Planned Parenthood Plans 40 Days of Prayer (L)

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by jfrog

It seems to me that this passage can only be truly interpreted when considering the below two questions...

1: What about the curse of the bitter water makes her unable to conceive seed? (vs 27,28)

2: What does the phrase "thigh to rot and belly to swell" mean? (vs 21)

I think the answer to these 2 questions is that the process in question made the woman sterile. This explains both the "thigh to fall and belly to swell" phrase and also answers the question of why it mentions she will be able to conceive if innocent (as if implying that she wouldn't if guilty).

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I think the answer to these 2 questions is that the process in question made the woman sterile. This explains both the "thigh to fall and belly to swell" phrase and also answers the question of why it mentions she will be able to conceive if innocent (as if implying that she wouldn't if guilty).

If I am right and this does result in a process of sterilization then abortion is implied for some of the women who cheated would surely be pregnant and making the woman sterile while pregnant is going to have the result of destroying the unborn inside her.

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by jfrog

If I am right and this does result in a process of sterilization then abortion is implied for some of the women who cheated would surely be pregnant and making the woman sterile while pregnant is going to have the result of destroying the unborn inside her.

I will give you one thing here. I would think that if a woman was with child by another man who was not her husband, it would be revealed by God through this process of the law of jealousies. Not a process that the priest would use to intentionally abort the baby. If she was guilty and IF she was with child, this most likely would destroy the unborn. And if she was not with child, it will surely destroy all her chances of ever conceiving. Women in those days looked forward to having children, even begging their husbands to "give them a child". But, to imply that this is a method the priest will do for a willful abortion as we know the term today, is not factual and grossly out of context with this passage. Lost of an unborn baby would be the result of her sin.

I would think that this would be more of a punishment to the woman. This would be an act of God, not a willful I-don't-want-this-child type of mentality that drives women today to have abortions.

Question here for you.

With the exception of enemies and war, can you find any scripture in the bible where God condoned the killing of the unborn in the womb for such reasons as women use now?

And just because you say Christian people never had funerals for miscarriages and erroneously think that they did not think the baby was real, does not mean that God does not consider even an embryo is not human.

You see, when it all boils down to the nitty-gritty, it's not about what we think, but it is all about what God thinks. It doesn't matter what our circumstances are , do we have the God-given right to snuff out a life? There are a lot of things that God leaves within our power to choose, but is taking the life of an innocent one of them?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

I will give you one thing here. I would think that if a woman was with child by another man who was not her husband, it would be revealed by God through this process of the law of jealousies. Not a process that the priest would use to intentionally abort the baby. If she was guilty and IF she was with child, this most likely would destroy the unborn. And if she was not with child, it will surely destroy all her chances of ever conceiving. Women in those days looked forward to having children, even begging their husbands to "give them a child". But, to imply that this is a method the priest will do for a willful abortion as we know the term today, is not factual and grossly out of context with this passage. Lost of an unborn baby would be the result of her sin.

I would think that this would be more of a punishment to the woman. This would be an act of God, not a willful I-don't-want-this-child type of mentality that drives women today to have abortions.

Question here for you.

With the exception of enemies and war, can you find any scripture in the bible where God condoned the killing of the unborn in the womb for such reasons as women use now?

And just because you say Christian people never had funerals for miscarriages and erroneously think that they did not think the baby was real, does not mean that God does not consider even an embryo is not human.

You see, when it all boils down to the nitty-gritty, it's not about what we think, but it is all about what God thinks. It doesn't matter what our circumstances are , do we have the God-given right to snuff out a life? There are a lot of things that God leaves within our power to choose, but is taking the life of an innocent one of them?

The bolded is an abortion. It matters not whether the abortion was the intent of the procedure or a side effect of it, the point is abortion took place (or if you prefer, the life of an unborn was snuffed out).

Let me ask you this: If it was legal today for a man to force a woman to undergo a procedure that would prove or disprove whether she cheated on him and cause her to have an abortion IF she became pregnant while cheating on him. How would you reconcile the unborn's right to life with that procedure? (I would think you would say the procedure is morally wrong because we do not have the God-given right to snuff out a life even if it was conceived due to adultery... and that the husbands right to know that she cheated doesn't trump the right to life of a human being even if it's unborn)

Further, what does it matter why women kill the unborn unless it's for the only justifiable reason you have, self defense? The right of the unborn to life if it is a human being should trump any and every reason to snuff its life out other than self defense. Numbers 5 describes a procedure which you agree will snuff out the life of an unborn and it is definetely not self defense...

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by jfrog

The bolded is an abortion. It matters not whether the abortion was the intent of the procedure or a side effect of it, the point is abortion took place (or if you prefer, the life of an unborn was snuffed out).

Oh it is NOT. You are just grasping at straws. The scripture makes no reference to a woman that may be with child or may not be with child. By your definition, if a woman slipped and fell and lost the baby, it would be abortion.

Originally Posted by jfrog

Let me ask you this: If it was legal today for a man to force a woman to undergo a procedure that would prove or disprove whether she cheated on him and cause her to have an abortion IF she became pregnant while cheating on him. How would you reconcile the unborn's right to life with that procedure? (I would think you would say the procedure is morally wrong because we do not have the God-given right to snuff out a life even if it was conceived due to adultery... and that the husbands right to know that she cheated doesn't trump the right to life of a human being even if it's unborn)

Further, what does it matter why women kill the unborn unless it's for the only justifiable reason you have, self defense? The right of the unborn to life if it is a human being should trump any and every reason to snuff its life out other than self defense. Numbers 5 describes a procedure which you agree will snuff out the life of an unborn and it is definetely not self defense...

Frog, you are once again twisting the scriptures and my posts. I did not say it was right or wrong. I conceded that IF...IF...IF there was a baby in the womb, this method would probably have killed the baby. Why can't you read in context of what the posts say? Well I guess I should not be surprised since you take scripture out of context.

Who am I to judge what God handed down as a law of jealousy from thousands of years ago? You are pretty brave to do so yourself. You are assuming that every woman or even one woman is pregnant when the Priest apply the law of jealousy to the woman.
The bible does not say one way or the other. You can quit trying to make out like God is a big bad boogeyman instead of the Just Creator. Man has been trying to subvert His will since Adam and Eve.

And, you can quit asking me stupid questions that have answers only open to speculation. What we have here in this day and age are the majority of women who use abortions as a means of birth control. You can say babies in the womb are not human until Christ returns, but you can be most definitely wrong.

You prove to me by either scripture or by medical science that babies are not human and quit twisting scripture in the attempt to make a point that is not there in the Bible. The burden of proof is on you.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

Oh it is NOT. You are just grasping at straws. The scripture makes no reference to a woman that may be with child or may not be with child. By your definition, if a woman slipped and fell and lost the baby, it would be abortion.

Actually no. If a woman slipped and fell it would be an accident that resulted in the death of the unborn. If that accident was the result for negligence then by your own standards that woman would be facing criminal charges for negligent homicide or manslaughter since that unborn was a human being with a right to life.

Frog, you are once again twisting the scriptures and my posts. I did not say it was right or wrong. I conceded that IF...IF...IF there was a baby in the womb, this method would probably have killed the baby. Why can't you read in context of what the posts say? Well I guess I should not be surprised since you take scripture out of context.

Who am I to judge what God handed down as a law of jealousy from thousands of years ago? You are pretty brave to do so yourself. You are assuming that every woman or even one woman is pregnant when the Priest apply the law of jealousy to the woman.The bible does not say one way or the other. You can quit trying to make out like God is a big bad boogeyman instead of the Just Creator. Man has been trying to subvert His will since Adam and Eve.

And, you can quit asking me stupid questions that have answers only open to speculation. What we have here in this day and age are the majority of women who use abortions as a means of birth control. You can say babies in the womb are not human until Christ returns, but you can be most definitely wrong.

You prove to me by either scripture or by medical science that babies are not human and quit twisting scripture in the attempt to make a point that is not there in the Bible. The burden of proof is on you.

1. You agree that if a woman was pregnant due to adultery that this procedure would result in the death of the unborn.
2. It's a safe assumption that at least one woman (and probably many more) would be pregnant due to her adultery.
3. There is no stipulation that this procedure be performed only after the woman was no longer pregnant.
4. Therefore its quite safe to assume that this procedure would be performed on adulteresses who were pregnant and that it would result in the death of unborns. I don't care whether you call that abortion or not but if unborns are truly human beings with a right to life then this procedure was most definetely morally wrong.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Suppose it was legal today for a man to force a woman to undergo a procedure that would prove or disprove whether she cheated on him and that procedure would also cause her unborn to die IF she had became pregnant while cheating on him. How would you reconcile the unborn's right to life with that procedure? (I would think you would say the procedure is morally wrong because we do not have the God-given right to snuff out a life even if it was conceived due to adultery... and also that the husbands right to know that she cheated doesn't trump the right to life of a human being even if it's unborn)

I think I'll ask this question again since it cuts right to the heart of the issue...

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I think the answer to these 2 questions is that the process in question made the woman sterile. This explains both the "thigh to fall and belly to swell" phrase and also answers the question of why it mentions she will be able to conceive if innocent (as if implying that she wouldn't if guilty).

Question number 1 is answered right there is verse 19.
19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:

This passage just says this method was to be used if the husband became suspicious and jealous of his wife. God will reveal if the woman has committed adultery or not.

20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:
21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;
22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.

27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.

28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.

So if the woman has committed adultery, God will cause the bitter water to go into the bowels. This suggests that something will take place within her bowels that will display these signs to the priest that she is guilty of adultery.


If she is not guilty, then the bitter water will not display these signs. Simple as that.

29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;


These passages are not a justification for abortion in todays world or even back then. Not then, not now...not even remotely. It was a process used only for the law of jealousy--to prove whether or not the wife is faithful to her husband.