This is a follow up of, oddly enough, a thread about cigars that was derailed. So let's create a new track and run this train down the line. There is a link to the previous thread (hit the arrow).
I invite anyone interested to weigh in on this examination of Exodus 21:22-25, as well as the issue of whether the Body, Spirit, and Soul of men are three separate components of man's existence.
Nothing indicates she was 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 months pregnant, only that she was.
[/QUOTE]
First, abortion is a determined course of action designed to end the life of a child in the womb, and the context here is that of an accidental injury to a pregnant woman.
Secondly, the pregnancy is obviously late term as a miscarriage that results in instantaneous death of the unborn child does not allow for the question of whether there is injury after her "fruit departs from her."
I think most would agree (those who are not trying to argue a pro-choice view, that is) that if a child departs from his/her (not "it") mother's womb as a result of a fight between two clods that premature birth cannot be denied.
And I pointed out the errors. Some of those errors are in part to further error in understanding of the soul and the spirit of man. Some of them are an interjection of traditional Jewish belief. Some of it seems to be guesswork.
None of it is based on actual Scripture.
What carnal men do is precisely the issue, which is why the Law is given to govern those carnal men, both in an attempt to dissuade them from this course of action as well as to bring about Justice if they do.
Again...you still overlook the fact that Life for Life is invoked.
Yes, it follows after the child departs from the womb. That is not in question.
More irrelevancy.
The point is that being "dependent on the mother" prior to birth is not relevant, as the child is still dependent on the mother after birth.
You're secular philosophy that appeals to Science (and poorly I might add) does not change the context of our text, nor does it provide a basis for making the child in the womb a lifeless...thing.
The mother is necessary, particularly in those times, where running down to grab some Infamil was not an option. If the mother had died in the process and the child survived...the child is still dependent on someone to keep them alive.
This is about as absurd an argument as I think I have run across in a while. And for what? To support a Liberal view?
The text speaks of both the child in the womb, as well as the child prematurely departing the womb due to a fight.
I think the NASB was one of the translations you appealed to (forgive me if I am wrong, been busy for a while), so here is their translation:
Exodus 21:22-25
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
22 “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that a]">[a]she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband b]">[b]may demand of him, and he shall pay c]">[c]as the judges decide.
23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, d]">[d]bruise for bruise.
Footnotes:
https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/smoking-cigars.104221/page-6#post-2302617
I invite anyone interested to weigh in on this examination of Exodus 21:22-25, as well as the issue of whether the Body, Spirit, and Soul of men are three separate components of man's existence.
Happy said:Perhaps we both have a little problem. It does not say, aborted or premature or a birth. It says her fruit (which is her fetus in her womb departed from where it was, ie the womb).Darrell C said:Darrell C said: ↑
The first problem you have is you are imposing abortion into the text. It doesn't state that.
Nothing indicates she was 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 months pregnant, only that she was.
[/QUOTE]
First, abortion is a determined course of action designed to end the life of a child in the womb, and the context here is that of an accidental injury to a pregnant woman.
Secondly, the pregnancy is obviously late term as a miscarriage that results in instantaneous death of the unborn child does not allow for the question of whether there is injury after her "fruit departs from her."
Happy said:To say aborted or premature, is not revealed.
I think most would agree (those who are not trying to argue a pro-choice view, that is) that if a child departs from his/her (not "it") mother's womb as a result of a fight between two clods that premature birth cannot be denied.
Happy said:Darrell C said:Secondly, I already addressed the text in the previous post and you have ignored it
There are two outcomes, the first is that the child is prematurely born and there is no mischief that follows, at which time the offender is penalized (presumably with a fine), and the second is that mischief does follow and that is when...
...life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth is invoked.
No, I didn't ignore. I already addressed.
And I pointed out the errors. Some of those errors are in part to further error in understanding of the soul and the spirit of man. Some of them are an interjection of traditional Jewish belief. Some of it seems to be guesswork.
None of it is based on actual Scripture.
Happy said:Darrell C said:And the central point to all of this is that, just as in some states where someone who kills is woman who is pregnant is charged with double homicide, even so God views the life in the womb as an individual life, distinct from the mother, and that is why life for life is invoked.
What carnal men DO, is not the issue.
What carnal men do is precisely the issue, which is why the Law is given to govern those carnal men, both in an attempt to dissuade them from this course of action as well as to bring about Justice if they do.
Happy said:Life for life is invoked, BECAUSE that sentence FOLLOWS AFTER a birth!
Again...you still overlook the fact that Life for Life is invoked.
Yes, it follows after the child departs from the womb. That is not in question.
Happy said:Darrell C said:That is irrelevant. Even after a child is born they are still "dependent."
Really? I thought they were "gifts" for the "earthly parents" to be temporary stewards of those gifts.
More irrelevancy.
The point is that being "dependent on the mother" prior to birth is not relevant, as the child is still dependent on the mother after birth.
You're secular philosophy that appeals to Science (and poorly I might add) does not change the context of our text, nor does it provide a basis for making the child in the womb a lifeless...thing.
Happy said:It is not about the baby being a dependent AFTER it is born, and even then the mother is not necessary.
The mother is necessary, particularly in those times, where running down to grab some Infamil was not an option. If the mother had died in the process and the child survived...the child is still dependent on someone to keep them alive.
This is about as absurd an argument as I think I have run across in a while. And for what? To support a Liberal view?
Happy said:It is about the fetus being absolutely dependent on the mother, IN the womb.
The text speaks of both the child in the womb, as well as the child prematurely departing the womb due to a fight.
I think the NASB was one of the translations you appealed to (forgive me if I am wrong, been busy for a while), so here is their translation:
Exodus 21:22-25
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
22 “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that a]">[a]she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband b]">[b]may demand of him, and he shall pay c]">[c]as the judges decide.
23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, d]">[d]bruise for bruise.
Footnotes:
- Exodus 21:22 Or an untimely birth occurs; lit her children come out
- Exodus 21:22 Lit lays on him
- Exodus 21:22 Lit by arbitration
- Exodus 21:25 Lit welt
Happy said:Darrell C said:You can argue the traditional Jewish view that life does not begin until a child breathes their first breath, but, you err when you imply "the breath of life" breathed into Adam was...air.
That's odd, because I did not say or imply such.
https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/smoking-cigars.104221/page-6#post-2302617
Happy Post# 104 said:
Happy said:I was not speaking of a child. I was speaking of a body not yet formed, ie in the process of being formed.
God gives every SEED, it's own body. God gave Adam the breath of life AFTER his body was formED.
God form(S) the body. You advocate a body not yet form(ED) is a child with a life of its own, who has not yet been born? I disagree.
What scripture notifies you of the first man (from which all others descend), was living BEFORE God breathed into his nostrils?
[/QUOTE
Seems pretty clear to me that you believe that it is when the child is born that it stops being an "it."
Continued...
Last edited: