U
undead_rat
Guest
Understood, but i don’t read that either.
- Status
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
We do not have conflicting translations to choose from if we take the time to compare and comtrast them and go back to original use of words. Many online Bibles and translators do that these days.
U
undead_rat
Guest
The Jerusalem Bible is a Catholic Bible. I trust it to be accurate.
E
EndTimes
Guest
No… Not that false canard again.
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
Are you saying the Old Testament was not written in Biblical Hebrew ?
What exactly are you saying?
S
Somedudesomewhere
Guest
For what is worth, the translation you have selected seems to me to be the most faithful to the Hebrew. The Hebrew of the Aleppo codex reads:
“כב וכי ינצו אנשים ונגפו אשה הרה ויצאו ילדיה ולא יהיה אסון–ענוש יענש כאשר ישית עליו בעל האשה ונתן בפללים”
The operative words here seem to be “ויצאו ילדיה ולא יהיה אסון” which would be something like “and brought forth are her children and not there is harm…”, so it seems to me that the Hebrew here is not too clear as to whether the damage should be thought of as being in reference to the woman only.
Since that’s a waw conjunctive we have there, the idea of harm following the birth is to be read as united to the “coming out of the children”. Because of that, and because the word מוות/מות or “death/dies” is not used here as it is in just a couple of verses prior (Ex 21:12) I would venture to say we could validly see the harm as being related to the children to be born (that’s not to exclude the idea of harm being done to the woman as well).
From a Jewish perspective, we could note that the wording of the mitsvah in Genesis 1:28, i.e., “פרו ורבו” places “be fruitful” before “and multiply” meaning that the priority is on the idea that every child should be a fruit of the love of the couple if you will. Additionally, you’ll notice the Lex Talionis follows right after this verse, so I would think that could be taken to mean that if the child is born with a busted eye or a missing limb because my wife was hit by some dude while she was pregnant, I could demand equal payment, where as if my child dies, then…
Again, if the woman is also hurt to that extent then, a fortiori, the same law would apply.
“כב וכי ינצו אנשים ונגפו אשה הרה ויצאו ילדיה ולא יהיה אסון–ענוש יענש כאשר ישית עליו בעל האשה ונתן בפללים”
The operative words here seem to be “ויצאו ילדיה ולא יהיה אסון” which would be something like “and brought forth are her children and not there is harm…”, so it seems to me that the Hebrew here is not too clear as to whether the damage should be thought of as being in reference to the woman only.
Since that’s a waw conjunctive we have there, the idea of harm following the birth is to be read as united to the “coming out of the children”. Because of that, and because the word מוות/מות or “death/dies” is not used here as it is in just a couple of verses prior (Ex 21:12) I would venture to say we could validly see the harm as being related to the children to be born (that’s not to exclude the idea of harm being done to the woman as well).
From a Jewish perspective, we could note that the wording of the mitsvah in Genesis 1:28, i.e., “פרו ורבו” places “be fruitful” before “and multiply” meaning that the priority is on the idea that every child should be a fruit of the love of the couple if you will. Additionally, you’ll notice the Lex Talionis follows right after this verse, so I would think that could be taken to mean that if the child is born with a busted eye or a missing limb because my wife was hit by some dude while she was pregnant, I could demand equal payment, where as if my child dies, then…
Again, if the woman is also hurt to that extent then, a fortiori, the same law would apply.
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
The OT exists in many languaged-forms
The approved Catholic versions are fine - not that some other transations are verboten per se.
Did I say the OT does not exist in Biblical Hebrew?
No originals of the OT exist…
The Masoretic Text (MT or 𝕸) is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24 books of Tanakh for Rabbinic Judaism. It was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries A.D.
Last edited:
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
End - times, the original language, which is our topic, is Biblical Hebrew.
Masoretic text is simply Biblical Hebrew with written vowels, and marks to indicate accent, pause and other non vocal system ps, invented in the middle ages.
Its not a great idea to cut and paste quotes you dont understand and are taking out of context.
Have you seen Page of the Hebrew Bible?
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
God spoke to Adam and Noah in Biblical Hebrew?
The original Hebrews did not as yet exist during their time
- and neither - barring Noah’s Son Shem - did the even earlier original Semites.
is the translation executed in Alexandria in the third century BC -
This version became known as the Septuagint
To the Opening Post -
- II Kings 16:3 : Ahaz, king of Judah, murdered his son as a human sacrifice.
