Why Democrats Can�t Talk Honestly About Abortion

[oxmixmudd]

Asserted, not shown. Have you ever you know, read the entire Bible?

Shown right here pix:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post612315

And yes, I have.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

I see so far no one has actually dealt with the substance of my post. here is the link to it again if perhaps latecomers missed its content.



Jim

You made a claim that goes against what the Bible plainly says Jim. Do I need to dig up where the Bible says the Jews forgot their traditions?

[lilpixieofterror]

Shown right here pix:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post612315

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

You made a claim that goes against what the Bible plainly says Jim. Do I need to dig up where the Bible says the Jews forgot their traditions?

I am quite familiar with that pix. But it better not mean what you are implying it means or the entire concept of a Messiah is suspect.

I am absolutely amazed you would take that tack to avoid accepting the plain and historical meaning of a text that in no way permits abortion just so you can have the tiniest bit easier time holding to our position on that subject.



Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I never used the term unbroken pix. I said that were directly connected to them. And they were. Again, I am amazed you would take a take what can be used to justify the dismissal of any and all of what we believe just to cast doubt on thousands of years of understanding of one small hebrew text.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

I am quite familiar with that pix. But it better not mean what you are implying it means or the entire concept of a Messiah is suspect.

I am absolutely amazed you would take that tack to avoid accepting the plain and historical meaning of a text that in no way permits abortion just so you can have the tiniest bit easier time holding to your position of that subject.



Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Pix, this is the HISTORICAL understanding of the text. There is no evidence available it was EVER understood any differently until modern times. Augustine invokes the text in an actual abortion debate in his time, but does not render it differently but rather argues it can't be used to justify abortion for other reasons. Again, it is a travesty to try to change the meaning of a text to win an argument. Even more so when the actual meaning doesn't necessarily support the argument in the first place.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Unfortunately that isnt relevant. The people given the text, the people that lived it out, applied in their culture, that spoke its language, that interpreted it day in and day out hundreds of years before christ, understood this text to mean a miscarriage. That understanding crossed into the christian faith as evidenced by the text in the vulgate, and it has remained until the modern abortion debate. The driver for the alternate, modern rendering preferred by yourself and piper is not the language, the historical or culturally accurate rendering, but rather a desire to simplify the abortion debate in the evangelical church and especially as a counter to those that would use the accurate, historical understanding of the text to justify abortion.

Adding a word to an English translation that doesn't appear in the original Hebrew and that completely changes the meaning of the text is extremely relevant. There's also the fact that the word translated as "come out" is used extensively throughout the Old Testament to refer to live births (those endless "so-and-so begat so-and-so" passages). Claiming that it suddenly has a different meaning in this context without some other qualifier being present is textbook special pleading.

Even the article by your medical doctor seems to contradict itself. First he says, "The term dl,y, is the common Hebrew word for child or offspring. Why the plural form is used here is unclear." He then claims, "While dl,uy, elsewhere always means 'living child' or one capable of living outside the womb (Gen. 44:20; Isa. 9:6), the adopting of the plural in this case is a significant modifier indicating the unnatural state of affairs."

So first he claims that the reason for the plural noun is "unclear" but then turns around a few sentences later and makes a definitive declaration that it's to indicate "the unnatural state of affairs" despite quoting scholars who offer contradictory opinions on the matter. Exactly how he makes that final leap is largely left up to the reader's imagination.

He then concedes that "Many recent interpreters have concluded that the use of the verb xcAyA ('to go or come out) indicates nothing other than the birth of a living child. This conclusion is based on two key points: the Old Testament usage of xcAyA, and the availability of a specific term for miscarriage which was not employed." He does note the sole exception in Numbers 12:12 in which the state of the child prior to birth is explicitly described, but in every other unqualified case, the word only ever refers to a live birth.

[Mountain Man]

Shown right here pix:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post612315

And yes, I have.

The fact that you would quote the NIV and KJV translations as if they're definitive is laughable. The KJV has historical and literary value, but its accuracy as a translation is wanting, and the NIV is so plagued with bad theology introduced by translator bias and their desire to prioritize "readability" over accuracy that parts of it are almost if not outright heretical.

[oxmixmudd]

The fact that you would quote the NIV and KJV translations as if they're definitive is laughable. The KJV has historical and literary value, but its accuracy as a translation is wanting, and the NIV is so plagued with bad theology introduced by translator bias and their desire to prioritize "readability" over accuracy that parts of it are almost if not outright heretical.

[b]may demand of him, and he shall pay [c]as the judges decide

-----

Now there are many modern translations that translate in line with your understanding. And there are translations like the NASB that leave the conclusion equally ambiguous to the text. But it is not the historical understanding of the text. It is not how it was translated by the Hebrew people or by Christians for thousands of years. And according to one paper I linked to, it is not a correct rendering historically for linguistic issues found in the languages of the time.


Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

Pix, this is the HISTORICAL understanding of the text. There is no evidence available it was EVER understood any differently until modern times. Augustine invokes the text in an actual abortion debate in his time, but does not render it differently but rather argues it can't be used to justify abortion for other reasons. Again, it is a travesty to try to change the meaning of a text to win an argument. Even more so when the actual meaning doesn't necessarily support the argument in the first place.

Jim

[carpedm9587]

Not so sure about that. While there have been overturns, to my knowledge no decision of the Supreme Court has ever un-overturned a case. I suppose someone could say that's because it's been "only" 230 years since its establishment and thus there hasn't been time for it, but it still shows rarity.

I doubt we'll see an overturn soon anyway; I'm not sure the numbers are there. If it is ever overturned (as I believe it should be), it'll probably be years in the future after various restrictions on Roe v. Wade/Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The Supreme Court didn't wake up one day and decide to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson in Brown v. Board of Education*, there were a number of cases beforehand which put some restrictions on segregation before the Supreme Court finally decided to dispense with it. Then again, the Lochner era more or less did end with one of the justices waking up one day and deciding to rule differently on the subject of "liberty of contract" than he had previously...

Too bad Anthony Kennedy chickened out about completely overruling Roe v. Wade back in 1992. Doing so would've still been controversial, but ripping that bandage off wouldn't hurt as much as it would now.

*Contrary to what you'll hear, Brown v. Board of Education did not technically overrule Plessy v. Feguson; Plessy v. Ferguson concerned train cars, while Brown v. Board of Education was about schools. Indeed, an argument raised on the part of the plaintiff (Brown) was that Plessy v. Ferguson wasn't applicable to their situation for that reason. However, Brown v. Board of Education marked the start of a new anti-segregation jurispudence, and that new jurispudence effectively overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.

Speculation on both our parts, so I'll leave it at that. We will see what we will see.

[oxmixmudd]

Adding a word to an English translation that doesn't appear in the original Hebrew and that completely changes the meaning of the text is extremely relevant. There's also the fact that the word translated as "come out" is used extensively throughout the Old Testament to refer to live births (those endless "so-and-so begat so-and-so" passages). Claiming that it suddenly has a different meaning in this context without some other qualifier being present is textbook special pleading.

Even the article by your medical doctor seems to contradict itself. First he says, "The term dl,y, is the common Hebrew word for child or offspring. Why the plural form is used here is unclear." He then claims, "While dl,uy, elsewhere always means 'living child' or one capable of living outside the womb (Gen. 44:20; Isa. 9:6), the adopting of the plural in this case is a significant modifier indicating the unnatural state of affairs."

So first he claims that the reason for the plural noun is "unclear" but then turns around a few sentences later and makes a definitive declaration that it's to indicate "the unnatural state of affairs" despite quoting scholars who offer contradictory opinions on the matter. Exactly how he makes that final leap is largely left up to the reader's imagination.

He then concedes that "Many recent interpreters have concluded that the use of the verb xcAyA ('to go or come out) indicates nothing other than the birth of a living child. This conclusion is based on two key points: the Old Testament usage of xcAyA, and the availability of a specific term for miscarriage which was not employed." He does note the sole exception in Numbers 12:12 in which the state of the child prior to birth is explicitly described, but in every other unqualified case, the word only ever refers to a live birth.

What you don't understand is that the use if the plural here is significant linguistically beyond just the possibility of multiple children. It denotes the sort of indefiniteness that results in the historical rendering as miscarriage and in alternate historical renderings that imply the baby is born improperly (or incompletely) formed. That is something that comes out of a cultural and historical understanding of the language as it was used at the time that can't be gleaned by laymen using an armchair lexicon.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

What you don't understand is that the use if the plural here is significant linguistically beyond just the possibility of multiple children. It denotes the sort of indefiniteness that results in the historical rendering as miscarriage and in alternate historical renderings that imply the baby is born improperly (or incompletely) formed. That is something that comes out of a cultural and historical understanding of the language as it was used at the time that can't be gleaned by laymen using an armchair lexicon.

Except even the sources cited by your medical doctor don't agree on that point, but he selects the interpretation he prefers and discards the rest without comment.

[Mountain Man]

There's also the fact that Jesus went to great lengths to point out and correct the misunderstandings of the legal experts of his day who relied heavily on tradition and their own assumed authority.