55 Year Old Man Impregnates His 11 Year Old Granddaughter
- Thread starter Colorful
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
So essentially, it should read as this:
"If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury (to the mother and/or fetus), the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows."
If the law was eye for an eye, strike for a strike, tooth for a tooth, etc... and your interpretation is that "and no harm follow" is in reference to both the mother AND fetus... what is the fine for then? Contextually, doesn't it make more sense that the guy is fined for causing the miscarriage (as it was way more common back then), especially as they viewed the fetus as property? Is that not a more objective and accepted viewpoint?
Also, the Hebrew word has been used in other passages to mean "stillbirth"... which by definition is the loss of the fetus/child after the 20th week. So to say it's never in reference to "death" is not accurate whatsoever.
"If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury (to the mother and/or fetus), the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows."
If the law was eye for an eye, strike for a strike, tooth for a tooth, etc... and your interpretation is that "and no harm follow" is in reference to both the mother AND fetus... what is the fine for then? Contextually, doesn't it make more sense that the guy is fined for causing the miscarriage (as it was way more common back then), especially as they viewed the fetus as property? Is that not a more objective and accepted viewpoint?
Also, the Hebrew word has been used in other passages to mean "stillbirth"... which by definition is the loss of the fetus/child after the 20th week. So to say it's never in reference to "death" is not accurate whatsoever.
Last edited:
In my opinion, he formed them (like the analogy of God being the potter, forming the clay), but the spirit didn't enter them until they took their breath (breath of life from God). Throughout the bible, "life" and "breath" are used interchangeably... not once is "life begins at conception" ever remotely even mentioned.
K
I just had to jump in hear and say as a fetus still in the womb, they do still breath, but liquid instead of air. Which is why when they come out they have to be given time for their lungs to adjust from breathing liquid to air. Which is one reason why the first few months of a baby's life is very important and dangerous. Adjusting to ailments in the air and surroundings to develop an immune system.
You're saying they breathe in liquid (amniotic fluid) and somehow convert that to oxygen? Is this semantics or do you really think that is how they obtain their oxygen? The mother does all the breathing and the fetus gets the oxygen via the umbilical cord. The "breathing in" as you're talking about is the amniotic fluid into the lungs which occur during the later stages of development, the baby does "practice breathing" (to prepare for when he/she is birthed).
If I dive into a septic system and inhale sewage into my lungs, I'm not "breathing" sewage. I'll inhale it, my lungs will fill up, but that doesn't qualify as breathing (at least not in the context the bible uses it... or anyone else for that matter).
Breathing [bree-th ing] : the process of taking air into and expelling it from the lungs.
If I dive into a septic system and inhale sewage into my lungs, I'm not "breathing" sewage. I'll inhale it, my lungs will fill up, but that doesn't qualify as breathing (at least not in the context the bible uses it... or anyone else for that matter).
Breathing [bree-th ing] : the process of taking air into and expelling it from the lungs.
Last edited:
H
Regarding Exodus 21:22-25. When we're talking about eye for an eye, and applying this to the "no mischief" situation. That would mean that whoever accidentally killed the baby had not taken away that couples ability to have more children, right? However, if he's killed the wife, he takes away that man's ability. So if a fine is paid, we can assume she's healthy because no "mischief" had followed, and is then potentially capable of restoring what they had lost. Which, in this case, is their child. I don't believe it specifically means that the child is less valuable. And considering that God says in his word how precious little children are in the kingdom of heaven, we can assume that this child would have gone to be with Him, would this have happened. And the couple, while obviously distressed at missing that child, do have the capability to be blessed with another. What they've LOST here is time and resources in assuring this one's health. Not the possibility of ever having one. So under the "eye for an eye" rule, it seems logical that he would pay a fine. Restitution for the husband. However, if mischief means the mother dies, or is then barren, they can no longer have a child. Can no longer bring forth a life. And since that's what was taken, he'd pay with his life. At least this is how I felt when praying about it last night. ( Much like when Job lost his children and was given more. Several times in the bible we see God outline the giving of children as a blessing from Him.) I don't see this as a concrete layout of how much God values the unborn vs the born anymore than I feel a woman's "unclean period after giving birth" is any longer or shorter based on what gender her child was. I suppose we could all argue all day and give "scriptural evidence" defending our own feelings on the matter, but speaking from a strict "word by word" basis on this scripture, I'd have to see quite a bit more evidence than this to suggest it means God does not view an unborn child as one of His children yet.
As far as the "breath of life" is concerned, I think it's that divine "special ingredient" that turns a heap of elements into a living, breathing, thinking, feeling being. At what point that occurs in the process of reproduction, I can't say I know for sure. Though that'd be a really interesting study.
Moving on to the granddaughter. No matter what the circumstances, the "lesser evil" is to let that girl make her own decision. And no matter what she decides, God can turn it to good. I don't believe it's anyone else's place to say what God's plan in that situation is. For all we know, the child may be stillborn, make the girl sick, and kill her. So not only is there no life inside, but she'd lose her own life for the mere fact that she'd already suffered so much and was trying to do the "right thing". But I don't believe the "right thing" is always what we think it is. The word says that even gentiles (that's us, by the way. We were never under the law.) who don't have the law show that they contain the laws of God within their hearts by the actions they commit, and the feelings of what's "right and wrong" in their hearts regarding their decisions. So what if this girl gets an abortion? Do my personal feelings about MOST abortions apply here? Hardly. This is a decision between this girl and the Heavenly Father. And for those who doubt the spiritual strength of one so young, we can look at David when he beat Goliath. Not too young to be brave and listen to God's voice there.
