women such things. They're not doing so well as a sex.
"...to tell LGBTQ folks what is best for them,..."
What the men you deceitfully disparage tell these immoral people is the same things they say to all sexually immoral people. There are more than enough studies to indicate how much better off they'd be if they listened.
"...to tell doctors and scientists that they understand science better than them."
As is so routinely the case, what the men you deceitfully disparage actually say is what other (and so routinely better) experts say, and thus not without legitimate and provable basis.
"Such men are part of a mansplaining, "We know best" tradition that has been part of the oppression of all these other groups over the centuries and it is arrogance-based, more often than scholarly-based."
This is certainly what you so desperately need to believe, and again, it's just you failing to support your wildly stupidly false claims. Thus, you default to this crap suggesting there's something wrong with better people. I'll bet you wish you can delete my comments since they stand as full exposure of your lies and stupidity.
"Why would anyone give such men more credence than actual experts?"
Because they're honorable men who tell the truth, can support the things they say with actual evidence and logic and sound argument. In short, they're the polar opposite of cretins like you.
May 28, 2022 at 2:21 PM
Just because Vinny, who hasn't been around for a while, goes off on a tangent, that doesn't mean you get to follow him down that rabbit hole. Stick to the topic. You still haven't supported your stupidly false claim that Koukl's analysis is wrong.
May 28, 2022 at 2:50 PM
"This irrational eternal torture for most people angle is, of course, not even the point of the post, but it is hard for many of us to take moral advice from people who advocate such an evil mindset."
First, it's no more "irrational" than providing eternal peace, joy and rest for those who aren't perfect. In other words, God's mercy on the imperfect is irrational.
And as this notion of an eternal hell or eternal punishment (how that might manifest) is unequivocally Biblical and thus isn't evil at all. YOU are. And you're off topic. I won't publish any more from you which strays beyond my limits for it. Stick to the topic and to your obligation.
May 28, 2022 at 3:47 PM
""You merely cited people who say the same thing you're saying."
You keep saying things like this as if they mean anything. Don't you understand?"
Clearly I do since it describes you problematic behavior. Your obligation is to provide a better analysis of the Exodus passage which makes the interpretation you prefer makes sense to the same degree Koukl's does. All you've provided is another person citing the passage and asserting it means what Koukl's analysis proves it doesn't. That's not supporting your stupidly false claims at all. It's must citing people who say the same thing you're saying.
"I'm not Jewish, and I don't know Hebrew. I don't know what Ancient Hebrews vault or how they interpreted words."
You're not really Christian and don't know Christianity, but that hasn't stopped you from running your virtual mouth. More importantly, by your own words, you have no idea who is providing the better analysis. You simply default to the Jewish guys because they're Jewish, but you're not defaulting to any actual analysis of why the interpretation held to too many is actually an accurate representation of the original language. Koukl takes that time to present his case to that end. Where are the arguments of your guys?
"I therefore have NO OPINION in the topic."
Bullshit. You're not saying you don't have an opinion on the humanity of the unborn or you wouldn't be going to such lying lengths to suggest Koukl's not qualified to give a better analysis. You don't like Koukl's analysis. It's got nothing to do with the extent of his education, but only whether he's right or wrong. Your opinion is clearly that he's wrong. Prove it.
"Instead, I look to what experts in the language say. And I'm telling you what experts in the language say."
Exactly what Koukl's done, at the absolute least!
"Then I form my opinion on this topic based upon expert opinion and known data."
You don't have an opinion. You just said that in this very comment.
"And to be clear, the topic in question is how did ancient Hebrews understand this text?"
No. The topic is what does the passage say and how does one support the interpretation of what it says. YOU brought up the understanding of the ancient Hebrews and did so citing someone from the middle ages who made a claim that doesn't really mesh with your position as you think it does. In any case, you've provided NOTHING AT ALL which indicates how ancient Hebrews understood the passage. NOTHING.
"It's entirely possible there's some scholarship that could say that ancient Hebrews took this to mean that the fetus had all rights from day of conception."
It's not only possible, Koukl himself cites scholars who translate the original language to affirm that very truth. And if you need a Jew to do it for you, there's Jewish exegete Umberto Cassuto who interprets and translates Exodus 21:22- 25 in his celebrated Commentary of the Book of Exodus in the same way Koukl does.
"That may or may not change my opinion on abortion, but as things stand, and the expert data that we have suggests that your interpretation is not historical or contextually correct."
You have no idea what the prevailing opinion is. You simply think you have numbers on your side and thus that settles it, as if one billion people saying you're a tree slug therefore makes you a tree slug...which you are. You're big on logical fallacies when you can use them in lieu of actual arguments and evidence.
"What's hard to understand about that?"
The only thing hard to understand is why you insist on keeping your head up your ass. Everything else I've nailed quite accurately.
May 28, 2022 at 5:22 PM
""You presume Boteach is unassailable and beyond question. There's no way he can be wrong."
You just don't understand how language works, do you?"
Sure I do. Very well, in fact. Can't say the same for you, and I can't say how often you're misunderstanding is the result of your abject stupidity or your willful dishonesty.
<"I don't know any of these Jewish people people any more than I know your man. I have no stake in his being correct and I've never said he's unassailable. All I know is that these are all Jewish scholars and your man is not. It's as simple as that."
No. It's THIS simple: One of them has rendered and accurate translation of the original language and provided a detailed explanation and your guys haven't so there's no way to know if theirs is correct or not.
"They've studied Hebrew for years... maybe all their lives. He hasn't."
First, you don't know that at all. Second, it matters not. All that matters is who is correct with regard to the true meaning of the passage in question. My guy has provided a detailed and sensible explanation. Your guy hasn't, or you haven't found it to provide it here. Thus, you haven't supported your stupidly false claims at all.
"Given just that much reality, they have more credibility on the face of it than he does."
All that matters is who is correct with regard to the true meaning of the passage in question. Koukl could be you mother and all that matters is: is his explanation an accurate understanding of the passage. He explained why his is likely the better explanation. You've provided nothing from any of your "credible" sources which even attempts one.
"God's mercy on the imperfect is irrational."
Wow.
So, I guess you think being patient, gracious and merciful in the face of merely imperfect people is irrational..?
That says so much.
Marshal...
"you don't know that at all. Second, it matters not."
I've looked at all their education and other backgrounds, including your lightweight "apologist," Koukl. These Jewish folk are steeped in Hebrew and Hebrew traditions. THEY are the experts on Hebrew.
Your boy, Koukl, not so much. Look it up. I'd be willing to bet that he can't even read Hebrew, much less ancient Hebrew, much less understand it in context.
And yes, of course it matters! If we're talking about the meaning and context of Hebrew words, OF COURSE, it matters if someone is well-versed in Hebrew or not.
Good God, you're just embarrassing yourself now... throwing yourself at the cutest boy who says what tickles your ears, whispering literally sweet Nothings to you and leaving you starry-eyed and weak-kneed.
This, for instance...
Dan:
"I'm telling you what experts in the language say."
Marshal:
"Exactly what Koukl's done, at the absolute least!"
Koukl gives NO evidence of being an expert AT ALL in what ancient Hebrew says. Has he taken class ONE of Hebrew? There's no sign of it on the internet in his own credentials.
May 28, 2022 at 8:34 PM
And still you persist in the off topic after being asked to stay on point. Not at all what you would tolerate at your joke of a blog, especially after not tolerating what is directly on topic and in line with your petulant and ever shifting criteria.
""God's mercy on the imperfect is irrational."
Wow.
So, I guess you think being patient, gracious and merciful in the face of merely imperfect people is irrational..?
That says so much."
It says you're willing to intentionally take my words out of context in order to attack me, because that's the only way liars like you can do so.
We are imperfect people. By your standards, which are nothing at all comparable to God's or those of rational people, no one is deserving of eternal punishment for failing God for any reason. Yet, as Scripture tells us without ambiguity, we are not deserving of anything but death, yet God will save us. To those like you and people who honestly admit they don't believe, God's ways make no sense.
In the meantime, like those who sincerely worship and revere Him, I'm perfectly cool with whatever God wants to do, either to me or for me. He's the Supreme Being. I accept He's not totally dim. I don't judge His Will at all, but only strive in my imperfect, less-than-satisfactory way to serve and glorify Him.
May 28, 2022 at 10:03 PM
"Marshal...
"you don't know that at all. Second, it matters not."
I've looked at all their education and other backgrounds, including your lightweight "apologist," Koukl. These Jewish folk are steeped in Hebrew and Hebrew traditions. THEY are the experts on Hebrew.
Your boy, Koukl, not so much. Look it up. I'd be willing to bet that he can't even read Hebrew, much less ancient Hebrew, much less understand it in context.
And yes, of course it matters! If we're talking about the meaning and context of Hebrew words, OF COURSE, it matters if someone is well-versed in Hebrew or not."
I've accepted long ago that along with being an abject liar, you're incredibly stupid. But I'll try again to explain what should be easy for even you to understand:
It does NOT matter the degree to which Koukl has ever studied ancient Hebrew. He doesn't have to know a single word. If he's in any way intelligent...and you can't hold a candle to the guy...you can't even handle lowly me...all he needs do is study all who have interpreted this passage to see who seems to have done the best job and report it...assuming that's all he's doing in his article and that he has no education in Hebrew in any way.
Think of it this way: Historians...and I mean real historians, not those you cite to pretend Trump was the worst president ever...have no personal understanding of the people and events they study, analyze and record. In the book I finally finished about Frederick Douglass, the biography was the result of many years of research...a gathering of information from which the author could compile his understanding of the life of Douglass. Another biographer might have a different take on his life. Those who themselves read and study the life and times of Douglass will regard one author's work as superior to the other's for one reason or another.
Here, I find Koukl to be far superior to those you've cited because he doesn't simply assert a meaning of the passage. He explains his reasoning by speaking to words of the original language and what they mean based on the context in which they are found, other examples of how they are used throughout Scripture and from these and other means comes a conclusion which is easy to understand.
What have any of your offerings provided? Nothing but a different assertion with no similar provision of criteria to support their conclusions. So if your dudes are the "experts" who feel the passage differentiates between the value of born versus unborn, or fully adult males versus a fetus, they do nothing to explain how the passage says that. They don't speak of word usage in the same detail Koukl does. They don't speak of the order of words which leads to a specific meaning which denies any other understanding. They. Simply. Assert.
What's more, there's nowhere in anything you've provided which comes anywhere close to proving the ancient people of Israel believed about the unborn what they pretend to insist the passage says. You cited that Rosner character, "an expert on Jewish medical ethics and on the medical writings of Moses Maimonides." Yet I cited Maimonides directly saying abortion was murder. So you present an expert on an expert who says the opposite of the expert on which he's supposed to be an expert. And then you dare disparage Koukl? You're an idiot.
"Good God, you're just embarrassing yourself now... throwing yourself at the cutest boy who says what tickles your ears, whispering literally sweet Nothings to you and leaving you starry-eyed and weak-kneed."
There you go again. You can't find true fault, so you get all 10 yer old girl on me. Find an "expert" who has done what Koukl has done but with a different conclusion. Or borrow a pair of testicles and explain where Koukl goes wrong in his analysis of the passage.
May 28, 2022 at 10:05 PM
"This, for instance...
Dan:
"I'm telling you what experts in the language say."
Marshal:
"Exactly what Koukl's done, at the absolute least!"
Koukl gives NO evidence of being an expert AT ALL in what ancient Hebrew says. Has he taken class ONE of Hebrew? There's no sign of it on the internet in his own credentials."
What he gives is that upon which you need to focus your incredibly tiny brain...a solid explanation for why the passage does not deny the personhood of the fetus, nor why the passage is ammo for you pro-abort animals. His expertise is evident in the plain explanation for which you haven't the means of exposing any holes. Provide a better one which contradicts him without the "expert" "Nyuh uh" and then we can talk. Short of that, I'm likely to Trabue any further attempts to expose your stupidity more clearly than you already have.
This comment is an example of what I now call "a Trabue". You're once again making false suggestions about what the passages you're citing teach. We've covered this passage before. It does not say what you want and desperately need it to say in order to bolster your immoral position on human life.
What these passages teach is that the ancient Israelites were a primitive people with primitive attitudes about women and sexuality—not to mention a wide variety of other matters. What's ludicrous is thinking that their barbaric practices are actually the commands of a loving God.
Here is a question for you: When they were stoning these thirteen-year-old rape victims, what did they do if she had been impregnated? Surely God would never countenance the killing of the unborn in this way? For that matter, women who commit adultery sometimes get pregnant and sometimes they are already pregnant when they commit adultery. Even if they engaged in sex of their own volition, surely their unborn children were innocent.
There is no desperation in interpreting the passages in the way that I do because scholars have interpreted them for centuries, if not millennia. Moreover, it's the way that they have been interpreted without the slightest reference to the issue abortion-on-demand. It's Koukl's sophistry that stinks of desperation: centuries of scholarship support the interpretation that the ancient Israelites didn't view the unborn in the way that modern Evangelicals want to claim they did, so Koukl and his fellow apologist do a little word search on BibleGateway.com and discover what everyone else has missed since the passages were written. Talk about stinking of desperation.
I have no motivation to interpret this passage in any particular way because my pro-choice position is not dependent on anything the ancient Israelites thought. It's based in part on the simple proposition that no person should be compelled to sacrifice his or her bodily integrity for anyone else. For example, if I could save another person's life by a kidney donation that would pose minimal risk to my own health, I have the absolute right to refuse. As much as it might be a laudable thing to do, I am not obligated. The choice to put her body through the stress of a pregnancy is for the woman to make.
Another huge issue is the total impracticality of declaring the legal personhood and the legal rights of a fertilized egg or an embryo. In our legal system, guardians are appointed for persons who do not have the capacity to represent themselves. Are we going to start appointing guardians for fertilized eggs and embryos? If we are going to say that the fertilized egg has the legal right to feed off another human being, how far will the guardian be allowed to go? Does the embryo have the legal right to have the woman get prenatal care or to eat healthy foods? Does the embryo have the legal right to force the woman to take bed rest if a doctor determines that it is best for the pregnancy? What other procedures might a woman be compelled to undergo in the name of the embryo's right to life? What degree of government intrusion would be allowed? For better or worse, God made the woman responsible for those cells growing within her.
"What these passages teach is that the ancient Israelites were a primitive people with primitive attitudes about women and sexuality—not to mention a wide variety of other matters."
What they're teaching us now is how willing some are to distort what they say and to ignore what they say.
"What's ludicrous is thinking that their barbaric practices are actually the commands of a loving God."
And yet they are despite your unwillingness to accept how that is? More so, like Dan, you are only willing to presume that God must act on YOUR terms in order to be regarded as loving, as a small child might do so with a parent unwilling to bend their rules to the child.
"Here is a question for you: When they were stoning these thirteen-year-old rape victims, what did they do if she had been impregnated?"
About whom are you speaking? The Hebrews didn't stone rape victims.
"For that matter, women who commit adultery sometimes get pregnant and sometimes they are already pregnant when they commit adultery. Even if they engaged in sex of their own volition, surely their unborn children were innocent."
So you're going to continue this absurd course of action...so I'm going to speculate that those found in the act of adultery never were impregnated. There. Problem solved. Or, we can go back to your desire that all would die in utero in order to be assured of heaven. How's that? Or maybe, with the law enacted, few actually engaged and few were ever found out to have done so. Don't forget...this was a time when God's constant presence was a bit more than merely assumed.
"There is no desperation in interpreting the passages in the way that I do because scholars have interpreted them for centuries, if not millennia."
And the debate here is whether the interpretation you need to believe was common was indeed so. It has not been established either by you or by Dan...only asserted as such. The notion that some, like Koukl and the scholars he cites, are doing more than determining the true meaning of the original language is "sophistry" requires some evidence. Merely citing those with an opposing opinion doesn't get that done. Dan has not provided anyone of your ilk who has provided an explanation for their interpretation as detailed and thus having the potential for refutation as has Koukl. Why is that if it was so common? I've already provided for Dan evidence of the position from Maimonides which supports Koukl more than rebuts him. So where's the proof there were any from before him who saw things your way?
"I have no motivation to interpret this passage in any particular way because my pro-choice position is not dependent on anything the ancient Israelites thought."
If this is so, then you may want to refrain from the weak attempts to question Scripture as if the truth of it matters to you.
"It's based in part on the simple proposition that no person should be compelled to sacrifice his or her bodily integrity for anyone else."
Two problems here:
1. Abortion is doing just that...forcing the child to be sacrificed for the mother. This is especially outrageous given the child exists by conscious invitation.
2. Do you feel that way in defense of the Ulvade PD?
"For example, if I could save another person's life by a kidney donation that would pose minimal risk to my own health, I have the absolute right to refuse. As much as it might be a laudable thing to do, I am not obligated. The choice to put her body through the stress of a pregnancy is for the woman to make."
You confuse "obligation" with "requirement". The woman already made the choice when she got jiggy. Only pro-aborts choose to separate act from obligation the act imposes.
"Another huge issue is the total impracticality of declaring the legal personhood and the legal rights of a fertilized egg or an embryo."
There's nothing at all impractical about it. I have no problem with insisting people regard the act of intercourse as more than just selfish self-indulging. It's why the freakin' debate rages. To pretend one can regard one's self as a mature adult while ignoring the reality of what intercourse is a lie. Actions have consequences, but this action we're to treat as without significant consequences? How incredibly selfish and cruel!
So in your fevered imaginings, there is no obligation a woman has to the person who exists because of her selfishness. That's freakin' perfect and a perfect expression of leftist thought. It's no wonder our culture has decayed so badly.
The woman already made the choice when she got jiggy.
So you support a woman's right to choose in the case of rape?
Ah...so now you deflect back to the "rape & incest" argument, as if that is acceptable because the woman didn't choose to have sex? Why not pick a lane and stay in it for a while rather than swerving all over the road.
Rape resulting in pregnancy is a case where there are two victims of the crime. The child had no choice in the matter, and beyond question, far less choice than the rape victim. How is murdering the child an acceptable response to the rape in your mind?
The child had no choice in the matter, and beyond question, far less choice than the rape victim.
I keep coming back to the issue of rape because I find your answers so interesting.
For example, you think that it is beyond question that a woman who is raped has some choice in the matter. What choice would that be that would justify forcing her to carry to term the pregnancy that is forced upon her?
"For example, you think that it is beyond question that a woman who is raped has some choice in the matter."
Again you engage in Trabue-level stuff. Read my sentence again...the one you quoted. Clearly, unmistakably and unequivocally, "and beyond question" refers to the choice the child had.
What's more, the notion that anyone has the choice to learn defensive tactics in order to protect one's self from any unwanted attention...including physical attack...is fact. It has nothing to do with whether or not one is successful in thwarting an attack. But one has the choice in employing methods of self-protection. Do you not agree with this obvious reality?
The unborn, on the other hand, had no choice whatsoever in it's creation. As the second victim of a rape, on what basis can you justify killing the kid? Only a horror of a human being would do such a thing. Only a selfish and weak minded person would do such a thing. Is it an easy ask? Of course not! But in what way is anyone justified in killing a child for something for which it had no part in inflicting upon its mother?
Your question indicts you as it does any woman who so dares to ask it. Compassion should force her. Concern for the innocent should force her. Virtue and humanity should force her. Strong moral character should force her. Women don't have to be victims and can choose not to be. But should they become one regardless of their best efforts, they cannot justify NOT carrying the kid to term, because there is no justification.
But should they become one regardless of their best efforts, they cannot justify NOT carrying the kid to term, because there is no justification.
What if it would be a high risk pregnancy? What if the pregnancy would pose a threat to the woman's life or health? I don't know how you justify making her accept that risk.
First, by informing her there is no true need to destroy the child in utero as its presence poses no threat to her life. You can read a more recent post which affirms this by testimony of many medical professionals. Thus, how do pro-aborts justify lying about the dangers to a pregnant women being due to the presence of the child, and that the only way to save her life is to brutally kill the child?
First, by informing her there is no true need to destroy the child in utero as its presence poses no threat to her life. You can read a more recent post which affirms this by testimony of many medical professionals.
Many medical professionals? Are these the same medical professionals who were lying about hydroxychloroquine? Is one of them that crazy lady doctor from Houston who believes that sexual demons and alien DNA are contributing to America's health problems?
Try reading the links I posted, then you tell me which of those described therein are not medical professionals.
So typical of a lefty to pick out the one person who may be suspect and pretend she's typical. At the same time, her more outrageous personal beliefs do not mean her credentials as a physician are in question.
As to HCQ, try to find the definitive study which renders its use as an early treatment of Covid. None exists so far as I can tell. Results are all over the place and most of those which say there's no benefit do not necessarily judge according to how it's being used by those who say it's efficacious. Those doing actual lying are those who are pushing the drugs which are doing the most harm.
No more talk of Covid as this post is not about that.
Just as you didn't bother to look at Koukl's qualifications before deciding that he successfully refuted centuries of scholarly consensus, I'm sure that the qualifications of these "medical professionals" don't matter to you as long as they say what you want to hear.
So with another Dan-like response, you're also going to pretend Koukl's "qualifications" (as if they're minimal---"Greg received his Masters in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics at Talbot School of Theology, graduating with high honors, and his Masters in Christian Apologetics with honors from Simon Greenleaf University. He is an adjunct professor in Christian apologetics at Biola University.") are a far more important target for criticism than his argument. Perfect, though I expected better from you. Maybe you're off your game after your long absence from the blogs. But the fact is it's a lazy way to debate. The argument deals with the interpretation of the passage in question, not the sheepskin or ordination of the participants. Koukl could be a garbage man. That doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to any other subject. If he's wrong, bright people should be able to say why. The response (scholars say different) isn't what bright people say. It's what intellectually lazy people say in order to crap on that which they don't want to hear.
The same is true with this issue, with the notable exception that the sources my links cite are actually those who deal with difficult pregnancies as a specialty. Their positions are based on science and personal experience applying that science.
Getting back to Koukl, he was successful in his "refutation" of "centuries" (a questionable premise in itself) of scholarly "consensus" (another word which suggests intellectual laziness) because unlike any "scholar" provided by you or Dan, he carefully explained his position from every possible angle with regard to the original language and words and their common usage. When either of you can provide as detailed an explanation from one of your "experts", perhaps we'll be able to compare and make a decision for ourselves based on something substantial. "Scholars say" is a good way to be led astray.
So what I want to hear is truth and I regard as truth that which is backed by the best evidence and arguments. When you lefties can bring that, that'll be the day.
Koukl's degrees do no qualify him as an expert in ancient languages. Moreover, you admitted that you hadn't looked into his qualifications before you cited his opinion. If you actually cared about the best evidence and arguments, you would have looked into the evidence and arguments on the other side of the question before you reached a conclusion.
Again, he doesn't need to be an expert himself. There are plenty of experts for someone like him...or even YOU...to research to get to the truth. As he's done that, it should be easy enough to find those who can contradict the conclusions his research has led him, and me, to accept as the best understanding of the passage. Do you have anything at all that actually does that, or are you just going to hang your hat on that which is irrelevant? The reason I cited his piece is because of how detailed and thorough was his explanation. Dan hasn't provided anything that comes close while instead, like you, pretending rabbis are unassailable because they're rabbis who supposedly have a better grasp of the ancient language. All that matters is which explanation of the passage is true and how one argues the case. Until you or Dan can provide a compelling counter to Koukl, crapping on his credentials remains worthless.
The reason I cited his piece is because of how detailed and thorough was his explanation.
No. You cited his piece because it supported the position you already hold. I don't know enough about ancient languages to determine whether Koukl is right or wrong, but I've read enough to know that his explanation is neither detailed nor thorough. It is one-sided and cursory, i.e., it bears all the tell-tale signs of apologetics rather than scholarship.
I explained why I cited it and I stand by that explanation because it's the actual reason. He provides good detail regarding how words are used in Scripture and gives multiple examples to demonstrate his point. His explanation is based on the scholarship of others, so whining about his own credentials is worthless. None of the pro-abort "scholars" and "experts" provided by Dan (or you, for that matter) have done as much. So you're proving my giving you credit for being a better thinker than someone like Dan was misplaced confidence. If you're going to pretend Koukl's explanation is neither detailed nor thorough, then I'm sure you've got on tap an example of one by which we can see a clear distinction which proves your point. Until then, your objection to it is one-sided and bears all the tell-tale signs of a leftist who can't bear facts and evidence which don't support your defense of abortion or the notion the unborn isn't a person with the unalienable right to life endowed upon him/her by his/her Creator.
By the way, I have another argument on the passage which argues against the explanation by those like Koukl and the scholars which informed his piece. I'm still in the process of processing it and looking to see how it deals with criticisms and concerns it provokes. It's very detailed and will take some time, but the effort required to do so is not what I'm seeing from either of you guys. Thus, you'll have to bear with me.
Post a Comment