WorthyNews:Oklahoma Supreme Court rules abortion laws unconstitutional

[Retrobyter]

On 6/3/2023 at 10:12 AM, JimmyB said:

If men fight and hurt a pregnant woman and she prematurely gives birth, that is not a miscarriage?  It's just a random coincidence?  Are you serious?

Shalom, JimmyB.

A "miscarriage" implies the death of the baby. That has not yet been established in that verse.

And, I did NOT say it was "random!" It was caused by the hurt the woman received from the fight!

On 6/3/2023 at 10:12 AM, JimmyB said:

It's obvious that you know nothing about translation.  "Go back to the Hebrew", which you then translate into English.  The NRSVue has mistranslated the verse, but you have given the correct English translation?  LOL!

Look, I was trying to show you that you could do the translation yourself instead of taking someone else's word for it! It's not that hard to do.  One just needs to be patient and honest to admit that he or she doesn't have all the answers and to be willing to do the work!

On 6/3/2023 at 10:12 AM, JimmyB said:

The NIV translates Exodus 21:22 as "“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows."  The footnote [e] reads "or she has a miscarriage". 

Technically, a "miscarriage " is just an "expulsion of the fetus (baby) from the womb," but people don't use the word that way. In usage, it is implied that the baby died in the process. The word "ylaadeyhaa" means "she-gives-birth." That's it. That's all. 

On 6/3/2023 at 10:12 AM, JimmyB said:

Now, since you're switching the subject...  The KJV used a limit set of medieval copies of the source documents. Since modern translations are based on much earlier and better sources, they are far more accurate than the KJV, and they are written in modern English to be clearly understood.  It's irrelevant that the KJV uses antiquated pronouns, since that pales in comparison to its misleading content.  Have a look at the added extension to Romans 8:1 and the added "long ending" of Mark as toe examples of the mistranslation by the KJV.

There are many who would disagree, citing major differences in modern translations, even from each other, and taken from CORRUPT Greek versions. Check your facts!

On 6/3/2023 at 10:12 AM, JimmyB said:

This is not the place to discuss translations, as the OP subject is abortion laws, so I won't discuss the KJV any further in this thread.  Say hello to your unicorn!

It is a wicked and short-sighted thing to do when one denounces a version of the Bible God has used for over 400 years. Come back when you've reached that age.

[JimmyB]

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, JimmyB.

A "miscarriage" implies the death of the baby. That has not yet been established in that verse.

And, I did NOT say it was "random!" It was caused by the hurt the woman received from the fight!

Look, I was trying to show you that you could do the translation yourself instead of taking someone else's word for it! It's not that hard to do.  One just needs to be patient and honest to admit that he or she doesn't have all the answers and to be willing to do the work!

Technically, a "miscarriage " is just an "expulsion of the fetus (baby) from the womb," but people don't use the word that way. In usage, it is implied that the baby died in the process. The word "ylaadeyhaa" means "she-gives-birth." That's it. That's all. 

There are many who would disagree, citing major differences in modern translations, even from each other, and taken from CORRUPT Greek versions. Check your facts!

It is a wicked and short-sighted thing to do when one denounces a version of the Bible God has used for over 400 years. Come back when you've reached that age.

Even though this is off-topic...

You wrote "There are many who would disagree, citing major differences in modern translations, even from each other, and taken from CORRUPT Greek versions. Check your facts!

It is a wicked and short-sighted thing to do when one denounces a version of the Bible God has used for over 400 years. Come back when you've reached that age."

Most modern translations (with very few exceptions), use the best source documents available, many of which are from the time close to the originals.  The (flawed) King James version uses manuscripts from the late medieval era, many centuries later than when they were written and copied, and recopied, and recopied ... and recopied many times over, with the resultant errors.  CHECK YOUR FACTS.

It is a foolish thing to say that I should reach the age of 412 before I denounce a translation ordered by a secular king to codify his personal version of Protestantism.  Modern translations, based on far better sources and far better methodology, with the sole purpose of giving us God's written word accurately and free of sectarian bias, are far, far superior to a flawed 412-year-old (mis) translation.  

That is all I will discuss here about Bible translations.  Say hello to your unicorn!

Edited June 5, 2023 by JimmyB

[Retrobyter]

On 6/5/2023 at 11:38 AM, JimmyB said:

Even though this is off-topic...

You wrote "There are many who would disagree, citing major differences in modern translations, even from each other, and taken from CORRUPT Greek versions. Check your facts!

It is a wicked and short-sighted thing to do when one denounces a version of the Bible God has used for over 400 years. Come back when you've reached that age."

Most modern translations (with very few exceptions), use the best source documents available, many of which are from the time close to the originals. 

Shalom, JimmyB.

"Best" in whose opinion? That is a relative word. One of the better considerations is WHERE the source documents originated. Were they discovered in Alexandria or were they discovered elsewhere? See, the Alexandrian manuscripts were CORRUPT!

There are "corrupt" manuscripts, and then there are CORRUPT manuscripts! Some manuscripts will have missing or duplicated words or letters, possibly even misspellings. REAL corrupt manuscripts are those which have DISTORTED the message of the Scriptures because of the personal biases of the translator/scribe!

On 6/5/2023 at 11:38 AM, JimmyB said:

The (flawed) King James version uses manuscripts from the late medieval era, many centuries later than when they were written and copied, and recopied, and recopied ... and recopied many times over, with the resultant errors.  CHECK YOUR FACTS.

That's NOT TRUE! Whereas there's no such thing as a "perfect" text, the King James version has this for its credentials:

King James Bible 1611

The commissioning of the King James Bible took place at a conference at the Hampton Court Palace in London England in 1604. When King James came to the throne he wanted unity and stability in the church and state, but was well aware that the diversity of his constituents had to be considered. There were the Papists who longed for the English church to return to the Roman Catholic fold and the Latin Vulgate. There were Puritans, loyal to the crown but wanting even more distance from Rome. The Puritans used the Geneva Bible which contained footnotes that the king regarded as seditious. The Traditionalists made up of Bishops of the Anglican Church wanted to retain the Bishops Bible.

The king commissioned a new English translation to be made by over fifty scholars representing the Puritans and Traditionalists. They took into consideration: the Tyndale New Testament, the Matthews Bible, the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible. The great revision of the Bible had begun. From 1605 to 1606 the scholars engaged in private research. From 1607 to 1609 the work was assembled. In 1610 the work went to press, and in 1611 the first of the huge (16 inch tall) pulpit folios known today as "The 1611 King James Bible" came off the printing press.

See Textus Receptus Bibles/KJV 1611 for more.

On 6/5/2023 at 11:38 AM, JimmyB said:

It is a foolish thing to say that I should reach the age of 412 before I denounce a translation ordered by a secular king to codify his personal version of Protestantism.  Modern translations, based on far better sources and far better methodology, with the sole purpose of giving us God's written word accurately and free of sectarian bias, are far, far superior to a flawed 412-year-old (mis) translation.  

That is all I will discuss here about Bible translations.  Say hello to your unicorn!

I don't own a rhinoceros, one horn or two!

Modern translations may be "free of sectarian bias," but they are far, FAR, FAR from superior in their interpretive bias! In many cases, modern translations have so compromised their translations with their own personal beliefs and ecumenism that the translations are HARD to use to produce any meaningful understanding, even in matters of what most call "personal salvation" (actually God's "JUSTIFICATION").

Here's a case in point: (In fact, I hold it as THE most crucial case in point!)

2 Corinthians 5:21 (KJV)

21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

I am APPALLED by what modern translations and paraphrases have done to this verse! The word translated as "reconciled" in the chapter, katallassoo (I use an "oo" for omega), means "to exchange places with." And, verse 21 SHOWS the exchange! God the Father made the Messiah to be "SIN" for us. When we accept Him as our own Sacrifice for sin, we become His "RIGHTEOUSNESS," actually, God's "RIGHTEOUSNESS" in the Messiah, and THAT is how we are justified by God.

