- Joined
- Mar 30, 2013
- Messages
- 31,009
- Reaction score
- 9,029
- Location
- The Lone Star State.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
And there's nothing in there about SSM. So we're good to go.
Really? Breathing means you are 'innocent?' Pretty sure that doesnt apply to alot of people, in prison and out.
Being is there would be no SSM without homosexuality ...then NO.
You need to read what I said again. GOD breathed life into that child at conception.
The term "yatsa" doesn't mean "to lose her offspring" it means "to go out, to go forth". It certainly doesn't mean a dead child, it is simply meant to refer to the process going out, to include the process of childbirth - it is used, for example, to describe the live births of Esau and Jacob (Genesis 25:25-26). It is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew texts and is never used to mean miscarriage, except apparently this one time, where you are insisting that it's meaning has somehow magically and temporarily changed.
God gave us dominion over the flowers and trees etc.. He has dominion over humans....born or not. He breathed life into that human at conception.
Enough of your pro-abortion excuses.
Says who?
You're making my point for me.
In the context of an unborn child, "to go out, to go forth" can refer to both premature birth *and* miscarriage.
If they wanted the fine to apply only to premature births, they would have used the verb form of yeled
Doesn't condemn the killing of children though.............
No. The words used indicate live child. The word for miscarriage or dead child is explicitly and deliberately excluded. In order for the terms to include cases of miscarriage they would have to mean something in this verse that they meant nowhere else in the New Testament.
They did use Yeled - specifically the noun form, used to annotate live births in the OT (Gen 21:8, Exodus 2:3, Ruth 4:16, Isaiah 9:6).
Well, only to the extent that it demands the life of the killer in return.
This is wrong, for the reasons i posted
And again you make my case. If they wanted to indicate that only premature (ie live) births were fined, they would have used "yeled"
Actually, the Bible contains many examples where the life that was taken was not the criminals' or the sinners', but an innocent member of their family instead
That is incorrect - the author had the option to include miscarriages, and chose not to.
:lol: they did.
Umm, I was talking about God killing innocent people (including children) for the crimes of othersNo doubt. The Bible records all manner of abuses and sins - it is not a tale of perfect people, but of God's plan for a broken humanity.
You're repeating yourself.
Boring
Well, only to the extent that it demands the life of the killer in return.
That is incorrect. The Old Testament does not have a word for Abortion, but it does have a word for Miscarry. There is no instance of someone willfully miscarrying their own child, in the OT, and so nothing is listed for or against it. The closest we have is that the OT states that if a man harms a pregnant woman so as to cause a premature birth, and lasting harm (the death of the child or the death of the woman) comes from it, he would pay for that with his life.
Throughout the Old Testament the text continually affirms that our life begins in the womb, that we have souls in the womb, and the New Testament states that we can even be touched by the Holy Spirit in the womb.
So you could say that that form of partial-birth abortion is considered a sin (a capital one) in the Old Testament, and you can say that there may be room for ambiguity about willful miscarriage in the OT, but you definitely cannot say that "The Old Testament clearly does not see abortion as murder".
Actually it says he should pay with money if the fetus dies. He will pay with his life if the woman dies.
On the contrary - he pays with money for a premature birth of a baby (live), and then pays with his life if there is any permanent harm to the woman or the child.
And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him
:shrug:
Yeah - NRSV screwed that one up. The term "yatsa" doesn't mean "to lose her offspring" it means "to go out, to go forth". It certainly doesn't mean a dead child, it is simply meant to refer to the process going out, to include the process of childbirth - it is used, for example, to describe the live births of Esau and Jacob (Genesis 25:25-26). It is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew texts and is never used to mean miscarriage, except, apparently, only in this one verse. :roll:
The word for "stillborn child" is "nephel" (Job 3:16, Eccl. 6:3-4, Psalms 58:8). The word for abortion or to cause miscarriage, is "shachol" (Genesis 31:38, Job 21:10, etc.) and is used by the author to mean miscarriage when he discusses miscarriage two chapters later (Exodus 23:26). The Hebrew word used here is a noun form of a verb (yeled) that means "child" or "child brought forth" or "little child" and is used to refer to live births in the Old Testament (ex: Gen 21:8, Exodus 2:3, Ruth 4:16, Isaiah 9:6), including in the exact same chapter (Exodus 21:4).
The early Church Fathers were similarly clear.
They did. During the Inquisition they (Catholics I believe) had no problem killing to serve their own purposes.
Today, many Christians support the death penalty....as well as certain sects.
and perhaps you put that first whereas other christian sects put love thy neighbor first. you aint god of christianity, so some sects can be all anti-gay and others will br pro-love and within the christian architecture all can exist.
I don't follow the Bible of your religion.
Yet I am still an American citizen.
I should not be subject only to what your God's laws are.
No. I'm pointing out the inconsistencies. You have still failed to point out where there is any agreement on what is or is not a violation of "thou shalt not kill/murder". Heck, the various Bible translations can't even get into agreement on what it should say, kill or murder.
What exactly is "pro-love"
You act as if there are only two positions hating gays and solemnizing gay marrige. You can still recognize that gays have the right to be together while acknowledging that the Bible defines marriage between a man and a woman.
That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. -Genesis 2:24
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?