Planned Parenthood Plans 40 Days of Prayer (L)

[AreYouReady?]

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.

Your source please?

[Aquila]

So... the primary point is that the Bible isn't necessarily clear about an unborn child's "right to live".

Another point is that the Bible firmly gives parents authority and power over the very lives of their children.

Therefore, many Christians of deep religious faith feel that those life or death decisions involving a woman's life, health, body, will to give birth, are her's to make and her's alone. This dove tails with concern over government involvement. It doesn't mean that those who feel this way think abortion is a good thing. In fact, it's a tragedy upon a tragedy in most cases. Nevertheless, many feel that the God given authority over life and death rests with the parents... not government.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

Your source please?

Google the words "thigh", "euphemism", and "bible". I've already done my homework son. lol

[Aquila]

Think of our society right now with gangs and kids roaming the streets. Imagine if a parent had the authority to put a child to death for being disobedient or cursing their father or mother. Oh yeah... "What? You said you're not cleaning you room and I' can stuff it??? You have five seconds to clean that room... or you're history boy! 1-2-3-..."

That's one kid who will learn to obey... or he will never make it long enough to join a gang and terrorize the streets. lol

[AreYouReady?]

Frog, you have hopelessly mangled and twisted this thread into some kind of point you are trying to make. Not sure what that is anymore.

Most things you post is in a questionable manner. What if ....

You have not given one shred of evidence that a fetus is not human. You are demanding facts and arguing scriptures, yet you give no credible evidence for your belief.Not one...but yet you argue and do not even give convincing argument for one issue before you start on another. No scripture given to you is going to satisfy you unless it agrees with your stance. And that is what Aquila gave to you. Something to feed on that is not even remotely linked to the abortion issue we have today.

Aquila, you only give your suppositions and not facts. No credible sources to back up what you say. It is very convenient for you to use 'euphemism" in your quest to be "right". By doing that, you are saying that the scholars of Strong's Concordance are wrong. The scholars have done much more study than any modern day Christian even thinks about. They identify and define words. Words have meanings attached to them. And Strong's definition and translation of the word "thigh" does not agree with it being a woman's genitalia. That doesn't fly with me. In fact, that is the nuttiest explanation I've ever heard come out of the heart of a person who says they are Christian. Until you bring in credible sources for examination on what you post, I will just have to continue to think that you are leaning on your own understanding. Anybody can express authority over another, but there were many things in the OT that Christ came to set straight because men thought like you back then. Scriptures have been stretched to the limit to make allowances in the past and I think that you have done this very same thing with Numbers 5.

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Google the words "thigh", "euphemism", and "bible". I've already done my homework son. lol

You rely on google? LOL.

Ok. That is your source. Now I know where you are coming from.

[Jay]

So have I, and the only 'scholars' that I have heard using the euphemism argument are liberal feministic, pro-homosexual agenda setters who have no love or use for a literal interpretation of the Bible. Further they deny the inspiration of the Word.

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by Jay

So have I, and the only 'scholars' that I have heard using the euphemism argument are liberal feministic, pro-homosexual agenda setters who have no love or use for a literal interpretation of the Bible. Further they deny the inspiration of the Word.

Euphemism explanations seems to be the easy way out when one does not wish to carefully consider other options that are not easy solutions.

[Aquila]

Interesting historical findings:

Interesting law in the ancient Code of the Hammurabi, 209 and 210:

”If a seignior struck a[nother] seignior’s daughter and has caused her to have a miscarriage [literally, caused her to drop that of her womb], he shall pay ten sheckels of silver for her fetus. If that woman had died, they shall put his daughter to death.” ~ Code of the Hammurabi, 209 – 210

A similar parallel is found in the Hittite Laws 1.7:

”If anyone causes a free woman to miscarry [literally, drives out the embryo]-if (it is) the 10th month, he shall give 10 shekels of silver, if (it is) the 5th month, he shall give 5 shekels of silver and pledge his estate as security.” ~Hittite Laws, 1.7

These ancient laws from the very same region of the earth illustrate quite well what the meaning of Exodus 21:22-23 most likely is. Note, a fine is imposed upon the death of the fetus. However, if the mother dies, it’s life for life.

Lastly, and this is interesting. From the Jewish Mishnah:

”If a woman was in hard travail, the child must be cut up while it is in the womb and brought out member by member, since the life of the mother has priority over the life of the child; but if the greater part of it [the child] was already born, it [the child] may not be touched, since the claim of one life cannot override the claim of another life.” ~M. Oholoth 7:6, trans. By Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1933). Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities: Part Four: Ohalot: Commentary (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1974, p. 187)

Now... compare to the code in Exodus:

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,

Seems to be a standard social law throughout ancient Middle Eastern societies. It looks as though the "life for life" clause is speaking with regards to the life of the mother and not the miscarried child.

When all is considered together, it becomes evident that ancient opinion was that the life and wellbeing of the mother was priority as long as the child was in the womb. Miscarriage was punishable by sizeable fine and financial restitution. However, the death of the mother after miscarriage was punishable by death.

The Mishnah clearly delineates between when the unborn is to be valued as an equal life with the mother. According to Mishnaic Law the child’s life was only equal in value to the mother’s when it was more than half way out of the womb.

Interesting.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

Frog, you have hopelessly mangled and twisted this thread into some kind of point you are trying to make. Not sure what that is anymore.

Most things you post is in a questionable manner. What if ....

You have not given one shred of evidence that a fetus is not human. You are demanding facts and arguing scriptures, yet you give no credible evidence for your belief.Not one...but yet you argue and do not even give convincing argument for one issue before you start on another. No scripture given to you is going to satisfy you unless it agrees with your stance. And that is what Aquila gave to you. Something to feed on that is not even remotely linked to the abortion issue we have today.

Aquila, you only give your suppositions and not facts. No credible sources to back up what you say. It is very convenient for you to use 'euphemism" in your quest to be "right". By doing that, you are saying that the scholars of Strong's Concordance are wrong. The scholars have done much more study than any modern day Christian even thinks about. They identify and define words. Words have meanings attached to them. And Strong's definition and translation of the word "thigh" does not agree with it being a woman's genitalia. That doesn't fly with me. In fact, that is the nuttiest explanation I've ever heard come out of the heart of a person who says they are Christian. Until you bring in credible sources for examination on what you post, I will just have to continue to think that you are leaning on your own understanding. Anybody can express authority over another, but there were many things in the OT that Christ came to set straight because men thought like you back then. Scriptures have been stretched to the limit to make allowances in the past and I think that you have done this very same thing with Numbers 5.

Yeah... and if 3,000 years from now someone uses an "English Stronger Concordance" to interpret a letter I wrote about gasoline costing, "an arm and a leg", they'd be convinced that I bartered for gasoline with body parts... according to your logic. LOL