Kansas Votes 4-1 To Allow Intelligent Design

[JoeyKnothead]

From Kansas Votes 4-1 To Allow Intelligent Design:

Topic for debate:

Should Kansas have voted to allow Intelligent Design in order to achieve "balance"?

[East of Eden]

Most people(those not of either extreme)consider a fetus a child when it is capable of survival outside of the womb.

A dementia person or other handicapped may not be able to survive without assistance. Should they be killed for the sake of convenience also?

The Bible makes a distinction between a fetus in the womb and a child outside of the womb.

The OT says if a pregnant woman was struck and the child miscarried, the person's life who caused it would be required and penalty. Life for life.

In modern society the mother's right to decide if she will become a mother is only tempered when the fetus is near viability.

The time to decide if she will be a mother is before conception.

The days of men keeping women barefoot, uneducated and pregnant(whether that is that woman's choice are not)are over. As with the right to vote, the right to be in charge of your own body(as a woman)is not up to anyone but the woman herself.

The unborn child isn't part of the mother's body, she is the temporary host. It often has a different blood type and the mother won't survive it the baby doesn't leave her body.

All unborn children deserve life, even fetus Grumpy.

[chris_brown207]

The Bible makes a distinction between a fetus in the womb and a child outside of the womb.

The OT says if a pregnant woman was struck and the child miscarried, the person's life who caused it would be required and penalty. Life for life.

Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye...

If you cause a miscarriage - you pay a penalty and a fine. But if you cause the death of the women as well... THEN you pay life for life.

So bible doesn't even afford fetuses the same rights as a person. (And I am not even sure how this relates to ID in the first place)

[East of Eden]

The Bible makes a distinction between a fetus in the womb and a child outside of the womb.

The OT says if a pregnant woman was struck and the child miscarried, the person's life who caused it would be required and penalty. Life for life.

Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye...

If you cause a miscarriage - you pay a penalty and a fine. But if you cause the death of the women as well... THEN you pay life for life.

So bible doesn't even afford fetuses the same rights as a person. (And I am not even sure how this relates to ID in the first place)

Many interpret this as saying if the child dies, the assailant dies also.

[Goat]

The Bible makes a distinction between a fetus in the womb and a child outside of the womb.

The OT says if a pregnant woman was struck and the child miscarried, the person's life who caused it would be required and penalty. Life for life.

Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye...

If you cause a miscarriage - you pay a penalty and a fine. But if you cause the death of the women as well... THEN you pay life for life.

So bible doesn't even afford fetuses the same rights as a person. (And I am not even sure how this relates to ID in the first place)

Many interpret this as saying if the child dies, the assailant dies also.

Many people are not able to read things in context. 'If a woman miscarries' means the fetus dies, and if the fetus dies , then there is a fine.

As for an 'eye for an eye', if you ever read the commentary about it, it means 'no more than an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth... in other words putting limits on penalties. In the Jewish legal system, rather than a literal 'eye for an eye', they put a monetary value on that.. so the entire world would not be eyeless and toothless.

[East of Eden]

The Bible makes a distinction between a fetus in the womb and a child outside of the womb.

The OT says if a pregnant woman was struck and the child miscarried, the person's life who caused it would be required and penalty. Life for life.

Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye...

If you cause a miscarriage - you pay a penalty and a fine. But if you cause the death of the women as well... THEN you pay life for life.

So bible doesn't even afford fetuses the same rights as a person. (And I am not even sure how this relates to ID in the first place)

Many interpret this as saying if the child dies, the assailant dies also.

Many people are not able to read things in context. 'If a woman miscarries' means the fetus dies, and if the fetus dies , then there is a fine.

As for an 'eye for an eye', if you ever read the commentary about it, it means 'no more than an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth... in other words putting limits on penalties. In the Jewish legal system, rather than a literal 'eye for an eye', they put a monetary value on that.. so the entire world would not be eyeless and toothless.

I agree, many people can't read things in context.




What Exodus 21:22 Says About Abortion


Gregory Koukl

The Torah's teaching about accidental "miscarriage"; has been hotly contested concerning the value of the unborn. Is it pro-life or pro-abortion? Here are the facts. You decide.

Most attempts to argue against abortion from biblical texts are misdirected. In the absence of specific prohibitions of abortion in the Scripture, Christian pro-lifers quote equivocal passages.

Some citations use personal pronouns to describe the unborn, but many of these are in poetry texts, so the conclusion is not entirely convincing. Gods personal acquaintance with the unborn can be explained by His omniscience. After all, some texts make it clear that God knows us even before were conceived.

One text, however, is strong. Exodus 21:22-25 is usually used to argue that the Bible assigns a lower value to the unborn than to other humans. Rabbis and Jewish thinkers Ive discussed this point with on the radio have been especially adamant--even irate. I think the evidence shows, though, that Moses taught just the opposite. If Im right, we have a powerful argument for the value Scripture puts on the life of the unborn.


Dead or Alive?

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) renders Exodus 21:22-25 this way:

And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the womans husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.[1]
This translation suggests that if a miscarriage takes place and the child is lost, the antagonists are simply fined, but if the mother dies in the scuffle, then the penalty is life for life. In the Torah, it seems, the unborn is not considered fully human.

Theologian Millard Erickson notes that in this view, the lex talionis [life for life] is applied only if the mother is harmed. On this basis it is concluded that the fetus was not considered a soul or a person, and thus is not to be thought of as fully human.[2]

At issue is the phrase translated she has a miscarriage. There is an assumption made about this word that is crucial. In English, the word miscarriage implies the death of the child. Websters New World Dictionary defines miscarriage as, The expulsion of the fetus from the womb before it is sufficiently developed to survive.[3] In the struggle, the child is aborted, and so a fine is levied.

Heres the crux of the issue: Does the Hebrew word carry the same meaning? Is it correct to presume that the miscarriage of Exodus 21:22 produces a dead child, just like an abortion? This is the single most important question that needs to be answered here. If it does, the English word miscarriage is the right choice. If it does not, then the picture changes dramatically.

Are we justified in assuming that the child is dead? The answer is in the original language. Theres a history of how these words are used in the Hebrew Bible, and that history is important. Lets look at it.


Yeled and Yasa

A words meaning in any language is determined in two steps. We learn a words range of meaning--its possible definitions--inductively by examining its general usage. We learn its specific meaning within that range by the immediate context.

The relevant phrase in the passage, ...she has a miscarriage..., reads wyase ye ladh in the Hebrew. Its a combination of a Hebrew noun--yeled--and a verb--yasa--and literally means the child comes forth. The NASB makes note of this literal rendering in the margin.

The Hebrew noun translated child in this passage is yeled[4] (yeladim in the plural), and means child, son, boy, or youth.[5] It comes from the primary root word yalad,[6] meaning to bear, bring forth, or beget. In the NASB yalad is translated childbirth 10 times, some form of gave birth over 50 times, and either bore, born, or borne 180 times.

The verb yasa[7] is a primary, primitive root that means to go or come out. It is used over a thousand times in the Hebrew Scriptures and has been translated 165 different ways in the NASB--escape, exported, go forth, proceed, take out, to name a few. This gives us a rich source for exegetical comparison. Its translated with some form of coming out (e.g., comes out, came out, etc.) 103 times, and some form of going 445 times.

Whats most interesting is to see how frequently yasa refers to the emergence of a living thing:

Genesis 1:24 Then God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind; and it was so.
Genesis 8:17 [to Noah] Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you, birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth....

Genesis 15:4 This man will not be your heir; but one who shall come forth from your own body....

Genesis 25:25-26 Now the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau. And afterward his brother came forth with his hand holding on to Esaus heel, so his name was called Jacob.

1 Kings 8:19 Nevertheless you shall not build the house, but your son who shall be born to you, he shall build the house for My name.

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.

2 Kings 20:18 And some of your sons who shall issue from you, whom you shall beget, shall be taken away; and they shall become officials in the palace of the king of Babylon.

As you can see, its common for yasa to describe the coming forth of something living, frequently a child. There is only one time yasa is clearly used for a dead child. Numbers 12:12 says, Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mothers womb!

Note here, that we dont infer the childs death from the word yasa, but from explicit statements in the context. This is a still-birth, not a miscarriage. The child is dead before the birth (whose flesh is half eaten away), and doesnt die as a result of the untimely delivery, as in a miscarriage.

Yasa is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is never translated miscarriage in any other case. Why should the Exodus passage be any different?


Clues from the Context

This inductive analysis shows us something important: Nothing about the word yasa implies the death of the child. The context may give us this information, as in Numbers 12:12, but the word itself does not.

This leads us to our next question: What in the context justifies our assumption that the child that comes forth is dead? The answer is, nothing does. There is no indication anywhere in the verse that a fine is assessed for a miscarriage and a more severe penalty is assessed for harming the mother.

This becomes immediately clear when the Hebrew words are translated in their normal, conventional way (the word further in the NASB is not in the original):

And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that the child comes forth, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the womans husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life....
The text seems to require a fine for the premature birth, but injury to either of the parties involved incurs a more severe punishment.[8] Millard Erickson notes that there is no specification as to who must be harmed for the lex talionis [life for life] to come into effect. Whether the mother or the child, the principle applies.[9]

Gleason Archer, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, concludes:

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...[10]
Two Rejoinders

Two further objections need to be dealt with. First, if this is a premature birth and not a miscarriage, why the fine?

Babies born prematurely require special care. Because their prenatal development has been interrupted, they are especially prone to difficulty. Pre-term babies often cant breast feed, and there can be respiratory problems leading to permanent brain damage. The fine represents reimbursement for the expense of an untimely birth, and punitive damages for the serious trauma.

Anyway, even if the fine was for the miscarriage, this wouldnt prove the child was less than human. A few verses later (v. 32), Moses imposes a fine for the death of a slave, but this doesnt mean the slave is sub-human.

Second, was this the only word that could be used to indicate a miscarriage? No. Two other words were available to convey this particular meaning, if thats what the writer had in mind: nepel and sakal. These are used seven times in the Hebrew text.

The noun nepel[11] means miscarriage or abortion, and is used three times:

Job 3:16 Or like a miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, as infants that never saw light.
Eccl. 6:3-4 If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity.

Psalms 58:8 Let them be as a snail which melts away as it goes along, like the miscarriages of a woman which never see the sun.

The verb sakal[12] means to be bereaved and is used four times, including one time when its actually translated abort:

Genesis 31:38 These twenty years I have been with you; your ewes and your female goats have not miscarried, nor have I eaten the rams of your flocks.
Exodus 23:26 There shall be no one miscarrying or barren in your land; I will fulfill the number of your days.

Hosea 9:14 Give them, O Lord-- what wilt Thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.

Job 21:10 His ox mates without fail; his cow calves and does not abort.

Moses had words in his vocabulary that literally meant abortion or miscarriage, but he didnt use them in Exodus 21:22. Instead, he chose the same word he used in many other places to signify a living child being brought forth.

Yasa doesnt mean miscarriage in the sense we think of that word. Instead, the combination of yeled with yasa suggests a living child coming forth from the womb. Nowhere else is this word ever translated miscarriage. Why? Because the word doesnt mean the baby is still-born. It simply means the child comes out.


Three Questions

When someone raises this issue with you, ask these three questions.

First, why presume the child is dead? Though the English word miscarriage entails this notion, nothing in the Hebrew wording suggests it. Yasa doesnt mean miscarriage; it means to come forth. The word itself never suggests death.[13] In fact, the word generally implies the opposite: live birth. If its never translated elsewhere as miscarriage, why translate it that way here?

Second, what in the context itself implies the death of the child? Theres nothing that does, nothing at all. The fine does not necessarily mean the child is dead, and even if it did this wouldnt indicate that the child wasnt fully human (as in the case of the slave in v. 32).

Third, ancient Hebrew had a specific word for miscarriage. It was used in other passages. Why not here? Because Moses didnt mean miscarriage. When his words are simply taken at face value, there is no confusion at all. The verse is clear and straight-forward. Everything falls into place.

Regardless of the translation, its clear that killing the child--and the text does refer to the unborn as a child--is a criminal act. There is no justification for abortion-on-demand from the Torah. Instead, we have a reasonable--even powerful--argument that God views the unborn as valuable as any other human being.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] The 1995 updated version of the NASB now renders this verse, If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined... etc.
[2] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 555.

[3] Websters New World Dictionary, Second College Edition (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1984).

[4] Strongs Index word #3206.

[5] Definitions come from the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance. For further documentation, see the Hebrew/English Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Brown, Driver and Briggs, the standard lexicon of ancient Hebrew.

[6] Strongs Index word #3205.

[7] Strongs Index word #3318.

[8] The New International Version is correct in rendering this passage, If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the womans husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life.

[9] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 556.

[10] Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), p. 248.

[11] Strongs Index word #5309.

[12] Strongs Index word #7921.

[13] Again, in the Numbers passage the context indicates the death, not the word yasa itself.



This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. 2002 Gregory Koukl

[Goat]

The Bible makes a distinction between a fetus in the womb and a child outside of the womb.

The OT says if a pregnant woman was struck and the child miscarried, the person's life who caused it would be required and penalty. Life for life.

Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye...

If you cause a miscarriage - you pay a penalty and a fine. But if you cause the death of the women as well... THEN you pay life for life.

So bible doesn't even afford fetuses the same rights as a person. (And I am not even sure how this relates to ID in the first place)

Many interpret this as saying if the child dies, the assailant dies also.

Many people are not able to read things in context. 'If a woman miscarries' means the fetus dies, and if the fetus dies , then there is a fine.

As for an 'eye for an eye', if you ever read the commentary about it, it means 'no more than an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth... in other words putting limits on penalties. In the Jewish legal system, rather than a literal 'eye for an eye', they put a monetary value on that.. so the entire world would not be eyeless and toothless.

I agree, many people can't read things in context.




What Exodus 21:22 Says About Abortion


Gregory Koukl

The Torah's teaching about accidental "miscarriage"; has been hotly contested concerning the value of the unborn. Is it pro-life or pro-abortion? Here are the facts. You decide.

Most attempts to argue against abortion from biblical texts are misdirected. In the absence of specific prohibitions of abortion in the Scripture, Christian pro-lifers quote equivocal passages.

Some citations use personal pronouns to describe the unborn, but many of these are in poetry texts, so the conclusion is not entirely convincing. Gods personal acquaintance with the unborn can be explained by His omniscience. After all, some texts make it clear that God knows us even before were conceived.

One text, however, is strong. Exodus 21:22-25 is usually used to argue that the Bible assigns a lower value to the unborn than to other humans. Rabbis and Jewish thinkers Ive discussed this point with on the radio have been especially adamant--even irate. I think the evidence shows, though, that Moses taught just the opposite. If Im right, we have a powerful argument for the value Scripture puts on the life of the unborn.


Dead or Alive?

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) renders Exodus 21:22-25 this way:

And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the womans husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.[1]
This translation suggests that if a miscarriage takes place and the child is lost, the antagonists are simply fined, but if the mother dies in the scuffle, then the penalty is life for life. In the Torah, it seems, the unborn is not considered fully human.

Theologian Millard Erickson notes that in this view, the lex talionis [life for life] is applied only if the mother is harmed. On this basis it is concluded that the fetus was not considered a soul or a person, and thus is not to be thought of as fully human.[2]

At issue is the phrase translated she has a miscarriage. There is an assumption made about this word that is crucial. In English, the word miscarriage implies the death of the child. Websters New World Dictionary defines miscarriage as, The expulsion of the fetus from the womb before it is sufficiently developed to survive.[3] In the struggle, the child is aborted, and so a fine is levied.

Heres the crux of the issue: Does the Hebrew word carry the same meaning? Is it correct to presume that the miscarriage of Exodus 21:22 produces a dead child, just like an abortion? This is the single most important question that needs to be answered here. If it does, the English word miscarriage is the right choice. If it does not, then the picture changes dramatically.

Are we justified in assuming that the child is dead? The answer is in the original language. Theres a history of how these words are used in the Hebrew Bible, and that history is important. Lets look at it.


Yeled and Yasa

A words meaning in any language is determined in two steps. We learn a words range of meaning--its possible definitions--inductively by examining its general usage. We learn its specific meaning within that range by the immediate context.

The relevant phrase in the passage, ...she has a miscarriage..., reads wyase ye ladh in the Hebrew. Its a combination of a Hebrew noun--yeled--and a verb--yasa--and literally means the child comes forth. The NASB makes note of this literal rendering in the margin.

The Hebrew noun translated child in this passage is yeled[4] (yeladim in the plural), and means child, son, boy, or youth.[5] It comes from the primary root word yalad,[6] meaning to bear, bring forth, or beget. In the NASB yalad is translated childbirth 10 times, some form of gave birth over 50 times, and either bore, born, or borne 180 times.

The verb yasa[7] is a primary, primitive root that means to go or come out. It is used over a thousand times in the Hebrew Scriptures and has been translated 165 different ways in the NASB--escape, exported, go forth, proceed, take out, to name a few. This gives us a rich source for exegetical comparison. Its translated with some form of coming out (e.g., comes out, came out, etc.) 103 times, and some form of going 445 times.

Whats most interesting is to see how frequently yasa refers to the emergence of a living thing:

Genesis 1:24 Then God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind; and it was so.
Genesis 8:17 [to Noah] Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you, birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth....

Genesis 15:4 This man will not be your heir; but one who shall come forth from your own body....

Genesis 25:25-26 Now the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau. And afterward his brother came forth with his hand holding on to Esaus heel, so his name was called Jacob.

1 Kings 8:19 Nevertheless you shall not build the house, but your son who shall be born to you, he shall build the house for My name.

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.

2 Kings 20:18 And some of your sons who shall issue from you, whom you shall beget, shall be taken away; and they shall become officials in the palace of the king of Babylon.

As you can see, its common for yasa to describe the coming forth of something living, frequently a child. There is only one time yasa is clearly used for a dead child. Numbers 12:12 says, Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mothers womb!

Note here, that we dont infer the childs death from the word yasa, but from explicit statements in the context. This is a still-birth, not a miscarriage. The child is dead before the birth (whose flesh is half eaten away), and doesnt die as a result of the untimely delivery, as in a miscarriage.

Yasa is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is never translated miscarriage in any other case. Why should the Exodus passage be any different?


Clues from the Context

This inductive analysis shows us something important: Nothing about the word yasa implies the death of the child. The context may give us this information, as in Numbers 12:12, but the word itself does not.

This leads us to our next question: What in the context justifies our assumption that the child that comes forth is dead? The answer is, nothing does. There is no indication anywhere in the verse that a fine is assessed for a miscarriage and a more severe penalty is assessed for harming the mother.

This becomes immediately clear when the Hebrew words are translated in their normal, conventional way (the word further in the NASB is not in the original):

And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that the child comes forth, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the womans husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life....
The text seems to require a fine for the premature birth, but injury to either of the parties involved incurs a more severe punishment.[8] Millard Erickson notes that there is no specification as to who must be harmed for the lex talionis [life for life] to come into effect. Whether the mother or the child, the principle applies.[9]

Gleason Archer, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, concludes:

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...[10]
Two Rejoinders

Two further objections need to be dealt with. First, if this is a premature birth and not a miscarriage, why the fine?

Babies born prematurely require special care. Because their prenatal development has been interrupted, they are especially prone to difficulty. Pre-term babies often cant breast feed, and there can be respiratory problems leading to permanent brain damage. The fine represents reimbursement for the expense of an untimely birth, and punitive damages for the serious trauma.

Anyway, even if the fine was for the miscarriage, this wouldnt prove the child was less than human. A few verses later (v. 32), Moses imposes a fine for the death of a slave, but this doesnt mean the slave is sub-human.

Second, was this the only word that could be used to indicate a miscarriage? No. Two other words were available to convey this particular meaning, if thats what the writer had in mind: nepel and sakal. These are used seven times in the Hebrew text.

The noun nepel[11] means miscarriage or abortion, and is used three times:

Job 3:16 Or like a miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, as infants that never saw light.
Eccl. 6:3-4 If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity.

Psalms 58:8 Let them be as a snail which melts away as it goes along, like the miscarriages of a woman which never see the sun.

The verb sakal[12] means to be bereaved and is used four times, including one time when its actually translated abort:

Genesis 31:38 These twenty years I have been with you; your ewes and your female goats have not miscarried, nor have I eaten the rams of your flocks.
Exodus 23:26 There shall be no one miscarrying or barren in your land; I will fulfill the number of your days.

Hosea 9:14 Give them, O Lord-- what wilt Thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.

Job 21:10 His ox mates without fail; his cow calves and does not abort.

Moses had words in his vocabulary that literally meant abortion or miscarriage, but he didnt use them in Exodus 21:22. Instead, he chose the same word he used in many other places to signify a living child being brought forth.

Yasa doesnt mean miscarriage in the sense we think of that word. Instead, the combination of yeled with yasa suggests a living child coming forth from the womb. Nowhere else is this word ever translated miscarriage. Why? Because the word doesnt mean the baby is still-born. It simply means the child comes out.


Three Questions

When someone raises this issue with you, ask these three questions.

First, why presume the child is dead? Though the English word miscarriage entails this notion, nothing in the Hebrew wording suggests it. Yasa doesnt mean miscarriage; it means to come forth. The word itself never suggests death.[13] In fact, the word generally implies the opposite: live birth. If its never translated elsewhere as miscarriage, why translate it that way here?

Second, what in the context itself implies the death of the child? Theres nothing that does, nothing at all. The fine does not necessarily mean the child is dead, and even if it did this wouldnt indicate that the child wasnt fully human (as in the case of the slave in v. 32).

Third, ancient Hebrew had a specific word for miscarriage. It was used in other passages. Why not here? Because Moses didnt mean miscarriage. When his words are simply taken at face value, there is no confusion at all. The verse is clear and straight-forward. Everything falls into place.

Regardless of the translation, its clear that killing the child--and the text does refer to the unborn as a child--is a criminal act. There is no justification for abortion-on-demand from the Torah. Instead, we have a reasonable--even powerful--argument that God views the unborn as valuable as any other human being.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] The 1995 updated version of the NASB now renders this verse, If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined... etc.
[2] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 555.

[3] Websters New World Dictionary, Second College Edition (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1984).

[4] Strongs Index word #3206.

[5] Definitions come from the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance. For further documentation, see the Hebrew/English Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Brown, Driver and Briggs, the standard lexicon of ancient Hebrew.

[6] Strongs Index word #3205.

[7] Strongs Index word #3318.

[8] The New International Version is correct in rendering this passage, If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the womans husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life.

[9] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 556.

[10] Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), p. 248.

[11] Strongs Index word #5309.

[12] Strongs Index word #7921.

[13] Again, in the Numbers passage the context indicates the death, not the word yasa itself.



This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. 2002 Gregory Koukl

Well, I could care what he says less, but I don't know how. Yes, the Jewish faith gives value to a fetus.. but, not as much as it gives a live born person. When I see someone taking non contextual phrases from all over the bible to support an interpretation that does not match the plain reading of another phrase, I have to be skeptical.

The Jewish interpretation is 'other damage to the woman'... and the halakhic exegesis infers that punishment is monetary rather than execution, abortion is permitted to save a woman's life.

[micatala]

Most people(those not of either extreme)consider a fetus a child when it is capable of survival outside of the womb.

A dementia person or other handicapped may not be able to survive without assistance. Should they be killed for the sake of convenience also?

The Bible makes a distinction between a fetus in the womb and a child outside of the womb.

The OT says if a pregnant woman was struck and the child miscarried, the person's life who caused it would be required and penalty. Life for life.

I don't believe this is the case. Can you find the verse on this? My recollection is the person causing the miscarriage must pay a fine at the request of the father.

I also note that Numbers chapter 5 describes a procedure by which the priest can cause the discharge of a woman's womb, thus causing an abortion if there is a fetus present. This can be done at the request of the husband.


[Edited to add]

I see some subsequent discussion has addressed this. At this time, it seems to me a stretch to suggest the verses in Exodus should be interpreted to allow for the death penalty for the injurer should the fetus emerge dead, but I will reserve final judgment pending further analysis.


I am also wondering how on topic this is.

[East of Eden]

The Bible makes a distinction between a fetus in the womb and a child outside of the womb.

The OT says if a pregnant woman was struck and the child miscarried, the person's life who caused it would be required and penalty. Life for life.

Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye...

If you cause a miscarriage - you pay a penalty and a fine. But if you cause the death of the women as well... THEN you pay life for life.

So bible doesn't even afford fetuses the same rights as a person. (And I am not even sure how this relates to ID in the first place)

Many interpret this as saying if the child dies, the assailant dies also.

Many people are not able to read things in context. 'If a woman miscarries' means the fetus dies, and if the fetus dies , then there is a fine.

As for an 'eye for an eye', if you ever read the commentary about it, it means 'no more than an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth... in other words putting limits on penalties. In the Jewish legal system, rather than a literal 'eye for an eye', they put a monetary value on that.. so the entire world would not be eyeless and toothless.

I agree, many people can't read things in context.




What Exodus 21:22 Says About Abortion


Gregory Koukl

The Torah's teaching about accidental "miscarriage"; has been hotly contested concerning the value of the unborn. Is it pro-life or pro-abortion? Here are the facts. You decide.

Most attempts to argue against abortion from biblical texts are misdirected. In the absence of specific prohibitions of abortion in the Scripture, Christian pro-lifers quote equivocal passages.

Some citations use personal pronouns to describe the unborn, but many of these are in poetry texts, so the conclusion is not entirely convincing. Gods personal acquaintance with the unborn can be explained by His omniscience. After all, some texts make it clear that God knows us even before were conceived.

One text, however, is strong. Exodus 21:22-25 is usually used to argue that the Bible assigns a lower value to the unborn than to other humans. Rabbis and Jewish thinkers Ive discussed this point with on the radio have been especially adamant--even irate. I think the evidence shows, though, that Moses taught just the opposite. If Im right, we have a powerful argument for the value Scripture puts on the life of the unborn.


Dead or Alive?

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) renders Exodus 21:22-25 this way:

And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the womans husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.[1]
This translation suggests that if a miscarriage takes place and the child is lost, the antagonists are simply fined, but if the mother dies in the scuffle, then the penalty is life for life. In the Torah, it seems, the unborn is not considered fully human.

Theologian Millard Erickson notes that in this view, the lex talionis [life for life] is applied only if the mother is harmed. On this basis it is concluded that the fetus was not considered a soul or a person, and thus is not to be thought of as fully human.[2]

At issue is the phrase translated she has a miscarriage. There is an assumption made about this word that is crucial. In English, the word miscarriage implies the death of the child. Websters New World Dictionary defines miscarriage as, The expulsion of the fetus from the womb before it is sufficiently developed to survive.[3] In the struggle, the child is aborted, and so a fine is levied.

Heres the crux of the issue: Does the Hebrew word carry the same meaning? Is it correct to presume that the miscarriage of Exodus 21:22 produces a dead child, just like an abortion? This is the single most important question that needs to be answered here. If it does, the English word miscarriage is the right choice. If it does not, then the picture changes dramatically.

Are we justified in assuming that the child is dead? The answer is in the original language. Theres a history of how these words are used in the Hebrew Bible, and that history is important. Lets look at it.


Yeled and Yasa

A words meaning in any language is determined in two steps. We learn a words range of meaning--its possible definitions--inductively by examining its general usage. We learn its specific meaning within that range by the immediate context.

The relevant phrase in the passage, ...she has a miscarriage..., reads wyase ye ladh in the Hebrew. Its a combination of a Hebrew noun--yeled--and a verb--yasa--and literally means the child comes forth. The NASB makes note of this literal rendering in the margin.

The Hebrew noun translated child in this passage is yeled[4] (yeladim in the plural), and means child, son, boy, or youth.[5] It comes from the primary root word yalad,[6] meaning to bear, bring forth, or beget. In the NASB yalad is translated childbirth 10 times, some form of gave birth over 50 times, and either bore, born, or borne 180 times.

The verb yasa[7] is a primary, primitive root that means to go or come out. It is used over a thousand times in the Hebrew Scriptures and has been translated 165 different ways in the NASB--escape, exported, go forth, proceed, take out, to name a few. This gives us a rich source for exegetical comparison. Its translated with some form of coming out (e.g., comes out, came out, etc.) 103 times, and some form of going 445 times.

Whats most interesting is to see how frequently yasa refers to the emergence of a living thing:

Genesis 1:24 Then God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind; and it was so.
Genesis 8:17 [to Noah] Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you, birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth....

Genesis 15:4 This man will not be your heir; but one who shall come forth from your own body....

Genesis 25:25-26 Now the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau. And afterward his brother came forth with his hand holding on to Esaus heel, so his name was called Jacob.

1 Kings 8:19 Nevertheless you shall not build the house, but your son who shall be born to you, he shall build the house for My name.

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.

2 Kings 20:18 And some of your sons who shall issue from you, whom you shall beget, shall be taken away; and they shall become officials in the palace of the king of Babylon.

As you can see, its common for yasa to describe the coming forth of something living, frequently a child. There is only one time yasa is clearly used for a dead child. Numbers 12:12 says, Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mothers womb!

Note here, that we dont infer the childs death from the word yasa, but from explicit statements in the context. This is a still-birth, not a miscarriage. The child is dead before the birth (whose flesh is half eaten away), and doesnt die as a result of the untimely delivery, as in a miscarriage.

Yasa is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is never translated miscarriage in any other case. Why should the Exodus passage be any different?


Clues from the Context

This inductive analysis shows us something important: Nothing about the word yasa implies the death of the child. The context may give us this information, as in Numbers 12:12, but the word itself does not.

This leads us to our next question: What in the context justifies our assumption that the child that comes forth is dead? The answer is, nothing does. There is no indication anywhere in the verse that a fine is assessed for a miscarriage and a more severe penalty is assessed for harming the mother.

This becomes immediately clear when the Hebrew words are translated in their normal, conventional way (the word further in the NASB is not in the original):

And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that the child comes forth, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the womans husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life....
The text seems to require a fine for the premature birth, but injury to either of the parties involved incurs a more severe punishment.[8] Millard Erickson notes that there is no specification as to who must be harmed for the lex talionis [life for life] to come into effect. Whether the mother or the child, the principle applies.[9]

Gleason Archer, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, concludes:

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...[10]
Two Rejoinders

Two further objections need to be dealt with. First, if this is a premature birth and not a miscarriage, why the fine?

Babies born prematurely require special care. Because their prenatal development has been interrupted, they are especially prone to difficulty. Pre-term babies often cant breast feed, and there can be respiratory problems leading to permanent brain damage. The fine represents reimbursement for the expense of an untimely birth, and punitive damages for the serious trauma.

Anyway, even if the fine was for the miscarriage, this wouldnt prove the child was less than human. A few verses later (v. 32), Moses imposes a fine for the death of a slave, but this doesnt mean the slave is sub-human.

Second, was this the only word that could be used to indicate a miscarriage? No. Two other words were available to convey this particular meaning, if thats what the writer had in mind: nepel and sakal. These are used seven times in the Hebrew text.

The noun nepel[11] means miscarriage or abortion, and is used three times:

Job 3:16 Or like a miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, as infants that never saw light.
Eccl. 6:3-4 If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity.

Psalms 58:8 Let them be as a snail which melts away as it goes along, like the miscarriages of a woman which never see the sun.

The verb sakal[12] means to be bereaved and is used four times, including one time when its actually translated abort:

Genesis 31:38 These twenty years I have been with you; your ewes and your female goats have not miscarried, nor have I eaten the rams of your flocks.
Exodus 23:26 There shall be no one miscarrying or barren in your land; I will fulfill the number of your days.

Hosea 9:14 Give them, O Lord-- what wilt Thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.

Job 21:10 His ox mates without fail; his cow calves and does not abort.

Moses had words in his vocabulary that literally meant abortion or miscarriage, but he didnt use them in Exodus 21:22. Instead, he chose the same word he used in many other places to signify a living child being brought forth.

Yasa doesnt mean miscarriage in the sense we think of that word. Instead, the combination of yeled with yasa suggests a living child coming forth from the womb. Nowhere else is this word ever translated miscarriage. Why? Because the word doesnt mean the baby is still-born. It simply means the child comes out.


Three Questions

When someone raises this issue with you, ask these three questions.

First, why presume the child is dead? Though the English word miscarriage entails this notion, nothing in the Hebrew wording suggests it. Yasa doesnt mean miscarriage; it means to come forth. The word itself never suggests death.[13] In fact, the word generally implies the opposite: live birth. If its never translated elsewhere as miscarriage, why translate it that way here?

Second, what in the context itself implies the death of the child? Theres nothing that does, nothing at all. The fine does not necessarily mean the child is dead, and even if it did this wouldnt indicate that the child wasnt fully human (as in the case of the slave in v. 32).

Third, ancient Hebrew had a specific word for miscarriage. It was used in other passages. Why not here? Because Moses didnt mean miscarriage. When his words are simply taken at face value, there is no confusion at all. The verse is clear and straight-forward. Everything falls into place.

Regardless of the translation, its clear that killing the child--and the text does refer to the unborn as a child--is a criminal act. There is no justification for abortion-on-demand from the Torah. Instead, we have a reasonable--even powerful--argument that God views the unborn as valuable as any other human being.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] The 1995 updated version of the NASB now renders this verse, If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined... etc.
[2] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 555.

[3] Websters New World Dictionary, Second College Edition (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1984).

[4] Strongs Index word #3206.

[5] Definitions come from the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance. For further documentation, see the Hebrew/English Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Brown, Driver and Briggs, the standard lexicon of ancient Hebrew.

[6] Strongs Index word #3205.

[7] Strongs Index word #3318.

[8] The New International Version is correct in rendering this passage, If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the womans husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life.

[9] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 556.

[10] Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), p. 248.

[11] Strongs Index word #5309.

[12] Strongs Index word #7921.

[13] Again, in the Numbers passage the context indicates the death, not the word yasa itself.



This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. 2002 Gregory Koukl

Well, I could care what he says less, but I don't know how. Yes, the Jewish faith gives value to a fetus.. but, not as much as it gives a live born person. When I see someone taking non contextual phrases from all over the bible to support an interpretation that does not match the plain reading of another phrase, I have to be skeptical.

The Jewish interpretation is 'other damage to the woman'... and the halakhic exegesis infers that punishment is monetary rather than execution, abortion is permitted to save a woman's life.

So how do you explain this?

"Moses had words in his vocabulary that literally meant abortion or miscarriage, but he didnt use them in Exodus 21:22. Instead, he chose the same word he used in many other places to signify a living child being brought forth."

[Goat]

So how do you explain this?

"Moses had words in his vocabulary that literally meant abortion or miscarriage, but he didnt use them in Exodus 21:22. Instead, he chose the same word he used in many other places to signify a living child being brought forth."

I would have to say that is just a wrong evaluation, since that is not what the various Jewish commentaries say. For example, we have the Rashi's commentary on it.

From http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo ... rashi/true

(Mind you, the Chabad people are extremely orthodox Jews, and Rashi is a 12th century commentary.

22. And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges' [orders]. . " "" "" "" - -- "" - :
And should men quarrel: with one another, and [one] intended to strike his fellow, and [instead] struck a woman. [From Sanh. 79a] : " ", " "" "":
and hit a pregnant woman: Heb. " is only an expression of pushing and striking, as [in the following phrases:] lest you strike your foot with a stone (Ps. 91:12); and before your feet are bruised ( -) (Jer. 13:16); and a stone upon which to dash oneself ( ) (Isa. 8:14). : " "" "", (" ) , (" ) , (" ") :
but there is no fatality: with the woman. -[From Sanh. 79a, Jonathan] "" : ":
he shall surely be punished: to pay the value of the fetuses to the husband. They assess her [for] how much she was valued to be sold in the market, increasing her value because of her pregnancy. -[From B.K. 49a] I. e., the court figures how much she would be worth if sold as a pregnant slave when customers would take into account the prospect of the slaves she would bear, and her value as a slave without the pregnancy. The assailant must pay the difference between these two amounts. -[B.K. 48b, 49a] : " " ", " "" " " "" " ":
he shall surely be punished: Heb. . They shall collect monetary payment from him, like [in the verse] And they shall fine ( ) him one hundred [shekels of] silver (Deut. 22:19). [From Mechilta] : , (" ) " :
when the womans husband makes demands of him: When the husband sues him [the assailant] in court to levy upon him punishment for that. ': " " " :
and he shall give [restitution]: The assailant [shall give] the value of the fetuses. : "" " ":
according to the judges: Heb. , according to the verdict of the judges. -[From Mechilta] : "" :
23. But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life, . "" -" -- :
But if there is a fatality: with the woman. "": ":
you shall give a life for a life: Our Rabbis differ on this matter. Some say [that he must] actually [give up his] life, and some say [that he must pay] money, but not actually a life, and if one intends to kill one person and kills another, he is exempt from the death penalty and must pay his [the victims] heirs his value, as [it would be if] he were sold in the marketplace. -[From Mechilta, Sanh. 79] " : ". , , , " " " " " " ", "" :

[chris_brown207]

So how do you explain this?

"Moses had words in his vocabulary that literally meant abortion or miscarriage, but he didnt use them in Exodus 21:22. Instead, he chose the same word he used in many other places to signify a living child being brought forth."

Dude, face it you are reaching. If they had meant for it to say "but the child still lives" they would have said JUST THAT, as I am pretty sure they had words for that back then...

Anyways, you have yet to show how this has any relation to ID... (although the fact that you are providing evidence for ID by sidetracking the debate on pointless side issues would almost be a good analogy for ID itself!).