Planned Parenthood Plans 40 Days of Prayer (L)

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Actually he's right. The "thigh" was considered anything from the knee to the waist, specifically the crotch. A basically the "trial by ordeal" brought on the "curse". Heavy bleeding and a shriveled womb.

No Aquila..this is not correct interpretation no matter how you are trying to justify it. Heavy bleeding? the bible says the thigh will rot.

The interpretation of the word thigh in all scriptures I posted come from the same reference in the Strong's Concordance...all with the same meaning.

[KeptByTheWord]

I have been following this thread off and on, and haven't read EVERY comment, but I had a thought concerning the scripture Aquila brought up regarding a man bringing his wife to the priest for possible infedelity.

Has there ever been a documented case of a woman going before the priest and her womb shriveling? I am unaware of one, at least one mentioned in the Bible.

[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...

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

No Aquila..this is not correct interpretation no matter how you are trying to justify it. Heavy bleeding? the bible says the thigh will rot.

The interpretation of the word thigh in all scriptures I posted come from the same reference in the Strong's Concordance...all with the same meaning.

That's stupid. Scholars will tell you that in Hebrew we find many euphemisms. The "thigh" was a euphemism for genitalia and the reproductive organs throughout ancient history among the Hebrews. It's a no brainer.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

I have been following this thread off and on, and haven't read EVERY comment, but I had a thought concerning the scripture Aquila brought up regarding a man bringing his wife to the priest for possible infedelity.

Has there ever been a documented case of a woman going before the priest and her womb shriveling? I am unaware of one, at least one mentioned in the Bible.

I don't believe we have a record of this procedure. Clearly something no one wanted to record.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by jfrog

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.

Remember, in ancient Israel wives and children were essentially property. If a woman was pregnant by another man it endangered the family’s wealth. If the child was the first born, it could hijack the family inheritance. It was a BIG deal. A defiled wife was a danger to the entire family’s future. Any seed sired by her infidelity was unwanted property and its destruction was welcomed.
Also, consider the following:

Exodus 21:22-24 (KJV)
22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

In this scenario men are fighting and they hurt a woman with child, “so that her fruit depart from her”. Now… this is ancient Israel. No incubators… no doctors or nurses. A pregnant woman miscarries as a result of the physical encounter. Most don’t realize this… but the notion of her “fruit departing from her” implies a miscarriage that results in the termination of the pregnancy. Now, the men responsible are to be punished. How? According as the woman’s husband will lay upon him as agreed by the judges. This implies a fine for the destruction of property. However, everyone knows that a miscarriage is VERY serious for a woman. In fact, a woman can bleed to death or suffer death from infection as a result of a miscarriage. The term “mischief” is regarded by many rabbinical scholars to speak of complications relating to the mother. If as a result of the confrontation she is maimed or suffers death, they are to pay “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, and foot for foot”. The majority of Hebrew rabbinical scholars that I’ve read speak of the “life for life” clause as being one that places the value of the mother’s wellbeing higher than the value of the miscarried child. So, many Jews are pro-choice because they believe the life and wellbeing of the mother is of primary importance.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Aquila

That's stupid. Scholars will tell you that in Hebrew we find many euphemisms. The "thigh" was a euphemism for genitalia and the reproductive organs throughout ancient history among the Hebrews. It's a no brainer.

Strange, I have heard 'scholars' saying the same thing about the word feet.

[Aquila]

Another interesting text:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21
18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Notice how much authority parents have over the very lives of their children in the Law of Moses. What if someone took their child to the local court, complained that he is rebellious and disobedient... and as a result the men of the neighborhood marched with the father to the edge of town and shot the kid to death per the parent's request?

You can't tell me that the Law of God doesn't place the the very lives of children under the authority of their parents.

Side note: My mother used to get so upset with me, when I was being disobedient and rebellious, that she'd say, "God gave you to me. I brought you into this world son, and I can take you out!" LOL

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jay

Strange, I have heard 'scholars' saying the same thing about the word feet.

Yes, "feet" is another. So is "arm". The linguistic context typically defines the euphemism.