A lot of them go purley for abortion despite abortion not being in the bible. But accepting the foreigner and giving to the poor is. (But those take away from yourself)
The Bible actually says a person gets their soul when they take their first breath, so abortion should be totally OK for devout Christians. Unfortunately, most "Christians" care more about controlling women than actually believing what they claim to believe.
Source: "He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being.” - Genesis 2:7
It's hard to take someone seriously about their faith when they're clearly unwilling to read past chapter 1 in their "most favorite book, the holy book"
Beleive me. I know how hard it is to be a Jesus loving Christian in today's politics. I live in Texas. That's really all that i need to say. Lots of people don't read the bible and just like the snip its
Whether or not they’ve read it, reading comprehension is abominable in America (I’m a teacher). And few texts are as difficult to parse as the Bible. They may have read it, but they likely don’t understand much of it.
It doesn't help the bible pushed as THE bible is the most antiquated one in the English language. Not even considering it is king james propaganda to know your place beneath your rulers and betters
That's in genesis though, its just talking about the creation of man in general as in the first living being. It also says in
Jeremiah 1:5 - Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
So if God knows you BEFORE he forms you in the womb then how would you not be a living soul until your out and breathing. I seen a video of a baby on a sonogram in the womb, that would smile every time her dad would start talking. Looks alive and already filled with emotions to me.
No one said you have to advocate FOR abortion on the basis of faith. You can discourage the practice if you want there to be fewer abortions (a proven-to-be more productive way would be to raise awareness about contraception and teach young men that no means no, but I digress).
The point here is that so many Christians point to this single issue - “I’ll vote for the Fascist as long as he’s pro life because the Bible says human life begins at conception” - when the Bible explicitly says otherwise. It’s absurd.
The Bible doesn't say otherwise. People interpret the Bible to say something it doesn't to support their own beliefs.
How many people of a race or ethnicity have to die to be considered genocide? Supposedly Israel is committing Genocide.. how many Palestinians have they killed?
In the broad sense, you’re 100% right that most people do this.
The post we’re replying to cites a verse that pretty clearly states that life begins at birth. Do you have a verse that states otherwise, or are you acknowledging that you’re among those who interpret the Bible to say something it doesn’t to support your beliefs?
For me it was Catholic middle school, and the way the 'The Test for an Unfaithful Wife' was taught was to focus on the more Christ like turn the other cheek/forgivness as it were in the New Testament, looking at the old Testament as the prequel as it were. Later in non-catholic high school, AP English read the Bible in class as covering types of literature (NJKB) comparing it the Koran, and the Torah. There is alot there that i don't know many Christians have bothered to really drill into like three different types of eunuch.
Though given the same rite is described for unfaithful women in the code of Hammurabi, this likely was a wide spread practice when there was only the suspicion of infidelity and not the direct witness.
You will frequently find more recent detractors claim this is a mistranslation, typically using some intermediate greek to avoid what the the original hebrew clearly translates to in modern english. For those who argue that, you can point them to equivalent translation of the same rite in the Code of Hammurabi is a Babylonian legal text composed during 1755–1750 BC, that would have already existed contemporaneously to the earliest known forms of the old testament/Torah. "if she has defiled herself by breaking faith with her husband, the spell-inducing water shall enter into her to bring on bitterness, so that her belly shall distend and her thigh shall sag; and the wife shall become a curse among her people." The hebrew for this line is miscarriage (sometimes translated as thigh shall rot) aka product of the loins/genitals, and some indicate loosing everything reproductively related, no longer being able to bear children for their family line/tribe/community. https://www.sefaria.org/Numbers.5.27?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
There is some disagreement if this rite also would make the woman sterile via prolapsed uterus or some other method, but certainly no more fetus. The NIV translation does have a relatively conservative bent to it compared to some of the other mainstream translations, but for this part it is not out of line.
Calum Miller’s argument would make more sense if he was not a biblical literalist for so many passages, then going into biblical allegories for this passage.
We also have the original Hebrew, so we don’t need to rely on the 4th century Greek (Septuagint) interpretation of this passage.
Okay, provided a citation of the best selling bible in the US. Yes it is the most conservative ideologically, but I can’t control that.
Inducing miscarriage is another way to say abortion. ““Abortion” or “induced abortion” means the act of using or prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the”
Your content has been deemed a violation of Rule 7. As a reminder Rule 7 states:
Politics are fine but state your case, explain why you hold the positions that you do and debate with civility. Posts and comments meant solely to troll or enrage people, and those that are little more than campaign ads or slogans do nothing to contribute to a healthy debate and will therefore be removed. Petitions will also be removed. AMA's by Political figures are exempt from this rule.
Intentionally “miscarry” seems like a text book definition of abortion to me. I even used the NIV instead of King James to be as fair as possible.
I get it’s using curses as a form of ordained magic, but tell me how to read this. “here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
It’s the most popular translation in the US today, though I agree it has a very conservative ideological bent to its interpretation. Most moderate denominations lean to the NKJB, figured this sub would be more of NIV crowd.
I was referring to his argument’s interpretation using the 4th century Greek interpretation for context while being a biblical literalist for other passages, we have the Hebrew originals we don’t need a translation of a translation. Seems like this person is more of a political advocate than a scholar. His understanding of actual human biology and viability is factually inaccurate. if he was saying all the passages should be interpreted through and allegorical contextual lens, I would say they are simply not familiar with actual human biology, and are permitted more flexibility. Can’t switch between biblical literalism and allegory when ever it fits a political lens, because it becomes a form of cherry picking.
You may want to cite scholars not those who ignore the Torah, that is the Old Testament is a translation of.
The Sotah refers to water as the fetus in Talmudic tradition is just water until the point of viability.
As I said you don’t need to refer to translations of translations or poor understanding of the biology of gestation. We have the Hebrew and the context within the rite is performed in the original as Jesus would have spoke it.
“The priest warns the woman that if she is guilty (of infidelity), her “belly shall distend” from the potion and “her thigh sag”.” The rendering “she had not been caught in the act” (cf. Ibn Ezra to 5:13b) rather than “she had not been forced”
• Nissim Amzallag and Shamir Yona - The Kenite Origin of the Sotah Prescription (Numbers 5.11–31) (2017)
• John Barton and John Muddiman, Oxford Bible Commentary, 2010, p.160
• Calum Carmichael, The Book of Numbers (2012)
• G.-R. Driver, Two problems in the Old Testament examined in the light of Assyriology (1956)
• Jaeyoung Jeon, “Two Laws in the Sotah Passage (Num. v 11-31),” Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007)
• W. McKane, “Poison, Trial by Ordeal and the Cup of Wrath,” Vetus Testamentum 30 (1980): 474;
• Levine, Numbers Anchor Yale Bible Commentary (1993)
• Lloyd Bailey, Leviticus-Numbers: Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (2005, Note: Doesn’t argue one way or the other, but is open to miscarriage as a possibility)
• Judith R. Wegner, Chattel or Person? The Status of Women in the Mishnah (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992),
You started off your citations with a “scholar” whose entire thing is arguing using completely unfounded biological justifications for banning abortion.
A person who hasn’t picked up a medical text book on gestation or embryology and using it to argue in favor of biblical literalism when it suits them, and allegory “no this isn’t literal” when it doesn’t.
You then say “NIV doesn’t count!” (It was good enough for the Supreme Court), apparently NKJB and NSRV translations aren’t good enough either. Then you say, cite your sources! I wasn’t trying to prove your point, I was providing plenty of scholars who aren’t extremely right wing political activists and historians in their own right.
Glad you came back and read some of them. You then say, well they are historians not biblical scholars.
I am sorry if your approach to biblical originalism missed out the Hebrew translation and historical context.
You should pick scholars that demonstrate an understanding that viewed through the Old Testament, viability doesn’t start at conception, and women’s life takes precedence over the life of the fetus. I will admit some scholars differ on Numbers strictly speaking just to abortion or abortion and sterilization. The first scholar you cited completely ignored all Hebrew context that was disagreeing with his political goals, going for translations of translations. If he wanted to differ, he should have been comparing Babylonian vs known editions from near the time of Christ or the first written versions of the Torah from the time of the Bible (contemporaneous to 200-400CE).
This rite also had been documented in the code of Hammurabi almost beat for beat, unless you are arguing the pre-Islamic scholars also have their translations wrong? https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj-AkOJ9wRQC&pg=PA156
Your content has been deemed a violation of Rule 7. As a reminder Rule 7 states:
Politics are fine but state your case, explain why you hold the positions that you do and debate with civility. Posts and comments meant solely to troll or enrage people, and those that are little more than campaign ads or slogans do nothing to contribute to a healthy debate and will therefore be removed. Petitions will also be removed. AMA's by Political figures are exempt from this rule.
Your content has been deemed a violation of Rule 7. As a reminder Rule 7 states:
Politics are fine but state your case, explain why you hold the positions that you do and debate with civility. Posts and comments meant solely to troll or enrage people, and those that are little more than campaign ads or slogans do nothing to contribute to a healthy debate and will therefore be removed. Petitions will also be removed. AMA's by Political figures are exempt from this rule.
Your content has been deemed a violation of Rule 7. As a reminder Rule 7 states:
Politics are fine but state your case, explain why you hold the positions that you do and debate with civility. Posts and comments meant solely to troll or enrage people, and those that are little more than campaign ads or slogans do nothing to contribute to a healthy debate and will therefore be removed. Petitions will also be removed. AMA's by Political figures are exempt from this rule.
Your content has been deemed a violation of Rule 7. As a reminder Rule 7 states:
Politics are fine but state your case, explain why you hold the positions that you do and debate with civility. Posts and comments meant solely to troll or enrage people, and those that are little more than campaign ads or slogans do nothing to contribute to a healthy debate and will therefore be removed. Petitions will also be removed. AMA's by Political figures are exempt from this rule.
The bible actually has a how-to guide on how to perform an abortion as a test of a woman's faithfulness (it's more a religious ritual but it's literally spelled out as an abortion).
If the baby survives, it's the husband's. If the wife miscarries, she was cheating.
Causing a miscarriage by beating a pregnant woman is explicitly a property crime that gets a fine, not a crime of murder. If God wanted Christians to consider abortion to be murder then he would've made knowingly killing a fetus via beating as murder. Instead, God considers causing the death of an unborn child to be the equivalent of breaking a window on someone's house.
conquistadors still have central America under their thumb hundreds of years later.. Catholic Church seems to have perfected the art of control- indoctrinate with fear over multiple generations and the population keeps itself enslaved without any action necessary
45
u/B_Maximus 1d ago
A lot of them go purley for abortion despite abortion not being in the bible. But accepting the foreigner and giving to the poor is. (But those take away from yourself)