- II Kings 17:17 : The people of Judah abandoned worship at the temple in Jerusalem. They were said to have burned their children as human sacrifices to Baal.
- II Kings 21:6 : Manasseh burned his son as a human sacrifice to Baal.
Last edited:
K
kapp19
Guest
As other commenters note, the verse in Numbers is ambiguous. (The Exodus passage is just a serious misreading.)
But it’s clear that the woman will die from the punishment of the ordeal if she is guilty - so the point is not to abort the fetus, if the strange expression about “the thigh” means this. If you do not see that the explosion of one’s innards is clearly a death sentence, then she is supposed to be stoned afterward anyway - so the point is the life of the woman being taken as punishment, not the child, though the guilt is also transferred to the children by a kind of fittingness, according to the logic of the old dispensation. Sin has consequences for everyone, especially one’s children. (There is a lot to meditate on there, but in the new dispensation, we have a higher logic now in the family of the Church.)
If your daughter wants to become a hasidic Jew, she is free to, but otherwise she might want to avoid moral appeals to Jewish ritual and judicial law, especially without reading the Talmud.
But it’s clear that the woman will die from the punishment of the ordeal if she is guilty - so the point is not to abort the fetus, if the strange expression about “the thigh” means this. If you do not see that the explosion of one’s innards is clearly a death sentence, then she is supposed to be stoned afterward anyway - so the point is the life of the woman being taken as punishment, not the child, though the guilt is also transferred to the children by a kind of fittingness, according to the logic of the old dispensation. Sin has consequences for everyone, especially one’s children. (There is a lot to meditate on there, but in the new dispensation, we have a higher logic now in the family of the Church.)
If your daughter wants to become a hasidic Jew, she is free to, but otherwise she might want to avoid moral appeals to Jewish ritual and judicial law, especially without reading the Talmud.
E
EndTimes
Guest
That has naught to do with God’s Teachings on Abortion -
K
kapp19
Guest
But it does have to do with appealing to Jewish ritual and judicial law as a standard for daily life.
E
EndTimes
Guest
True: Yet Rabbinical Judaism//Talmud - does/would/can not - apply to Catholic Teachings on Abortion
K
kapp19
Guest
I did not say that they would.
Cheers…
-K
Cheers…
-K
G
goout
Guest
You can cherry pick the bible to say almost anything you want. Tell your daughter not to be a fundamentalist. She doesn’t want to be a biblical fundamentalist, right? I doubt it.
The scriptures are only one source of the Church’s morality. The scriptures are taken in the context of the whole of faith, not in single passage isolation like that.
Science also informs the Church’s morality.
Does your daughter deny science?
What about human rights? Is she in favor of human rights?
These discussions must go beyond cherry picking the bible (and bad translations at that) to philosophy and morality. If you argue with her about bible translations you will not convince her.
The scriptures are only one source of the Church’s morality. The scriptures are taken in the context of the whole of faith, not in single passage isolation like that.
Science also informs the Church’s morality.
Does your daughter deny science?
What about human rights? Is she in favor of human rights?
These discussions must go beyond cherry picking the bible (and bad translations at that) to philosophy and morality. If you argue with her about bible translations you will not convince her.
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
Didn’t ‘stop you’ is it? from posting it, eh?
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
Endtimes we are discussing the original language of the written text ofthe Old Testament. Stay on topic.
The Old Testament is taken mostly from the Hebrew Bible. How many times do I have to repeat myself. Its language is Biblical Hebrew. .
Can you please link where you are quoting from. Especially with your dates for extant versions of the Old Testament.
Human baby sacrifice of born children does not equal
Old Testament abortion support.
E
EndTimes
Guest
You are…
I’m discussing the OP…
I’ve presented OT verses supporting Evil of Abortion
_
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
V
VeryBlessed
Guest
Yes! This debate exposes the need for an authoritative magisterium. It’s fine to check different translations and debate which one is the best. But there should be no doubt about which interpretation of this and other verses is the authoritative and correct one according to the church. In other centuries, the Bible has been used to support slavery. Is that OK? Why not?
Our tendency to bend scriptures (and God) to fit what we think, is exactly why we put sacred tradition on a par with scripture. It anchors us to his truth and keeps us from wandering (especially when we very much WANT to wander…).
Last edited:
- Status