Sex and marriage

  • 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

jimmydiggs

Guest
no you only thought it was. I always knew what it was whether i wrote it or not.
Ok, It would be greatly appreciated if we could adequately communicate our ideas, so as to further avoid differences between thoughts and written word. Thank you. :)


it does not make genocide any more relevant to abortion however.
Now that we've got the Geno back in Genocide, the only relevancy is that the two are murderous acts.
 

leelee

Senior Member
Sep 5, 2011
1,258
8
38
35
Ok, It would be greatly appreciated if we could adequately communicate our ideas, so as to further avoid differences between thoughts and written word. Thank you. :)



Now that we've got the Geno back in Genocide, the only relevancy is that the two are murderous acts.
i know. except i don't agree.
 

leelee

Senior Member
Sep 5, 2011
1,258
8
38
35
Take it up with scripture.
find me the part of scripture that says explicitly that its wrong. the exact words. also find me the one comparing 1 murder to genocide.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
find me the part of scripture that says explicitly that its wrong.
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.






the exact words. also find me the one comparing 1 murder to genocide.
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..
Jeremiah said:
Jeremiah 1:5

5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
Psalm 139 said:
Psalm 139:13–16

13 For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.

This one is maybe more explicit than the others.

Exodus said:
Exodus 21:22–25

22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
 

leelee

Senior Member
Sep 5, 2011
1,258
8
38
35
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

jimmydiggs

Guest
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)
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.

ASV said:
22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe
NASB said:
22 “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that [a]she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband [b]may demand of him, and he shall pay [c]as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, [d]bruise for bruise

KJV said:
22 “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
NKJV said:
22 “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

So now it stands 5 translations to 1(if you want to take this route, that is).
 

leelee

Senior Member
Sep 5, 2011
1,258
8
38
35
actually i would count the nkjv and the kjv as one. and for the asv I would take depart to mean dead.
In my NIV which is the newest translation (it came out in august, its pretty) its has miscarry as a footnote explanation of what the verse is referring to.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
actually i would count the nkjv and the kjv as one.
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.

and for the asv I would take depart to mean dead.
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?

In my NIV which is the newest translation (it came out in august, its pretty) its has miscarry as a footnote explanation of what the verse is referring to.
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.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
I believe the harm was to the mother according to the other translations.
Arbitrariness duly noted. I can't discuss matters on the basis of Sola Scriptura with such arbitrariness.
 
M

MissCris

Guest
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.
 
P

Possum

Guest
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.
 

leelee

Senior Member
Sep 5, 2011
1,258
8
38
35
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.
Did you hear that the law insisting on independent councilling was rejected today?
 
P

Possum

Guest
No, I didn't. Not seen the news today actually!
 

leelee

Senior Member
Sep 5, 2011
1,258
8
38
35
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.
Just because someone doesn't want to talk about it doesn't mean it wasn't the right choice. I don't see how this contributes to the discussion. Of course its a bad memory, it was hardly going to be a celebration.