Is the Media Unfair to McCain?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

No I don't. Do you? I can by out my list of commentaries that I assure you are a qualified as your Hebrew gentleman but then what do we have? Whose pile of authorities is higher?

My point is that the passage can be interpreted either way. But the interpretation I propose to you goes back centuries before the politicizing of the passage by the religious right in America to secure votes for the Republican Party.

I'm pragmatic, I'll say both interpretations are valid, as are Rapture interpretations. However, the position I presented to you is historic and goes back for centuries among the people who spoke the language it was written in...and enforced it's edicts.

[TRFrance]

Aquila,
Do you believe that abortion is not a sin?

And if so, why?

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by Aquila

My point is that the passage can be interpreted either way. But the interpretation I propose to you goes back centuries before the politicizing of the passage by the religious right in America to secure votes for the Republican Party.

I'm pragmatic, I'll say both interpretations are valid, as are Rapture interpretations. However, the position I presented to you is historic and goes back for centuries among the people who spoke the language it was written in...and enforced it's edicts.

Throw out exegesis. Who needs it?! Tradition trumps it.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Aquila,
Do you believe that abortion is not a sin?

And if so, why?

I believe abortion is a sin.

I believe that the rabbinical authorities uniformly agree that the loss of an unborn child is to be punished by heavy fines as the father and the judges determine. However, the passage in question is focused upon the well being of the mother...not the unborn child. (We have to reject the dehumanization of women).

I would go as far as to say that one would be within their rights to forbid water baptism to a woman who procured an unnecessary abortion.

Politically speaking, I think the government is incapable of adequately addressing the issue because of it's complexity. Responsibility for choosing life or abortion is best left in the hands of individual women....not politicians.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

Throw out exegesis. Who needs it?! Tradition trumps it.

Exegesis based on modern political agendas or exegesis based on a solid understanding of ancient language, custom, and culture?

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe abortion is a sin.

I believe that the rabbinical authorities uniformly agree that the loss of an unborn child is to be punished by heavy fines as the father and the judges determine. However, the passage in question is focused upon the well being of the mother...not the unborn child. (We have to reject the dehumanization of women).

I would go as far as to say that one would be within their rights to forbid water baptism to a woman who procured an unnecessary abortion.

We don't have authority to refuse baptism to someone who has repented.

[Aquila]

While on this subject there's a very disturbing passage many don't like to examine....

Numbers 5:11-29 (ESV)
11 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 12 “Speak to the people of Israel, If any man's wife goes astray and breaks faith with him, 13 if a man lies with her sexually, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her, since she was not taken in the act, 14 and if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself, or if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself, 15 then the man shall bring his wife to the priest and bring the offering required of her, a tenth of an ephah [1] of barley flour. He shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance.
16 “And the priest shall bring her near and set her before the Lord. 17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. 18 And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord and unbind the hair of the woman's head and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And in his hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. 19 Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, ‘If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while you were under your husband's authority, be free from this water of bitterness that brings the curse. 20 But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband's authority, and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your husband has lain with you, 21 then’ (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman) ‘the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your body swell. 22 May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.’ And the woman shall say, ‘Amen, Amen.’
23 “Then the priest shall write these curses in a book and wash them off into the water of bitterness. 24 And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain. 25 And the priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy out of the woman's hand and shall wave the grain offering before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 And the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering, as its memorial portion, and burn it on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water. 27 And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has broken faith with her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive children.
29 “This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, though under her husband's authority, goes astray and defiles herself,

This trial by ordeal not only revealed a woman's adultery, but it eliminated anything growing in the womb, and rendered her barren.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Exegesis based on modern political agendas or exegesis based on solid understanding of ancient language, custom, and culture?

You are assuming too much from me again........As I stated that if Moses wanted to use the word for 'miscarriage' there were at least 2 different words that he could have used and in fact did use. The context of the passage does not support your interpretation. In fact Gleason Archer, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School states “There is no ambiguity here, whatever. What is required is that if there should be an injury either to the mother or to her children, the injury shall be avenged by a like injury to the assailant. If it involves the life (nepes) of the premature baby, then the assailant shall pay for it with his life. There is no second-class status attached to the fetus under this rule; he is avenged just as if he were a normally delivered child or an older person: life for life. Or if the injury is less, but not serious enough to involve inflicting a like injury on the offender, then he may offer compensation in monetary damages... "

I'd guess he'd know a bit about "ancient language, custom, and culture".

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

We don't have authority to refuse baptism to someone who has repented.

Wrong, the church has the authority to punish and issue condemnation and judgment for sin,

John 20:23
23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

II Corinthians 10:6
6And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

The church has more authority than most realize. The church need not wimp out and deny the authority given her. Ideally, we should allow baptism to repentant believers. But in the case of abortion, the merciless killing of an unborn child, the church is within her right to deny baptism.

Of course....most don't have the guts to do this....they'd rather blame Democrats because the woman is a potential tither.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

You are assuming too much from me again........As I stated that if Moses wanted to use the word for 'miscarriage' there were at least 2 different words that he could have used and in fact did use. The context of the passage does not support your interpretation. In fact Gleason Archer, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School states “There is no ambiguity here, whatever. What is required is that if there should be an injury either to the mother or to her children, the injury shall be avenged by a like injury to the assailant. If it involves the life (nepes) of the premature baby, then the assailant shall pay for it with his life. There is no second-class status attached to the fetus under this rule; he is avenged just as if he were a normally delivered child or an older person: life for life. Or if the injury is less, but not serious enough to involve inflicting a like injury on the offender, then he may offer compensation in monetary damages... "

I'd guess he'd know a bit about "ancient language, custom, and culture".

You'll have to take up the historic interpretation of the text prior to this political debate with Jews who speak the language and know the culture in which it was enforced. The odds of a child being miscarried by blunt trauma surviving in ancient Israel without any harm is very, very, very low. And the risk to the mother's health as a result was very, very, very high.

Babies don't just flop out in the ancient world after blunt trauma with no harm done.