-
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.
J
There's not much the bible says explicitly. It doesn't even explicitly state things like the Trinity either.
To demand so, requires the bible to be a 47 volume set that is lugged around on a cart.
When determining whether something is right/wrong and or permissible/not permissible is a matter of determining what principles apply to the situation. The bible doesn't even explicitly state that Jesus is God(from what I recall). Do you question whether Jesus was God on that basis?
I stated, the only relevancy of Abortion to Genocide at this point, given the now adequate definition of Genocide, is that both are acts of murder.
To give you a start..
This one is maybe more explicit than the others.
To demand so, requires the bible to be a 47 volume set that is lugged around on a cart.
When determining whether something is right/wrong and or permissible/not permissible is a matter of determining what principles apply to the situation. The bible doesn't even explicitly state that Jesus is God(from what I recall). Do you question whether Jesus was God on that basis?
I stated, the only relevancy of Abortion to Genocide at this point, given the now adequate definition of Genocide, is that both are acts of murder.
To give you a start..
This one is maybe more explicit than the others.
exodus 21:22-23 very much depends on the chosen translation. eg. If men, while fighting, do damage to a woman with child, causing the loss of the child, but no other evil comes to her, the man will have to make payment up to the amount fixed by her husband, in agreement with the decision of the judges.But if damage comes to her, let life be given in payment for life (Bible in basic English)
J
You have to look at what type of translation it is. Some translations are more literal, and others more idiomatic.
Some thorough in their translation, and some more basic.
Looking at the manuscripts is good also. If we are to take the idea that, whatever most translations translate it as is waht we should go with (argumentum ad populum) then I'll go ahead an play the game, and up you by four.
So now it stands 5 translations to 1(if you want to take this route, that is).
Some thorough in their translation, and some more basic.
Looking at the manuscripts is good also. If we are to take the idea that, whatever most translations translate it as is waht we should go with (argumentum ad populum) then I'll go ahead an play the game, and up you by four.
So now it stands 5 translations to 1(if you want to take this route, that is).
J
The NKJV isn't just a re-wording, it's an update. To count them as one is simply not true. That is just the Law of Identity.
The primary definition of depart is "to leave", death is a secondary definition, used in a symbolic manner.
Also, in arbitrarily choosing that definition you create for yourself a conflict in the passage.
"so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow" Are you saying death isn't harm?
New or old doesn't matter, it's about accuracy. The NIV is a more idiomatic and less literal translation, than compared to the ESV, RSV, and NASB(why I chose them).
Foot notes are generally used to denote a translation issue (I.E. disagreeance over a matter, such as mark 8, or John 8). Not all disagreeances are valid though.
The primary definition of depart is "to leave", death is a secondary definition, used in a symbolic manner.
Also, in arbitrarily choosing that definition you create for yourself a conflict in the passage.
"so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow" Are you saying death isn't harm?
New or old doesn't matter, it's about accuracy. The NIV is a more idiomatic and less literal translation, than compared to the ESV, RSV, and NASB(why I chose them).
Foot notes are generally used to denote a translation issue (I.E. disagreeance over a matter, such as mark 8, or John 8). Not all disagreeances are valid though.
M
For the record, I know 6 different women who had an abortion at some point in their past. 4 of those women became Christian within 5 years of said event, the other 2 did not. The 4 Christian women, if made to talk about it, say it was the lowest point of their life and the worst memory they have. The other 2 REFUSE to talk about it, but make vague comments about how they were justified.
I find that very interesting.
I find that very interesting.
P
I think it's a decision that should never be taken lightly, and certainly not used as a contraceptive method.
I am not sure, but I think the either offer counselling or insist on counselling here for women who've had abortions. People don't realise what a major effect it can have on people. I don't realise it either, having not been through one myself, but I've heard that people are quite emotionally damaged by it.
I am not sure, but I think the either offer counselling or insist on counselling here for women who've had abortions. People don't realise what a major effect it can have on people. I don't realise it either, having not been through one myself, but I've heard that people are quite emotionally damaged by it.