What does YOUR god say about abortion

[Miles]

.
What does your god have to say about abortion?

Please cite the source for your answer.


.

[Miles]

Exodus 21:23

23 But if the woman herself is injured, (a fatal accident according to your Dr. G. R. Berry) the punishment shall be life for life,

Looking at the the script in the Hebrew, can you See the word WOMAN anywhere in verse 23?




BY FAR THE MAJORITY OF BIBLE TRANSLATIONS ARE MORE FAITHFUL TO THE HEBREW* IN NOT LIMITING THE INJURY TO THE WOMAN ALONE

Don't see "fatality" there either, which appears in your NWT Bible. But honestly, I'm too tired to care anymore. I'll just chalk it up as a win for my side and let it go at that.


Have a good day

.

[JehovahsWitness]

Exodus 21:23

23 But if the woman herself is injured, (a fatal accident according to your Dr. G. R. Berry) the punishment shall be life for life,

Looking at the the script in the Hebrew, can you See the word WOMAN anywhere in verse 23?




BY FAR THE MAJORITY OF BIBLE TRANSLATIONS ARE MORE FAITHFUL TO THE HEBREW* IN NOT LIMITING THE INJURY TO THE WOMAN ALONE

Don't see "fatality" there either, which appears in your NWT Bible. ...

But can you See the Word ASOWN?


Source: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/21-23.htm

--> post #18

[Difflugia]

First, if אָסֹ֖ון there means "fatality" instead of something like "injury," then to what do the qualifications in verse 24 (burn, bruise, eye, tooth) refer?

An injury can be fatal or not: a non-fatal injury is an injury and a fatal injury (a fatality) is also an injury. Verses 23 and 24 are obviously qualitative not cumulative; it is not saying all the types of injures are to be combined to face a single punishment.

If verse 22 refers specifically to a fatal injury, then what are verses 23 and 24 "obviously" qualifying?

The whole principle of the verses is that the punishment should be equal to the TYPE of injury inflicted. Only the fatal type of injury would require the ultimate payment.

That was never in dispute. If there's a miscarriage, then the offender has to pay the father the value of the lost child. If the child's mother is injured or killed, then the offender is to injured or killed in the same way.

According to the lexicon by William L. Holladay, asón (אָסֹ֖ון) means “mortal accident.”

It's generally considered polite to link your sources, even if they're only secondary ones. Since the primary source is one I've never seen referred to, I have to wonder how hard The Watchtower had to look to find a lexicon (and a "concise" one, at that) that supported its desired interpretation. If that's the best that The Watchtower can find, then perhaps one might learn to double-check its explanations? Or maybe not.

This is borne out by the usage of asón in its three other occurrences in the Bible. (Gen. 42:4, 38; 44:29) Thus, contextually “fatal accident” /fatal injury is a solid rendition of אָסֹ֖ון in Exodus 21v23

Q.E.D.! Maybe we could look at some other scholarly opinions, anyway.


(Brown, Driver, Briggs)

Well, well! It seems that the other three uses are "contextually" somewhat different, eh? What with the other three verses using a completely different verb and all. That suggests "contextually" that the idiom used in Genesis is somewhat different than the one used in Exodus.




(Robinson)


(Davidson)

From Oxford's The Jewish Study Bible, note on Exodus 21:22:

Other damage to the woman. Based on reckoning: perhaps reckoning the age of the fetus, but both this translation and the alternative “as the judges determine” are questionable. Halakhic exegesis infers that, since the punishment is monetary rather than execution, the unborn fetus is not considered a living person and feticide is not murder (cf. 12–14 n.); hence, abortion is permitted when necessary to save the mother (Rashi and Yad Ramah to b. Sanh. 72b; see also Gen. 9.5–6 n.).

That note is based on the JPS translation of verses 22-24:

When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be 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 the injury refers to the [the mother and/or the] unborn child...

Nobody is suggesting the sanctions exclude the mother....

That's right. I'm not sure why you think they do.

...if the injury refers to the [the mother and/or the] unborn child, then verse 22 must also refer to the possibility of a live, healthy birth.

Yes that is correct.

If that's the case, then the father of the child must still be compensated for a healthy birth in which there is no injury [ to the child] .

Correct.

What is that compensation for? ...

Hurting the mother (which arguably also caused trauma to the baby)

But no matter how you slice it, The Watchtower's desired interpretation includes a case with a healthy birth and no injury to anyone that nonetheless requires payment to the child's father. In that case, what "hurting" and "trauma" are you talking about?

[JehovahsWitness]

Maybe we could look at some other scholarly opinions

You did not provide the LINKS for us to do so. Like you did in your post I generally simply cite primary sources but if you hold to a higher standard I will be happy to follow the LINKS to so we can {to quote you} "double-check" your explanations; I await your edits.

As for reproducing other opinions: That by far the majority of scholars that have published English bible translations which omit phrasing that resticts capital punishment for loss of life to the mother, is a demonstrable fact. That there are various opposing interpretatons/views is not under dispute ; which explanations are linguistically and contextually more convincing is the point under discussion. You have yet to produce any which imo, are.

Case in point ...

... the other three verses using a completely different verb and all.

INCORRECT: All three verses use the same Hebrew verb ( אָסוֹן ason ) as your own screenshots demonstrate.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/611.htm Perhaps I have misunderstood your point.

Kindly explain how your reference to how the judges determine any potential fine ( “as the judges determine”) is relevant.

[Difflugia]

Maybe we could look at some other scholarly opinions

You did not provide the LINKS for us to do so.

I linked the ones that are publicly available. The three lexicons I referenced are in the public domain and the images are hyperlinked to the corresponding pages in the scans.

The Jewish Study Bible isn't freely available online, but it turns out that the Internet Archive lending library has a scan, so I can check it out and then link to a single page. The page with the note I quoted is here.

Like you did in your post I generally simply cite primary sources but if you hold to a higher standard I will be happy to follow the LINKS to so we can {to quote you} "double-check" your explanations; I await your edits.

The source you quoted is The Watchtower. That's the one you should have referenced and, since the page is available online, linked to. A direct quotation without attribution is plagiarism.

The Hebrew word here rendered “injury” (“harm,” Revised Standard Version; “mischief,” Authorized Version) is asón. According to the lexicon by William L. Holladay, asón means “mortal accident.” This is borne out by the usage of asón in its three other occurrences in the Bible. (Gen. 42:4, 38; 44:29) Thus, the rendering “fatal accident” in the New World Translation enables one more accurately to understand what the Law here said.

That there are various opposing interpretatons/views is not under dispute ; which explanations are linguistically and contextually more convincing is the point under discussion.

Exactly.

... the other three verses using a completely different verb and all. INCORRECT

What's incorrect? That's exactly what the BDB says and I double-checked. The verb in both Exodus verses is יִהְיֶ֖ה ("it is"), meaning something like, "injury is" or "injury happens." The three verses in Genesis use forms of two related verbs, קרא and קרה, both of which mean "to meet" or "to come upon." The context in Exodus explicitly includes injuries that aren't fatal and all three Genesis references use a different phrase than the one in Exodus. The Watchtower's argument is at best unconvincing, at worst disingenuous.

[Difflugia]

Sorry, I didn't realize you posted before you were done composing. I'll address the additional arguments:

As for reproducing other opinions: That by far the majority of scholars that have published English bible translations which omit phrasing that resticts capital punishment for loss of life to the mother, is a demonstrable fact.

In isolation, "there was injury" doesn't specify who was injured, but the phrase isn't isolated. In context, the father is paid for a miscarriage and the offender is further punished in direct proportion to injuries sustained by the mother.

All three verses use the same Hebrew verb ( אָסוֹן ason ) as your own screenshots demonstrate.

That's a noun.

Kindly explain how your reference to how the judges determine any potential fine ( “as the judges determine”) is relevant.

The fine is assessed for the "boy coming out." Then, if there's injury, there's additional punishment. If the injury refers to the "boy" as well as the mother, then what was the initial fine for?

[JehovahsWitness]

In context, the father is paid for a miscarriage and the offender is further punished in direct proportion to injuries sustained by the mother.

You keep restatng your argument as if it isn't which is entirely circular in nature; you are presenting your conclusion as if the premises on which it is based (in this case, that captial punishment for a fatal injury is resticted to the woman) has been proven; which linguistically the Hebrew does not do.

The fine is assessed for the "boy coming out." Then, if there's injury, there's additional punishment. If the injury refers to the "boy" as well as the mother, then what was the initial fine for?

That point (which is essentially a strawman) has been addressed.

[JehovahsWitness]

That's exactly what the BDB says and I double-checked.

It's generally considered polite to link your sources ...

Please provide the >> LINK<< so I can check your claim for myself.


source: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/ason_611.htm

Are you suggesting that the HEBREW asown does not appear (in various forms) in the referred to verses?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Miles in post #8]

The whole sense of the verses is what happens to the unborn baby. It is clear that if the baby dies it must be life for life. Jehovah is concerned about the unborn child's life, and would be still if the baby was killed by abortion.

.

[Difflugia]

In context, the father is paid for a miscarriage and the offender is further punished in direct proportion to injuries sustained by the mother.

You keep restatng your argument as if it isn't which is entirely circular in nature; you are presenting your conclusion as if the premises on which it is based (in this case, that captial punishment for a fatal injury is resticted to the woman) has been proven; which linguistically the Hebrew does not do.

"Obvious" and "circular" aren't the same thing. We've had this discussion before.

In order to make your case, you must imagine that Exodus 21:22-24 can be broken into tiny parts that bear no relation to each other. On its own, the phrase "her boy goes out" could mean a live birth or miscarriage because it's ambiguous. On its own, the phrase "if there is an injury" could refer to either the mother or the child because the subject isn't explicit. On its own, the injury could refer exclusively to a fatality because there's no other context. None of these clauses is presented on its own, though.

When presented together as they are, a unified rule about compensation for harm within a larger context of similar rules, the pattern and intent are obvious. "Her boy comes out" must be bad enough to justify compensation, even if "there is no injury." Awarding compensation for a live, injury-free birth is nonsensical, so "her boy comes out" is a miscarriage. Further injury to a miscarried fetus is nonsensical, so "there is no injury" refers to the mother. The list of possible injuries includes both fatal and nonfatal injuries, so the injury must not necessarily be fatal. Each part of that argument is obvious, but no part is circular. Instead, your claims must treat each phrase within the larger statement as independent of the others.

The fine is assessed for the "boy coming out." Then, if there's injury, there's additional punishment. If the injury refers to the "boy" as well as the mother, then what was the initial fine for?

That point (which is essentially a strawman) has been addressed.

First, I haven't misrepresented any of your arguments, which is what a straw man is.

Second, you haven't actually addressed my arguments, but only asked me to "kindly" explain the relevance, which I did. In fact, I've done so again just above.

That's exactly what the BDB says and I double-checked.

It's generally considered polite to link your sources ...

Please provide the >> LINK<< so I can check your claim for myself.

I did, but here it is again: LINK. Top of the page.

Are you suggesting that the HEBREW asown does not appear (in various forms) in the referred to verses?

No.

What I'm suggesting is that it appears with different verbs in the different contexts, the ones in Genesis being peculiar in a way that may indicate a specific Hebrew idiom, "meet an injury." An English equivalent might be something like "kick the bucket." Since that phrase is the only evidence offered by The Watchtower that its use in Exodus necessarily means a fatality despite the enumeration of nonfatal injuries, it doesn't offer much to stand on.