it’s pointless to use their own texts against them. they don’t care what it says. they have their own agenda, and using their own scripture only legitimizes it. there is only one way to deal with these people…
11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.
16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[e] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
Not quite, but in context, this appears to be true:
16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
Heyo, I’m thinking you may not be a native English speaker? Your sentence was nearly perfect, but you got the wording a little wrong, which is what made me think that may be the case.
For reference, it’s either “didn’t know” or “never knew” with the latter being a longer amount of time. “I didn’t know I dropped that dollar bill” vs “I never knew Santa was an alien.”
Just wanted to hop on and let you know in hopes of helping you improve. ^_^
“magic judgment” is unnecessarily cynical. if the abortion happens successfully the baby was illegitimate, and if not the baby is totally legitimate. it’s obviously designed to save face.
Numbers 5:16-28. 5:21 is the line that proves that the ceremony is an abortion, since the drink causes the abdomen to swell and a miscarriage to occur. It’s an attempt to cut away the chaff of the surrounding text while still giving the passage that demonstrates the abortion within the text.
It’s the whole section, 11-29. 21 is the passage which describes the outcome. If you read the whole section it’s a pretty clear set of steps on how to abort a fetus.
Granted, it requires the Lord. If you don’t believe we cannot help you.
You have to do a little more research than that for this to make sense. You’re right, this is inaccurate. But, being curious, I checked the rest of the chapter. See my other post in this thread.
I was hoping this was going to be a lot of fun to read, but the entire story has little or nothing to do with abortion. And while I suppose if you want to interpret it like that, you could, but that’s a bit hypocritical.
It is, however, I really good example of how the Bible says it’s OK to torture women
You expected any talk about abortion to be fun? Whether an abortion is no one’s business but the woman’s, I can’t imagine fun could come anywhere near the experience.
Also, the whole section (not just 21) is a step-by-step guide which results in aborting a baby conceived in an extramarital relationship.
A better challenge would be, “this isn’t a choice-based abortion and not a direct, meaningful challenge to modern, destructive, pro-life positions.”
However it is interpreted, though, it does contradict the first principle upon which pro-life positions are based that any abortion is murder and therefore prohibited. My short time on this platform has led me to assume the average commenter is not capable of nuance and therefore assumes any contradiction is a stance on the polar opposite - I therefore must spend this sentence clarifying I believe the first principle of pro-lifers is absolutely false.
The passage literally has ingredients of wheat, holy water, and church dust with instructions for use.
It has everything to do with an abortion. How else do you think the husband would think the wife had an affair other than she is pregnant and shouldn’t be?
No, the potion (lets call magic what it is) is meant to abort the baby if it isn’t the husband’s. If she doesn’t abort then it is his. This section has nothing to do with preventing pregnancy. The whole point is the man thinks the woman is carrying another man’s baby.
The ingredients are a lousy abortifacient, because it’s really more of a magic ceremony. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s intended to trigger an abortion, if the husband is not the father.
Of course you can. Just respond to them “who are you to make claims what god meant”. Because if it’s word of god, it’s word of god and not up to you to interpret it whatever you like or pick and chose in what you believe. But most importantly, Bible says woman is not to lecture a man, but she is to remain silent and obedient. That sort of kills half of the arguments right there.
Meh, the Jews have done plenty of analysis. It’s their text after all. They’ve established personhood status is achieved at birth. Abortion while not promoted, isn’t considered ‘illegal’ IIRC.
The author is a medical professional and researcher, and also speaker for The Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics (rationale arguments for Christianity)
Commentor’s “even” statement above speculates the author is biased against, this is not true.
As with anything, bias can not be ruled out with the above
The meme is referencing:
If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen (bitnah, בטנה) will swell (root tsabah, צבה) and her womb (yerekah, ירכה) will miscarry (root naphal, נפל), and she will become a curse. (Numbers 5:27, NIV)
When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb (bitnah, בטנה) shall discharge (root tsabah, צבה), her uterus (yerekah, ירכה) drop (root naphal, נפל), and the woman shall become an execration among her people. (Numbers 5:27, NRSV)
The authors argument is that NIT mistranslates, and this is not a drug for miscarriage (uterus, miscarry), but a laxative (bowels).
The argument seems sound, however as admitted, nothing can be determined for sure.
I have not looked at any counterpoints, this is just my interpretation of the study.
That article is kind of weak and is clearly written by someone seeking a conclusion from the outset. They’re trying to claim that numbers was mistranslated and actually means that if a wife had an affair, you should rush to your priest and they will make a cup of dirty water, force her to drink it and make her pray. What is the purpose of this weird task? Clearly to give her a stomach ache and make her feel bad. The story as a whole makes no sense in that context and completely pointless.
You can’t claim something is mistranslated if the alternative translation makes no sense and the main translation does. In this case, I think the author really wants to dodge the correct interpretation of the passage.
There are a few reasons for that. One, the big one to me, is inconsistency. You (collectively) claim this passage in Numbers is absolutely true, it means exactly what you say it means, and we have to defend our faith, which is impossible because you refuse to be proven wrong. But on the other hand when we point out passages that apply directly to you and show that you have to change your ways, all of a sudden it’s a very old book with lots of contradictions that’s been repeatedly copied with mistakes all over the place and can’t possibly be reliable.
You can’t have your kayak and heat it. Either it’s a pile of old nonsense, in which case this Numbers passage is also a pile of old nonsense, or it’s absolutely true in which case the stuff about Jesus being your God, and you have to repent, is also absolutely true.
Another is simply misunderstanding the text you’re quoting. Numbers is part of the Pentateuch and doesn’t apply directly to Christians. If you want to discuss the meaning of Numbers then you’ll have to take it up with some religious Jews, because this is their text not ours. It’s in the Bible for historical context so that we know something of Jesus’ background. There is still some good stuff in the OT but it’s called that - the OLD testament - for a reason, namely that it’s been (sort of*) superseded by the NEW testament.
*not really, both testaments/covenants (~=contracts?) still stand, but why would you want to live under the covenant of law when you can live under the considerably better covenant of grace? It really makes no sense.
The problem when you bash millions of people is that your claims against the group becomes untrue very quickly. The Christians in my neck of the woods are generally supportive of women who want to get abortions. Maybe you believe that caveat is automatically implied, but I didn’t catch that from my reading of your comment.
I’m not saying there aren’t too many who oppose abortion on religious grounds, but I think the bigger problem in society right now is people who have generalized opinions about people due to some (usually intrinsic) group they belong to.
I’m not disagreeing with you on that, only with the suggestion that my comment (or this post, for that matter) are a generalization towards all christians.
The post clearly only applies to those who would use the bible as a source in their arguments, not to those who are reasonable and see it for what it is.
My comment uses “christians” within that context - it is not a standalone piece of text. I am, (IMHO clearly) referring to the same christians the post is. I’m just going to assume it’s a misunderstanding, because I find the suggestion of me generalising while the comment is within context to be quite disingenuous.
The problem when you bash millions of people is that your claims against the group becomes untrue very quickly. The Christians in my neck of the woods are generally supportive of women who want to get abortions.
That’s true.
Even in Italy, house of the Vatican, home of the Pope, with 60% of Italians being Catholic Christians, abortion is perfectly legal since 1978 and no one even thinks about making it illegal.
Oh how many of them would abandon the faith if they had actually read the damned book and realized how lefty Jesus comes across as, although it’s worth reminding that he would technically be classified as an absolute monarchist by present definitions, seeing his emergence coinciding with the backlash against Rome just blowing the Judean throne up in favor of riling the place directly after the jews kept getting “unruly”
Not always, sometimes it results in oddballs who end up founding a new denomination or being the figure of admiration when some grifter founds a denomination in their supposed image.
Really the sheer number of protestant denominations should be held up in literature classes to teach just how many interpretations to a single text can be determined just from how different people read the same passages.
What’s so funny about this shit, is my protestant atheist reading of the Bible explicitly denounces sola scriptural interpretation. The Bible was put together by church councils and was explicit that it wasn’t the only authority of Christian tradition. For fucks sakes most of the new testament is just Paul writing about how the church hierarchy should be run.
In part II of this segment from Samantha bee, she talks about how Christians used to be opposed to politics because it was seen as “ungodly” and “dirty” to get involved in. [Relevant part is about 1:15 into the video, but you should watch the whole thing, as well as part I. She did some great investigative stuff, but she was a woman in late night, which was basically bound to fail.]
Well, until bussing/segregation spurred that white Christian bloc into action, that is. And when the fervor of that issue died down, the right wing pricks literally got on a conference call to try to reactivate those people to win elections. They were spitballing which issues they could use to get them involved again, and literally one of those assholes just said, “how about abortion?”
And voila. The religious right was born in earnest.
That's the one that really proves to me that there is no "god".
An actual omnipotent being could just change the circumstances with it's powers. Why murder the whole planet?
Evil stories made up by evil, sadistic men. And they claim satan is the baddie. LOL!!!
Add comment