J
jfallaw
Guest
I’m sure it’s been brought up, but I honestly cannot find anything about it here. I’m confused by a passage in the Bible that an atheist recently showed me.
Exodus 21, 22-25 says (Douay-Rheims):
If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman’s husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award. But if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Why does God demand ‘life for life’ if the woman is killed, but not the child? Does God not consider the unborn child a ‘life’? I say that the word ‘miscarry’ might just imply premature birth- the child lives, but it does seem to imply death, because it contrasts with the woman remaining alive after the blow.
Exodus 21, 22-25 says (Douay-Rheims):
If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman’s husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award. But if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Why does God demand ‘life for life’ if the woman is killed, but not the child? Does God not consider the unborn child a ‘life’? I say that the word ‘miscarry’ might just imply premature birth- the child lives, but it does seem to imply death, because it contrasts with the woman remaining alive after the blow.