Originally posted by lucifershammerYou are the first person to notice this, most people just quickly assume christian. Thank you.
3. You are making a number of assumptions about "typical" pro-life supporters. For instance, you're assuming that they're Christian. This may be true in the United States, but it wont be true in Muslim countries or India (both of which are culturally pro-life). Even in the US, there are plenty of non-religious pro-lifers who take the pro-life position ...[text shortened]... t abortion (he's only raised Scripture against FreakyKBH - who claims to be Christian).
Personally, i condsider myslef agnostic at this point in time, I follow Christian morals, but I'm not sure about the rest.
Nice point, Jade. (Ex 21🙂
Personally, I dont think using scripture is ok when discussing beliefs with atheists unless they ask. Otherwise it's like shoving it down their throats, but if the're gona use it out of context, which Skipper did, feel free to shove it down his throat, much like you did.
I also like Halitosis point, and sence he said he had this discussion already (we were just too lazy to read ALL the way through) I hope he can use some ideas he got earlier.
And Skipper, don't try to taunt me again (you failed horribly, I was going to point that out but Jade took care of that), you'll just prove yourself twice the idiot you already have.
Originally posted by c guy1I did not use the Bible out of context at all. You just don't like what it says and that is not my problem.
You are the first person to notice this, most people just quickly assume christian. Thank you.
Personally, i condsider myslef agnostic at this point in time, I follow Christian morals, but I'm not sure about the rest.
Nice point, Jade. (Ex 21🙂
Personally, I dont think using scripture is ok when discussing beliefs with atheists unless they ask. O ...[text shortened]... t but Jade took care of that), you'll just prove yourself twice the idiot you already have.
Having said that, LH, was able to come up with a pretty decent interpretation of what the passage actually means (or at least what it dosen't mean) and for all I know he may be right. On the other hand, I may be right too, it's hard to say. For instance just because killing a slave does not invoke the "eye for an eye" rule is hardly evidence in support of LH's theory because as far as I can tell a slave was not considered a full fledged human person anyway.
Furthermore, don't call me an idiot, it is childish and reveals far more about yourself than it does me.
TheSkipper
Originally posted by JadeMantisThanks for the very informative post.
Actually, it would be more correct to say that the NAS translation (going by your quote - I do not have this version to verify, but certainly some other modern translations do this too) makes this distinction. Remember that the process of translation invariably introduces interpretation. This translation asserts the term miscarriage and limits the penalty ...[text shortened]... at is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary)
So it is my translation that is the problem? Seriously, this is getting strange; how long has Christianity been around now? We still haven't found a translation of our religious text that everyone can agree on? This is so bush league.
Funny the way Christians can be sometimes isn't it? Can't even translate our religious texts properly so consequently can;t know for sure what the heck they say much less what they mean yet walk around like we have all the answers anyway. I think a little more humility on the part of many Christians would go a long long way, at least until we get our own house in order.
I'm not accusing you of any of this BTW, you at least have seemed to study the text which is more than can be said of most.
TheSkipper
1 edit
Originally posted by TheSkipperSo it is my translation that is the problem? Seriously, this is getting strange; how long has Christianity been around now? We still haven't found a translation of our religious text that everyone can agree on? This is so bush league.
Thanks for the very informative post.
So it is my translation that is the problem? Seriously, this is getting strange; how long has Christianity been around now? We still haven't found a translation of our religious text that everyone can agree on? This is so bush league.
Funny the way Christians can be sometimes isn't it? Can't even translate our at least have seemed to study the text which is more than can be said of most.
TheSkipper
I can’t address the Greek, but with regard to translations from the Biblical Hebrew:
(1) It’s an ancient language in which a single word or phrase was often used to cover widely different concepts; add in that the meaning of some phrases is not known for sure (“Hebrew uncertain” footnotes are not infrequent) and that some usages may be idiomatic (as in English), and it all gets very complicated.
(2) Hebrew is a “depth” language in which most words have layers of meaning, largely based on the root-construction of the language. Traditional Jewish exegesis recognizes and plays with this. There are many ways to “spin” a passage (such as the one about Elisha and the bears); traditional Judaism says, “Find them; see if you can come up with a way of unpacking the text that no one else has; be prepared to argue your point.” [“The words of Torah are fruitful and multiply!” (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Hagigah).]
In traditional Torah study (talmid torah), I would be compelled to argue with, say, lucifershammers’ position*—not because it’s an unreasonable one, but because that’s how we honor the “sacred texts” (however you want to understand that term)—by arguing over it!
(3) Not only is every translation itself an interpretation (that is, there is no such thing as a non-hermeneutical translation), but the English language has undergone changes in meaning as well. For example, the Hebrew word ra is still generally translated as “evil” in most translations. Now, ra covers anything “bad,” unpleasant, unfortunate, distasteful, etc.—it is not per se a moral term, although it can take on that connotation as well (like the English word “bad” ). The same was originally true for the English word “evil”: one could say, “That was an evil meal,” without meaning anything other than that is was a bad tasting one. But the meaning of the word evil has changed, and today means almost exclusively something egregiously immoral.
That is why some of us choose to grapple with the original languages, whether we’re very good at it or not. The translators did; they offer their interpretation, perhaps guided by doctrine and tradition, if it’s a, say, church-sanctioned translation. I’m not fluent in Hebrew, so I have to do so-called “close readings,” unpacking the text a verse at a time, using lots of tools, including translations. I don’t think fluency is required, but recognition of the original language is. To pull a phrase from the Talmud: “We are not required to complete the task, but we are required to begin it.”
What’s “bush league” is when someone relies solely on the translation and claims they’re not interpreting. So, as you say, we need to keep some humility even as we argue, even as we argue hard...
* Or FreakyKBH's last post on his "Who gives human life" thread, where he exegetes the very Torah passage you raised.
Originally posted by TheSkipperThanks, but to be fair it is probably much easier for me to do this as:
I'm not accusing you of any of this BTW, you at least have seemed to study the text which is more than can be said of most.
a) I do not hold to a particular church doctrine which would be challenged by deconstructing the interpretations
b) I do not believe the Bible is written by God, so have no attachments to inerrency or expectation that God would somehow have maintained the purity of meaning in the translations.
b) I do not believe the Bible is written by God, so have no attachments to inerrency or expectation that God would somehow have maintained the purity of meaning in the translations.[/b]wow, umm, unless you're saying that you don't believe that God reached out and literally wrote it, how can you say that? There is more evidence for the Bible being copied perfectly, but even more importantly written as an accurate record (at least the new testament which validates the old) than any other ancient book. To be frank, you cannot believe in someone like alexander the great, from ancient records, and not believe in the Bible. I can elaborate more if you like.
Nlig
Originally posted by nligSo you are saying that there has never been a typo in the bible, or that it has been copied? If that is correct, then God's grasp of english is horrible!
wow, umm, unless you're saying that you don't believe that God reached out and literally wrote it, how can you say that? There is more evidence for the Bible being copied perfectly, but even more importantly written as an accurate record (at least the new testament which validates the old) than any other ancient book. To be frank, you cannot believe in someone ...[text shortened]... from ancient records, and not believe in the Bible. I can elaborate more if you like.
Nlig
I want to see your evidence for the bible being copied perfectly, and I want to see your evidence (other than the bible) that any of the events reported in the bible actually occurred in the manner they are reported in the bible. After all, most of the testaments where not written until 30 - 100 years AFTER Jesus was crucified.
Originally posted by scottishinnzEver heard of the dead sea scrolls?
So you are saying that there has never been a typo in the bible, or that it has been copied? If that is correct, then God's grasp of english is horrible!
I want to see your evidence for the bible being copied perfectly, and I want to see your evidence (other than the bible) that any of the events reported in the bible actually occurred in the manner ...[text shortened]... r all, most of the testaments where not written until 30 - 100 years AFTER Jesus was crucified.
Originally posted by lucifershammerActually, the retalitory law that is quoted here doesn't even consider the fetus, only those which are humanly alive. Further, the exegisis of the passage is in complete accordance with the rest of Scripture on the same topic...
Yes the Bible does make a distinction - but read the passage again. It does not say that killing a fetus is not a crime.
Human life begins at birth, biological life at conception.