We always get ourselves into trouble assuming we know God's will in a situation. And following "the letter of the law" or, in even more worrisome cases, our own personal convictions. But the truth is we have no idea if God's plan entails her keeping this child or not. And we certainly don't have the authority to claim any differently. In short, the "appropriate thing" in this scenario is to pray. And to use this "complex case" to show us that our little checkbox system of right and wrong is not for God's glory. It's to satisfy us when we don't know the path that should be taken. We take comfort in our own convictions instead of seeking out the will of God. God is much bigger than "pro life" or "pro choice". He allows suffering all the time. It's what happens in the wake of that suffering that gives glory to His name. And I highly doubt whether this poor little girl decides she can keep this child or not will change His awesome ability to take hold of this situation and turn it to good.
All I can say is that my prayer list just got a little longer.
As far as the "breath of life" is concerned, I think it's that divine "special ingredient" that turns a heap of elements into a living, breathing, thinking, feeling being. At what point that occurs in the process of reproduction, I can't say I know for sure. Though that'd be a really interesting study.
Moving on to the granddaughter. No matter what the circumstances, the "lesser evil" is to let that girl make her own decision. And no matter what she decides, God can turn it to good. I don't believe it's anyone else's place to say what God's plan in that situation is. For all we know, the child may be stillborn, make the girl sick, and kill her. So not only is there no life inside, but she'd lose her own life for the mere fact that she'd already suffered so much and was trying to do the "right thing". But I don't believe the "right thing" is always what we think it is. The word says that even gentiles (that's us, by the way. We were never under the law.) who don't have the law show that they contain the laws of God within their hearts by the actions they commit, and the feelings of what's "right and wrong" in their hearts regarding their decisions. So what if this girl gets an abortion? Do my personal feelings about MOST abortions apply here? Hardly. This is a decision between this girl and the Heavenly Father. And for those who doubt the spiritual strength of one so young, we can look at David when he beat Goliath. Not too young to be brave and listen to God's voice there.
We always get ourselves into trouble assuming we know God's will in a situation. And following "the letter of the law" or, in even more worrisome cases, our own personal convictions. But the truth is we have no idea if God's plan entails her keeping this child or not. And we certainly don't have the authority to claim any differently. In short, the "appropriate thing" in this scenario is to pray. And to use this "complex case" to show us that our little checkbox system of right and wrong is not for God's glory. It's to satisfy us when we don't know the path that should be taken. We take comfort in our own convictions instead of seeking out the will of God. God is much bigger than "pro life" or "pro choice". He allows suffering all the time. It's what happens in the wake of that suffering that gives glory to His name. And I highly doubt whether this poor little girl decides she can keep this child or not will change His awesome ability to take hold of this situation and turn it to good.
All I can say is that my prayer list just got a little longer.
God may or may not have a divine purpose for the unborn. I won't speculate on that (nor should I). That is besides the point. To agree that, "God deliberately wanted the 11 year old girl to conceive her grandfather's child" is kind of unfathomable.
If that is your point of view and minset, wouldn't you also say that "God deliberately wanted the Romans and Jews to beat, whip, torture, crucify, etc... the Savior Jesus Christ?"
I guess we can agree to disagree. I don't think God wanted His [imperfect] children to torture and crucify His only begotten son Jesus Christ... Having said that, I do believe God allowed man to do that to His son Jesus Christ for the chance that mankind might be saved (aka the atonement). Similarly, I don't think God WANTED the 11 year old girl to get pregnant, but allowed the grandfather to impregnate her. We know the cause-and-affect of sex, we know the blessings and curse of "free will"... God allows things to occur, but I wouldn't say he WANTS them to.
If that is your point of view and minset, wouldn't you also say that "God deliberately wanted the Romans and Jews to beat, whip, torture, crucify, etc... the Savior Jesus Christ?"
I guess we can agree to disagree. I don't think God wanted His [imperfect] children to torture and crucify His only begotten son Jesus Christ... Having said that, I do believe God allowed man to do that to His son Jesus Christ for the chance that mankind might be saved (aka the atonement). Similarly, I don't think God WANTED the 11 year old girl to get pregnant, but allowed the grandfather to impregnate her. We know the cause-and-affect of sex, we know the blessings and curse of "free will"... God allows things to occur, but I wouldn't say he WANTS them to.
K
You can use semantics all you want, but they are still breathing and a living life rather you like to look at it that way or not. Being a living person rather in the womb or out as in birthed, does not make it any less a human presence. This is a false way man made society has force feed this ideal into the heads of people. Stating it is not a living person tell it is born. God formed us in the womb, and what happens from there falls on us. Life or death decisions, deformities, and so on are all a result of chemicals and other things we breath in or ingest. The scenario that caused the pregnancy was despicable, but the baby that was formed is still an innocent life.
1.) You were playing a semantics game... not me. I used the only viable form of breathing (and the context the bible uses it) where as you assumed the fetus taking in amniotic fluid in it's lungs is considered breathing (which it 100% does not do). Just do a simple google search: does the fetus breathe? It will essentially tell you everything I said but go more into detail. I guess it's easier to change the subject and go on the offense rather than to admit you may have been wrong...
2.) I won't speak on behalf of society, however I've used the word of God (bible passages) to explain why "breath" is a better indication of life, considering "life beginning at conception" is no where mentioned... breath and life used interchangeably over 16 times in the bible. Feel free to review any and all messages I've made if you want validation that I've used the bible (and not society) as my source of truth.
2.) I won't speak on behalf of society, however I've used the word of God (bible passages) to explain why "breath" is a better indication of life, considering "life beginning at conception" is no where mentioned... breath and life used interchangeably over 16 times in the bible. Feel free to review any and all messages I've made if you want validation that I've used the bible (and not society) as my source of truth.
Last edited: