• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Biblically, life begins at birth

First, let's look at a more modern translation since neither of us are in the habit of calling children "fruit."

Here's the NIV translation. "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

If she gives birth prematurely but there is no injury, there is a fine. I think in this context, the text refers to injury to the child. You don't "give birth" to a miscarriage. You give birth to a living baby, so it is implied through the language that the child is fine.

If there is serious injury, the penalty is "life for life," which is a phrase unique to the Bible and not found in Hammurabi's code. It's meant that we should value the life and take life for life.

The author never specifically mentioned Hammurabi's Code. It simply steals the lines "eye for an eye" and "tooth for a tooth." If the specific ordinance were meant to be the read the same, wouldn't the author have just referred us to Hammurabi and pointed us to the specific code?

Also, in Hammurabi's Code, "eye for an eye" and "tooth for a tooth" are actually not found together. They are in separate ordinances, dealing with different things. This is further evidence that it is not the specifics of the rule that the Bible is teaching, but the general principle of equal repayment for ones crimes.

NIV is pushing an agenda, trying to make the Bible conform to their moral preconceptions. They at least acknowledge in the footnotes that their interpretation of "gives birth" might be better translated as "miscarried.". The word being translated is "yatsa."

Strong's Hebrew: 3318. ????? (yatsa) -- to go or come out

As you can see, Strongs concordance gives no indication that yatsa ever means 'birth' if 'birth' were meant, the word for birth is Yalad, a word conspicuously absent from Exodus 21:22.

If you want a modern translation that is easy to understand, how about this one?

**22 “Two men might be fighting and hurt a pregnant woman. This might make the woman give birth to her baby before its time. If the woman was not hurt badly, [a] the man who hurt her must pay a fine. The woman’s husband will decide how much the man must pay. The judges will help the man decide how much the fine will be. 23 But if the woman was hurt badly, then the man who hurt her must be punished. The punishment must fit the crime. You must trade one life for another life.
 
It really doesn't matter what the bible says to these pro-lifers, they are only interested in punishing people for "illicit" sex anyway. Why else would they now be starting on birth control? Either they are jealous of the "freedom" they believe they were cheated out of or are so hung up on sex that they blame the worlds problems on it
At least some posters on this board are honest about the real reason and it has nothing to do with a tadpoles "life". I know all the denials that will follow but they are only fooling themselves.
It's a control issue and they want to control women. That's all the right wants to do.
 
It's a control issue and they want to control women. That's all the right wants to do.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. You don't think the right also wants to make lots of money, protect the nation from terrorists and put an end to gayness?
 
That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. You don't think the right also wants to make lots of money, protect the nation from terrorists and put an end to gayness?

actually, more like keep the populace scared of terrorists so that it can be better controlled.

That, and make sure that everyone thinks that the US is a Christian nation, believing in the Christian Bible, except, of course, for the part that equates life with breath. Somewhere in all those pages it must say something about conception.
 
NIV is pushing an agenda, trying to make the Bible conform to their moral preconceptions. They at least acknowledge in the footnotes that their interpretation of "gives birth" might be better translated as "miscarried.". The word being translated is "yatsa."

Strong's Hebrew: 3318. ????? (yatsa) -- to go or come out

As you can see, Strongs concordance gives no indication that yatsa ever means 'birth' if 'birth' were meant, the word for birth is Yalad, a word conspicuously absent from Exodus 21:22.

If you want a modern translation that is easy to understand, how about this one?

I didn't know that about yatsa and yalad... pretty interesting stuff.

I'm not a fan of the King James Bible in the year 2012. I don't speak Hebrew, but I don't believe the word of God is written in the Hebrew equivalent of the king's english. I just think the King James is outdated, and a tad stuffy. I'm always on the lookout for a standard english translation that closely mirrors the original intent of the authors.

An impossible task, most likely. Translation errors are probably are more common that we'd like.

I never considered that the NIV bible might be skewed.

The translation you provided there at the end, though, I believe, is off. It is too different from the other two versions we have looked at to be accurate.
 
I didn't know that about yatsa and yalad... pretty interesting stuff.

I'm not a fan of the King James Bible in the year 2012. I don't speak Hebrew, but I don't believe the word of God is written in the Hebrew equivalent of the king's english. I just think the King James is outdated, and a tad stuffy. I'm always on the lookout for a standard english translation that closely mirrors the original intent of the authors.

An impossible task, most likely. Translation errors are probably are more common that we'd like.

I never considered that the NIV bible might be skewed.

The translation you provided there at the end, though, I believe, is off. It is too different from the other two versions we have looked at to be accurate.

Well, thats really the trouble with translations isn't it?

How about the Message? It's a pretty popular translation:

*22-25 "When there's a fight and in the fight a pregnant woman is hit so that she miscarries but is not otherwise hurt, the one responsible has to pay whatever the husband demands in compensation. But if there is further damage, then you must give life for life—eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
 
Well, thats really the trouble with translations isn't it?

How about the Message? It's a pretty popular translation:

Hmm... you may be on to something.

Reading that translation, it does seem to say something quite different from my NIV bible.
 
Last edited:
Well, thats really the trouble with translations isn't it?

How about the Message? It's a pretty popular translation:

How about it? Sounds a lot like payment for property loss to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom