• About
  • Apologetics, Theology, and Political Posts
  • Home
  • Sermons
  • Son of God Human Supremacy: Future Humanity’s Destiny in Him

Against All Odds

~ Engage Life

Against All Odds

Category Archives: Abortion

The Life Wars (part V): Exodus 21:22 – 23, An English Translation of this Text Supports Abortion?

04 Monday Jul 2022

Posted by Prime Theologian in Abortion, Biblical Interpretation, Difficult Texts, Inerrancy, Infallibility, Scripture

≈ Comments Off on The Life Wars (part V): Exodus 21:22 – 23, An English Translation of this Text Supports Abortion?

Tags

Abortion, Bias, interpretation, life, old testament, Scripture

Exodus 21:22 – 23 bears on the abortion discussion. What happens when an unclear version of an Old Testament text is used in preference to clear versions? In a word, bias happens. Being biased of course is an inescapable part of being human; the contention here is that using a hugely unclear version represents abject bias. That bias comes through any translation from Greek into English by the translators is unsurprising and simply a necessary part of a translator’s task. Some might even argue that the incorporation of certain human ‘bias elements’ is part of the Spirit of God’s good intent, similar to how the humanity of Jesus was incorporated and united to divinity. In this Exodus text, there is abject bias that directly influences the abortion debate born out of the New Revised Standard Version’s translation. Framing this is the first task; the second task is to investigate the organization responsible for this translation. Can it be the case that abject bias is driven by modern issues, using those issues to decide how to translate an OT text?

The ancient Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text, comes through this way in English. The translation is mine, but I have been careful to let the text be overly wooded with little interpretive liberty taken:

“If men are fighting and they smite a pregnant woman and her child(ren) come out and no harm is, he {the man who struck the woman} will be fined a fine as what the husband of the woman sets, and he will give it according to the judges. If, however, harm occurred to the child(ren) then you shall give life in place of life . . ..”

Here is how the New Revised Standard Version translates this text:

“When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life . . .”

There is blatant logical incoherence in the NRSV’s translation. The miscarriage is harmful and yet a fine should be punishment for causing the miscarriage while at the same time the text calls for “life for life” as punishment. Which is it? Someone might protest that the harm considered here is concerning the mother and not the child — starting to be framed strikingly like a modern abortion discussion.  The first line of the NRSV deals with maximum harm to the child (= miscarriage, death), but the Hebrew Masoretic text’s first line tells us the opposite, that “no harm is” to the child.

 . . . so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows . . . (NRSV)

. . . and her child comes out and no harm is . . . (MT)

The difference in meaning is a canyon sized gap. The NRSV instructs that a monetary fine suffices as punishment, for covering the death of the child. The MT teaches that only if the child is born prematurely with no harm to him does a monetary fine suffice as punishment. How do other modern English translations render this text?

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life . . . (ESV)

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 as the woman’s 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 . . . (NASB)

If men fight and hit a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury, he will surely be punished in accordance with what the woman’s husband demands of him, and he will pay what the court decides. But if there is serious injury, then you will given a life for a life . . . (NET)

When men get in a fight and hit a pregnant woman so that her children are born prematurely but there is no injury, the one who hit her must be fined as the woman’s husband demands from him, and he must pay according to judicial assessment. If there is an injury, then you must give life for life . . . (CSB)

If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any other way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the woman’s husband demands, subject to the approval of the judges. But if the woman herself is injured, the punishment shall be life for life . . . (GNB)

And if men fight and they injure a pregnant woman, and her children go out and there is not serious injury, he will surely be fined as the woman’s husband demands concerning him and as the judges determine. And if there is serious injury, you will give life in place of life . . . (LEB)

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 . . . (NIV)

And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges; and if there is mischief, then thou hast given life for life . . . (Young’s Literal Interpretation)

More differences prevail than this between these two texts, but is there another ancient version of this text that the NRSV might be using for its translation? Yes, there is, and it is the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (most scholars date it to around 200 B.C. to 0 A.D.).

“Now if to men fight and strike a woman being pregnant, and her child might come out not having been fully formed, he will be punished with a fine according to whatever the husband of the woman might set: he will give in accord with what is decided, but if the child has been fully formed, he will give life for in place of life . . .”

The italics show a verb, ἐξεικονίζομαι (exeikonizomai), used twice in this passage but never used anywhere else ever in Greek literature. This is known as a hapax legomena, a word only used in one context. Because of its lack of use, determining its meaning is notoriously difficult — I put in a meaning for the word pulled from Lexicon on the Septuagint. I will offer a bit of insight but preface this by saying I am engaging in conjecture: the word is a compound word, likely the combination of ek and eikon potentially having the meaning of “resembling a deviated semblance.” Neither I nor anyone else knows what this word means: that is the larger point. The meanings of words are built out of contexts and situations; if we do not have enough contexts or situations for the word’s usage, locking down a determinate meaning is impossible. If my suggested meaning for the verb is used, we come out with a translation very similar in meaning to the ancient Hebrew (MT) text.

“Now if two men fight and strike a woman being pregnant, and her child might come out not resembling a deviated semblance, he will be punished with a fine according to whatever the husband of the woman might set: he will give in accord with what is decided, but if the child resembles a deviated semblance, he will give life in place of life . . . (trans. mine, from LXX)”

The contention here is that the NRSV’s translation is evidence of abject bias. Two major supports demonstrate this: (1) the ancient Hebrew text is considered more ancient and thus more authentic than the Septuagint, and (2) why bother using the Septuagint text (LXX for short) when it has a hapax legomena in it, whose meaning is impossible to decide? The LXX could very well have the meaning I have crafted for it, but why would I bother dealing with a meaning of a verb I have to guess about when I could just use an abundantly clear text like the MT? The answer is that a person would do so because they have an agenda.

The NRSV’s abject bias is on display, translating Exodus 21:22 – 23 to support that a monetary fine is all that is needed to cover the death of a child still in the womb. As a translator myself, I am baffled why the NRSV translators would use an unclear text (the LXX) when they have the clarity of the MT. The MT clearly equates a human life in the womb as to that of one out of the womb. They are equally valuable. This resoundingly puts this Old Testament text on the side of the pro-life movement. The NRSV’s manner of translation this text diminishes the value of human life in the womb by making the penalty for the child’s death so light. God said earlier in the OT that “whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image (Gen. 9:6).” Although it is fitting to allege that the NRSV’s version of the text advances the idea that a “fetus in the womb is not yet fully human,” it would be going too far to say that the NRSV’s version solidly supports abortion. The text is about the inadvertent death of a child caused by the violence of men. The child’s death is accidental. Still, suspicion is appropriate about the NRSV’s agenda given the abject bias of the translation.

In closing, there are broader scriptural themes that the NRSV’s version breaks away from: the lex talionis (law of retribution) of the Old Testament Law would require “life for life,” blood requires blood as retribution (Gen. 9:6), and God’s knowledge of a person predates or accompanies his or her time being formed in the womb (Ps. 139). That abject bias can make its way into translation of the Bible is clear. Modern issues may just cloud the judgment of translators, and that include me too. The influence of bias can only be managed well by an admission of one’s own biases, and that biases are inescapably a part of every person. Much of the translator’s work is unambiguous; we can be certain about what God has said. For those situations like Exod. 21:22 – 23, God instituted the professions of pastors and teaching, or elders and theologians.

Dr. Scalise

The scientific argument against Abortion in light of specific Roe v. Wade language

04 Saturday Jun 2022

Posted by Prime Theologian in Abortion, Science

≈ Comments Off on The scientific argument against Abortion in light of specific Roe v. Wade language

Tags

Abortion, conception, roe v wade, Science

There were two major criteria or legal arguments that crafted the major contours of the Roe v. Wade ruling: (1) the woman’s right to privacy, and (2) the criteria of viability, which, roughly put, is the baby’s ability to survive outside of the womb on his/her own. This piece is designed to be largely scientifically heuristic, letting the science point us where to go; however, in conclusion, I will discuss the role of the sacred or sanctity as it relates to human life and as it bears on the topic of abortion.

  • The right to privacy for a woman who willingly involves herself in sex and carries in her body the cells of another, thus not properly private to her, is uncompelling based on the scientific nature of pregnancy — emphasis on the word “willingly” above so that we exclude from this present discussion rape, incest, and otherwise unwilling, compelled pregnancy. A woman’s body is privately hers and hers alone prior to involving herself in the communal act of sex. Sex, with exceptions like artificial insemination, is definitionally a public affair in the sense that it is always communal involving at least two. Most important in the following days after sex (and conception) is the scientific fact that the man’s seed, his body not the woman’s body, is compositionally entailed in the new conceived life. Therefore, any concealment by the woman from the man about the conception is to withhold vital — literally a living part of the man’s body — information about the man’s body. The man has a right to his body although the woman has privileged epistemic access because she carries that new life in herself. Ergo, in this specific instance, a woman’s right to privacy violates the man’s right to his body, literally the seed that has now become a new conceived human life. We could go further here and note the fact that in many ways the woman’s body treats this new conceived life as a foreign agent. The right to privacy is (in consensual sex) disbanded by the woman’s involvement in sex and conception; she has willingly given up that privacy for the sake of sex and sharing herself with this man. An argument could be made that there is a couple’s right to privacy over the new conceived life; this would require remarkably mature couples that are simply not a de facto possibility in society at large. Notice here we do not have to make the argument about “when the conception becomes human.” We just use the scientific data that the conception is the man’s body too. This is scientifically demonstrable and dispels the half truth that the conception is the woman’s body; it is, but it is also the man’s body. If we wanted to, we could build on this with arguments about how the woman’s body treats the conception as an autonomous entity, but this is beyond the scope here.
  • The criteria of viability functions on the notion of when a baby can survive outside the womb on its own. This criterion is potently ambiguous, and I shall argue we should toss it because of this. The first set of business though is to demonstrate the ambiguity. What does “survive outside the womb mean?” Does this entail the usage of cutting-edge medical technology or is it only common medical technology? Is it the medical technology capacities of the 1980s or of the 2020s? Could someone argue that “survive outside the woman’s body” entails the ability for the baby to feed him/herself? In other words, could a ‘bad actor-lawyer’ argue that “survive” fundamentally means the full spectrum of activities to maintain human living? The 1973 court case, after all, specified viable to mean “capable of prolonged life outside the mother’s womb.” From what I can gather, the intent was to put the life of the woman ahead of the life of the fetus. Echoing back to point (1) above, it likewise put the life of the woman ahead of the life of the man and the fetus. Why should the woman get to decide unilaterally that the man’s body (his seed, now inherently part of the fetus) should die? Who decides what “prolonged life” means? One-year olds certainly cannot prolong their life outside of the womb for long without having virtually everything done for them all the time.  What is the takeaway of this series of questions? Precisely that (a) the ambiguity in the phraseology itself is disastrous for clear meaning and (b) that the vicissitudes involved in changing medical technology from the passage of time, geographic location, and even supply line matters, makes the ‘criterion of viability,’ frankly unviable. The scientifically simple way to determine viability would be at conception. The union of the egg and the seed, the known multiplication of cells and growth, the man’s body and the woman’s body generating someone new, all these are scientifically known at conception. Who determines why viability is conception? Call it nature if you like, maybe science if you want; if you are religiously minded, call it God. The point is that this fundamental union called conception is codified in the fabric of nature in the process of procreation.

We humans observe this natural occurring phenomenon called conception, letting that determine viability. This is resoundingly more scientific than letting court room debate, and a very small group of people determine when human life begins by arbitrarily defining “viable.”

Lastly, and in close, the sanctity of human life is something part and parcel to every citizen of the United States that loves the Declaration of Independence. It proposes that humans’ dignity is endowed by a human’s shear existing, coming from the Creator. This is what makes them unalienable.  The benefit this constitutional link to the Creator provides is incalculable, laying an unassailable connection between creature and Creator that no government can get in the middle of — so long as the people hold fast to that constitutional truth.  The Declaration of Independence also claims that “all men are created equal,” which is repeating and upholding that Scriptural claim that God’s Spirit knits people together in the womb, and man and woman are participants of that creational process. Scripture further notes that God knew people before one of their days were. In short, the foundational document, the Declaration of Independence, maximizes the sanctity of human life; the arbitrarily, court-roomed defined “viable” marginalizes the importance of human life by making it determined by a kind of lawyer elitist debate. I don’t know about you, but I have very little interest in letting elites of any type determine things for me. I prefer the scientific, natural moment of conception to define viable, and with that position, move in the same direction as the Declaration of Independence in maximizing the sanctity of human life.

Prime Theologian

Against All Odds

My Daughter Lydia, God, and Abortion: Theologically interpreting my wife’s pregnancy, part III

19 Monday Jan 2015

Posted by Prime Theologian in Abortion, Expecting Parents, Pregnancy and Theology, Science

≈ Comments Off on My Daughter Lydia, God, and Abortion: Theologically interpreting my wife’s pregnancy, part III

Tags

Abortion, god, love, Pregnancy, Science

I consider myself a father now although my daughter is still in my wife’s womb. There is good “scientific” reasons for this, like the size, shape, human features, muscular control of my daughter’s body by her mind (kicks, movement), but all this is so cold. The whole tendency to only scientifically look at things is so narrow a window. What about relationship, the wonder of new life, and communion in heart and soul in the father and the mother towards our daughter, and towards one another around this new life. Are these to be disdainfully dismissed because “science” is somehow the supreme way of viewing things even though what makes us feel most alive as humans is often not understanding things in a scientific analysis. Sliding down a waterpark ride is thrilling and makes me feel alive; doing the math to calculate what scientifically is happening when I slide down is a distant shadow of the experience. Love between two people is earth shaking; scientifically looking at love between two people as natural selection, reproduction, and the continuation of the species is not.

Lydia is a person with her own identity beyond either my wife or me. This is not manifest until Lydia is born, but what is readily needed for a person to be a person is being created there even if not separate from my wife’s body yet. Said differently, Lydia is distinct from my wife right now although not separate (like the Trinity, I’d remind you). God is knitting Lydia together in my wife’s womb; truly a marvel this is! Lydia will have both my features and Gloria’s, physically as well as character-wise.

Aside from the typical arguments against abortion made in public political discourse, I want to make a plea. Please consider people as persons, not as scientific objects. Please don’t confuse a baby-in-the-womb with a woman’s body; this baby is distinct even if not yet separate. Please embrace your own humanity, for heaven’s sake, enjoying all it is to be human by experiencing people as people, babies-in-the-womb as marvelous others, and not as “scientific masses of molecules, electricity, and energy.” Do you not know that you depersonalize yourself when you depersonalize others, whether adults or babies-in-the-womb?

I am a father, and if you’re an expecting man or woman, you are a mother or a father too. I am a man, you are a woman, and we are dignified in each act of “life-giving” we do, whether in terms of family, supporting others, or building them up. Life-elimination is poison to our own souls.

Dr. Scalise

Recent Posts

  • The Fall of Historic Liberalism: How it became Autocratic Liberalism through a Discussion of Freedom, morality, and God
  • Some Thoughts on Critical Race Theory as a System of Liberal Ideology
  • The Future of Humanity as Contained in the Humanity of the Son of God
  • Power, Demonism, and the Likeness to Governmental Power
  • World Economic Forum, Transhumanism, and Afterlife (part 9):Their Notion of Heaven and a Comparison

Archives

  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • January 2016
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • June 2012

Categories

  • Abortion
  • Adam and Eve
  • afterlife
  • Anachronism
  • and Bitterness
  • Apologetics
  • apotheosis
  • artificial intelligence
  • Baggett and Walls
  • Beauty
  • bias
  • Biblical Application
  • Biblical Interpretation
  • Blaspheme
  • Christ
  • Christ and Culture
  • Christ and Economic
  • Christ and the Politico-Economic
  • Christian Ministry
  • Christmas
  • Christology
  • Church Leadership
  • Comparative Religion
  • contingent
  • Copycat
  • cosmic origins
  • Creating
  • Defending Resurrection of Jesus
  • despotism
  • devaluation of currency
  • Difficult Questions
  • Difficult Texts
  • Dimensions
  • Discipleship
  • discrimination
  • Economics
  • Elitism
  • Enlightenment
  • entropy
  • eternal life
  • Exegesis and Interpretation
  • Expecting Parents
  • fascism
  • Fear
  • Freedom
  • futility
  • Gay marriage
  • Gender Issues
  • Genesis
  • God
  • God Speaks
  • Good God
  • Gospels
  • Government
  • hades
  • Hallucinations
  • heaven
  • Hebrews
  • hell
  • Historical Issues with Resurrection
  • Holy Spirit
  • Homosexuality
  • Homosexuals
  • human error
  • Human Experience and Theology
  • Humlity
  • Hypostatic Union
  • Illumination
  • imagination
  • Incarnation
  • Inerrancy
  • Infallibility
  • inspiration
  • Jesus
  • Joy
  • justice
  • law of thermodynamics
  • Learning
  • Legends
  • Libertarianism
  • limitations
  • monetary policy
  • Moral Apologetics
  • Morality
  • mystery
  • Near Death Experiences/Consciousness
  • Origen
  • Philosophical Explanations for God
  • plato
  • Pregnancy and Theology
  • preservation
  • Problem of Evil
  • Resurrection
  • Satan
  • Science
  • Scripture
  • soul
  • Spiritual Formation
  • Spiritual Warfare
  • Textual Criticism
  • Theodicy
  • Theological Interpretation
  • theology
  • Traditional Problems in the Debate between Theism and Atheism
  • Transhumanism
  • Trinity
  • Trinity and Allah
  • Trinity and Pregnancy
  • Truth
  • Uncategorized
  • Virtues
  • WEF
  • World Economic Forum
  • Zombies

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.