• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Exodus 21, it's translations, interpretations and defense of interpretations.

Questerr said:
And your cult's Bible is the only one that rejects the Trinity. That means it must be wrong, right?
Click to expand...
lol...is that all ya got...
 
Elora said:
Wrong...

The maximum time that any Israelite would have to serve as a slave was six years. (Exodus 21:2) Hebrew slaves were set free in the seventh year of their service. The Law demanded that every 50 years all Israelite slaves were to be set free nationwide, regardless of how long the individual had been a slave.—Leviticus 25:40, 41.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102011251
Click to expand...

With due respect, the above doesn’t adequately refute @Questerr comment of: “We are talking about chattel slavery for life against one’s will and conferring that status on one’s children: which is what the Bible says is allowed (and therefore moral).”

You do relaize chattel slavery didn’t exist for Jewish slaves. Non-Jews were also chattel property and your comment omits this half of chattel slavery.
 
weaver2 said:
We won't go into covet: Capitalism is built on coveting. In fact if we all stopped coveting capitalism die.
Click to expand...

Not really, as the basics of capitalism do not require one to covet or coveting. Covet:”want something very much, especially something that belongs to somebody else…to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably…to feel inordinate desire for what belongs to another” Oxford, Cambridge, Webster.

There’s another entry from only Webster: to wish for earnestly. Innocuous really.
 
weaver2 said:
Well, that is I wanted to know also.

You are right they are all rules for slaves. I think the UN statement of human rights condemns and bans slavery, so why so much attention from the anti-abortion movement? Why the misinterpretations of Exodus 21:22-25

22. 'If people, when brawling, hurt a pregnant woman and she suffers a miscarriage but no further harm is done, the person responsible will pay compensation as fixed by the woman's master, paying as much as the judges decide.
23. If further harm is done, however, you will award life for life,
24. eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25. burn for burn, wound for wound, stroke for stroke.

to mean that "life for a life" proves the the Bible says that the fetus is a person with legal rights.
Click to expand...

“Miscarriage” is the incorrect interpretation based on the Hebrew used.

See:
Post in thread 'But God Didn’t Say That: Religious Community Members Talk God and Abortion'
https://debatepolitics.com/threads/...-talk-god-and-abortion.473338/post-1075721052
 
weaver2 said:
Look very carefully at the verses.

22. 'If people, when brawling, hurt a pregnant woman and she suffers a miscarriage but no further harm is done, the person responsible will pay compensation as fixed by the woman's master, paying as much as the judges decide.

There is a period at the end of verse 22. It indicates that in the matter of a pregnant woman whose fetus has been injured has been fully addressed; responsible party named, compensation described and fine levied by the judge.

23. If further harm is done, however, you will award life for life,
24. eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25. burn for burn, wound for wound, stroke for stroke.

These next three verses are all one sentence describing further damage to someone. Who? The awarding of punishment tells you who. The person that killed or blinded or bashed in teeth, broke or cut off a hand or foot, burned, wounded or beat someone will be punished with the same injury or death. One of the fighters would be the most likely person doing any of those things .............. not the fetus, not a woman bystander watching the fight ........................... unless ........ the woman is participating in the fight and is killed or injured or she is killing or injuring someone else.
Click to expand...

This is not supported by the plain text meaning.

Exodus 21:22-25 “Now if people struggle with each other and strike a pregnant woman so that [w]she gives birth prematurely, but there is no injury, the guilty person shall certainly be fined as the woman’s husband [x]may demand of him, and he shall (N)pay [y]as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, (O)then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 (P)eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, [z]bruise for bruise.”

First, the application of injury is to the pregnant woman and prematurely born fetus. The plain text doesn’t limit injury to any specific one of them.

So, there is A.) premature birth of the fetus. B.) if there is injury to the premature birth of the fetus, including death, then death to the person who struck her but where injury is less than death to the prematurely born fetus, then the penalty is commensurate to the non-lethal injury.

So, this verse requires a pregnant woman whose fetus is alive at the time she is struck. This is deducible by A.) The Hebrew word used, for something alive, such as “child” and the bringing forth of that which was alive at the time of being struck, the fetus. So, before the strike, fetus is alive, during the strike the fetus is alive, after the strike is premature birth of fetus and fetus is now dead. This results in death of the striker, imposition of a penalty that in the OT attached to a person taking the life of another person.

Indeed, if the mother dies from the strike, then the striker is to die. If the fetus, alive before the strike and during the strike, born prematurely but is dead, the striker is to die.

The life of the mother and fetus are treated equally.
 
NotreDame said:
Well, I have to be according to you a “Pompous ass” to set off your “pompous ass meter.” Trust me, I’m not the only one who caught that.
Click to expand...
You are the one so claiming. I never said that.
 
weaver2 said:
You are the one so claiming. I never said that.
Click to expand...

To the contrary, when you call it “Pompous ass meter” and then say I set it off, specifically made it explode, that is exactly what you’ve called me a “Pompous ass.” Only a “pompous ass” can set off your “pompous ass meter” just as only someone dripping with irony can trip the “irony meter.” No one accused of not resorting to irony can set off the irony meter just as someone who is not a pompous ass cannot set off your pompous ass meter.

Just enage the substance of my arguments. Enough with your personal insults.
 
NotreDame said:
To the contrary, when you call it “Pompous ass meter” and then say I set it off, specifically made it explode, that is exactly what you’ve called me a “Pompous ass.” Only a “pompous ass” can set off your “pompous ass meter” just as only someone dripping with irony can trip the “irony meter.” No one accused of not resorting to irony can set off the irony meter just as someone who is not a pompous ass cannot set off your pompous ass meter.

Just enage the substance of my arguments. Enough with your personal insults.
Click to expand...
Ah, but, I did not say that you set it off. I simply said it exploded.
 
Elora said:
Life for life...whoever caused the injury/death of the unborn would pay back with his life...
Click to expand...
Except of course, the bible strictly gives a fine for a loss of a fetus. That shows that a fetus is not given the same status as a life.
 
Elora said:
Life for life...whoever caused the injury/death of the unborn would pay back with his life...
Click to expand...
A tooth for a tooth with the unborn?? How will you manage that. What about a burn for a burn?? How how does a brawling slave manage to burn a fetus?

Verses 23, 24, 25 of Exodus 21 are not talking about the fetus. Life for a life refers to the killing of someone involved in the fighting not the fetus. You cannot use Chapter 21, rules for slaves, to justify fetal personhood, no matter how hard you try.
 
weaver2 said:
Verses 23, 24, 25 of Exodus 21 are not talking about the fetus. Life for a life refers to the killing of someone involved in the fighting not the fetus.
Click to expand...
The words in Exodus 21:22-25 didn’t fall randomly from the sky. The author chose the wording. The author did not choose any words limiting the penalty to those “fighting.” But one party to the fighting is excluded as a victim to receive justice by the two penalties.

“Now if people struggle with each other and strike a pregnant woman so that [w]she gives birth prematurely, but there is no injury, the guilty person shall certainly be fined as the woman’s husband [x]may demand of him, and he shall (N)pay [y]as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, (O)then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 (P)eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, [z]bruise for bruise.”

There’s no language limiting any penalty, more precisely limiting either of the 2 penalties to those fighting. Your interpretation is baseless, empty, enjoys no factual or evidentiary support from the verses, from the Hebrew words used or their meaning.

The “no injury” isn’t expressly or impliedly limited to the mother, or fighters, indeed there’s no such limiting language, thereby bringing the fetus into play for an injury. The striker is excluded as a victim from the consideration of the financial penalty and life for life penalty. “[T]he guilty person shall certainly be fined as the woman’s husband [x]may demand of him…” The striker is the “guilty person. The striker is the “guilty person” because the person committed a battery.

The conjunction “BUT” connects the two penalties for the “guilty person” to suffer.

“But if there is any further injury, (O)then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 (P)eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, [z]bruise for bruise.”

The word “But” is a conjunction connecting the two possible penalties to the guilty person. There is no language in the connected phrase coming after the word “But” that limits the “further injury” and the penalty to that of only the mother, thereby bringing the living fetus into play for “further injury” and the more severe penalty than the prior financial penalty.

Hence, it is an illogical reading to exclude the fetus. The fetus is protected from the “guilty party.”

fetal personhood
Click to expand...

So what? “Fetal personhood” isn’t necessary for Exodus 21:22-25 to protect the fetus.
 
Last edited:
Questerr said:
Unless your wife cheated on you. Then the Bible lays out how to force her to get an abortion.
Click to expand...

You refer to Numbers 5:11-31?
It's another misrepresentation by pro-choice! Thanks to NIV!


There are several reasons, however, why they’re mistaken and that the passage probably isn’t referring to a type of miscarriage, let alone an abortion.


First, even if the original Hebrew suggests a miscarriage (the child dies), it still wouldn’t support the abortion-choice position. If a child dies in this scenario, it’s because of God’s judgment, not a woman’s private decision. Even if the passage indicates an intentional miscarriage, it doesn’t justify abortion any more than God killing David’s son (2 Sam. 12:14, 18) justifies infanticide. God is the author and sustainer of life. If anyone has the right to take life, He does. In this ritual, there’s nothing in the potion itself that can reveal the woman’s guilt or innocence. The potion is merely symbolic. The curse comes from God and not any human being. There is no parallel here with elective abortion.


But does this text even mention miscarriage? The NIV is one of the few popular translations that renders the passage, “Her womb will miscarry.”
Note, though, the NIV is a “dynamic equivalent” translation and not a precise word-for-word translation.

The NASB, on the other hand, is more precise, rendering the passage “her thigh will waste away.”
The popular ESV doesn’t refer to a pregnancy, miscarriage, or child either.
The NIV’s rendering, therefore, is imprecise.
If you don’t have access to the original language, stick with a word-for-word translation like the NASB, my own go-to translation when doing careful Bible study.

Did God Ordain Abortion as Punishment for Infidelity?

Though abortion is inconsistent with the Christian worldview, some people point to a Bible passage they believe ordains abortion. Alan responds.
www.str.org www.str.org
 
EdwinWillers said:
Well, speaking of word games - where does God say "slavery is cool and moral?"
Click to expand...
It appeared to be a blessing to have slaves.

Gen 24:35 The Lord has greatly blessed my master, so that he has become rich; and He has given him flocks and herds, and silver and gold, and servants and slave women, and camels and donkeys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom