Jesus

Who was Jesus?

  • Total voters
    18
Care4all,

Then why do so many translations say "born prematurely"?

NIV: "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely..."

NASB: "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely..."

NLT: "Now suppose two people are fighting, and in the process, they hurt a pregnant woman so her child is born prematurely..."

NKJV: "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely..."

I could go on. The point is, the vast majority of translations say "born prematurely," not miscarry. How could so many translators make the same mistake? The KJV is a very old translation. As a result, it uses terminology that we would not normally use.

NASB is actually considered the most accurate translation, and it says "born prematurely."

But if further damage happens to his wife, then the husband can demand an eye for an eye, life for a life JUSTICE.
Click to expand...

I think it is obvious the Bible is referring to the infant. It was already established in verse 12 that murderers should be put to death. "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." Verse 23 by contrast is referring to the infant.

And yes, it does have to do with abortion. It demonstrates that the value of the infant is so great that anyone who kills it is worthy of death. This, I believe, emphasizes the rights of the infant as being equal, or at least near equal, to the rights of the mother.

Why are you so determined to reduce the value of unborn human beings?
 
born is not the hebrew word used, the word translated is ''come forth'' from what i have read so far....

and premature deaths, as i EXPLAINED to you, were automatically born dead in all probability, or within a couple of minutes depending on the length of gestation she was in... at the time and even if she went the whole 9 months 50% chance the child would be born dead, along with the mother being killed by childbirth in more cases than you'd like.... :(

care
 
come forth, brought forth prematurely.... still does not indicate the child was born alive...and more than likely not, as i explained....
 
no it is NOT clear at all bdw....just because they spoke of murder in an above verse...

they were covering a woman with child, what happens if she was struck by men fighting, which forced her to miscarry but lived herself through the birth....what penalty is paid in retribution for such.

then it covers any further harm that might occur to the mother, and the criminal punishment for that, being equal to murder.

So, in my opinion, this scripture's purpose was two fold....

1. if two men fighting...which means they are doing something that was not Godlike anyway ...proceeded to hurt a pregnant woman by striking her, which brought forth a miscarriage or premature birth which also means a dead baby...(There is no NEONATAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT at this time brent, use common sense), then the husband can bring charges against the man that struck her and brought on this miscarriage...it says no harm had been done to her at the time Brent....and the only harm that could have been done for the husband to collect restitution before a judge on was the death of his child prematurely....

If the baby was born alive Brent, and the mother was not hurt either as it says, why would the husband be allowed to collect damages when they have a miracle of a lifetime with a baby that was born prematurely and ALIVE!!!!????? just think about it.... so this verse is about the punishment for the death of an unborn child imo.

2. then the next verse is inregards to the mother...if she goes on to die then there should be death to the guy that struck her which eventually hurt her...they are saying, well in the case of the mother the laws of criminal justice come in to play and you should follow the standard of an eye for an eye, a life for a life.

The reason this is a different situation than the verse regarding murder is because in this case, these guys struck this woman and caused this by ACCIDENT, not by INTENT.....which usually would not be murder... but because they were engaging in dangerous behavior by fighting in public with other people around them that could be injured, our Lord is saying they are ultimately just as responsible for killing this woman as they would be if they had strangled her with their own hands....

Can you see what I am saying now?
 
Last edited:
brent, i am not saying the the unborn child has no worth, even the way i presented this verse shows that there is worth to the unborn child because it says that the husband/father can bring forth judgement against the man fighting that struck his wife and who harmed his unborn child by bringing forth a miscarriage....

like i said previously:

if the wife wasn't harmed and the baby was born alive, why would the husband have been able to get restitution for harm?

no reason at all that he could bring this case before justices!!

so, the unborn child has definate worth, not just a blob of cells of nothingness.....thus resitution to the father.

but the mother's life is worth more.

thus, abortion is causing harm, and even killing an unborn child....

but it IS NOT MURDER, AS YOU and others HAVE PROCLAIMED IT to be....imo,

and this was my point.
 
Last edited:
Can you see what I am saying now?
Click to expand...

No, I do not see what you are saying. I still disagree with you. From what you've said, it appears you believe killing an infant should be considered no different than killing your neighbor's ox.
 
Brent said:
No, I do not see what you are saying. I still disagree with you. From what you've said, it appears you believe killing an infant should be considered no different than killing your neighbor's ox.
Click to expand...

Brent,

Answer this question...

If the pregnant woman was not harmed and the baby was not harmed but was just delivered to birth earlier than normal, prematurely...as you are saying is the case, what grounds does the husband have to charge the man and have a judge bring judgement upon him?

The baby was born ALIVE!!!(according to you) That would have been a MIRACLE to have a premature baby in those days and age to live!

So if one of the men fighting, causes a woman to deliver prematurely, with no harm done to any one at all,(as you are proposing), but a living, healthy baby birthed, which does not even come to pass when a woman delivers full term at the time 50% are dead,

what is the restitution he can bring against the man for?

He would have a lovely child and wife that was not harmed, and lived through the childbirth bdw?

no matter what you have been made to believe about this Scripture helping the base of prolifers, it does not, when you read it and have some understanding of the birthing conditions of the times in which it was writen, along with the specific interpretation of it,... along with many manuscripts have FOOTNOTES that say she brought forth a miscarriage....and with the fact that there would be no reason to have this in scripture other than giving us an isssuance of punishment for making a woman have a miscarriage.

And, the punishment due for a man who was fighting that harms another, EVEN IF BY ACCIDENT, which was the case with the pregnant woman in the 2nd part of the verse.

There are many other Scriptures, like the one that speaks of Elizabeth's baby in her womb jumping for joy in the pressence of the Lord, which I believe you had mentioned above, that fits more in what you believe...but not this particular passage, at least not without distorting it, imo.

care
 
I don't really even think Jesus was all that wise. I'm not sure if he existed, the records are all hundreds of years after his existence, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility. It's rare for prophets to be literally invented out of nowhere, but their actions are often hugely exaggerated.
 
Yurt said:
no, you said it was incorrect grammar....

since he is the one and only holy Son....you capitalize it....so your grammar point is nothing but bs....it is your opinion, nothing more

next
Click to expand...

He is one of many and non-holy son's. The deification of Jesus was an invention of later, dumber Christians.
 
TheHappyHippo said:
I don't really even think Jesus was all that wise. I'm not sure if he existed, the records are all hundreds of years after his existence, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility. It's rare for prophets to be literally invented out of nowhere, but their actions are often hugely exaggerated.
Click to expand...
The miracle I'd most like to see is the feeding of the 5,000 men and their families with enough food for maybe one family...

Water to wine would be the next, but then that could be done by most modern magicians.
 
Damocles said:
The miracle I'd most like to see is the feeding of the 5,000 men and their families with enough food for maybe one family...

Water to wine would be the next, but then that could be done by most modern magicians.
Click to expand...
I personally would want to see the raising of Lazarus or any dead person for that matter!
 
On the day of crucifixion many were raised from the dead and seen wandering about the city. Jesus did not come back for 3 days.

From the Bible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top