If one's version of the Bible doesn't reflect this transfer, the Great Exchange, and as being transacted by the Father, then it is a BAD TRANSLATION, and many translations these days do NOT do the verse justice! Also, I find the KJV, however flawed, sticks to the Greek as closely as it can. With the exception of the NASV, very few have even attempted to do so!

[JimmyB]

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, JimmyB.

"Best" in whose opinion? That is a relative word. One of the better considerations is WHERE the source documents originated. Were they discovered in Alexandria or were they discovered elsewhere? See, the Alexandrian manuscripts were CORRUPT!

There are "corrupt" manuscripts, and then there are CORRUPT manuscripts! Some manuscripts will have missing or duplicated words or letters, possibly even misspellings. REAL corrupt manuscripts are those which have DISTORTED the message of the Scriptures because of the personal biases of the translator/scribe!

That's NOT TRUE! Whereas there's no such thing as a "perfect" text, the King James version has this for its credentials:

King James Bible 1611

The commissioning of the King James Bible took place at a conference at the Hampton Court Palace in London England in 1604. When King James came to the throne he wanted unity and stability in the church and state, but was well aware that the diversity of his constituents had to be considered. There were the Papists who longed for the English church to return to the Roman Catholic fold and the Latin Vulgate. There were Puritans, loyal to the crown but wanting even more distance from Rome. The Puritans used the Geneva Bible which contained footnotes that the king regarded as seditious. The Traditionalists made up of Bishops of the Anglican Church wanted to retain the Bishops Bible.

The king commissioned a new English translation to be made by over fifty scholars representing the Puritans and Traditionalists. They took into consideration: the Tyndale New Testament, the Matthews Bible, the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible. The great revision of the Bible had begun. From 1605 to 1606 the scholars engaged in private research. From 1607 to 1609 the work was assembled. In 1610 the work went to press, and in 1611 the first of the huge (16 inch tall) pulpit folios known today as "The 1611 King James Bible" came off the printing press.

See Textus Receptus Bibles/KJV 1611 for more.

I don't own a rhinoceros, one horn or two!

Modern translations may be "free of sectarian bias," but they are far, FAR, FAR from superior in their interpretive bias! In many cases, modern translations have so compromised their translations with their own personal beliefs and ecumenism that the translations are HARD to use to produce any meaningful understanding, even in matters of what most call "personal salvation" (actually God's "JUSTIFICATION").

Here's a case in point: (In fact, I hold it as THE most crucial case in point!)

2 Corinthians 5:21 (KJV)

21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

I am APPALLED by what modern translations and paraphrases have done to this verse! The word translated as "reconciled" in the chapter, katallassoo (I use an "oo" for omega), means "to exchange places with." And, verse 21 SHOWS the exchange! God the Father made the Messiah to be "SIN" for us. When we accept Him as our own Sacrifice for sin, we become His "RIGHTEOUSNESS," actually, God's "RIGHTEOUSNESS" in the Messiah, and THAT is how we are justified by God.

If one's version of the Bible doesn't reflect this transfer, the Great Exchange, and as being transacted by the Father, then it is a BAD TRANSLATION, and many translations these days do NOT do the verse justice! Also, I find the KJV, however flawed, sticks to the Greek as closely as it can. With the exception of the NASV, very few have even attempted to do so!

These are simply your opinions, nothing more.  You and other KJVOs will find any and every rationale to claim that your translation is superior, but none of them bear up under reasonable scrutiny.

My opinion is that the King James translation was the Bible for centuries, so it is hard for people to accept the fact that it is simply a translation, not the word of God. 

Olde Englyshe sound pious and holy to modern ears, but it was the normal language of the early 17th Century.  Never forget that Jesus (Yeshua) was a rural carpenter who spoke Aramaic.  He spoketh not in a tongue that was "lofty" and sounded odd to the people of His time.  So, in that sense, a translation should convey the words and meaning to our modern minds as clearly as possible.  The 412-year-old translation clearly fails to do that.

I can't tell you how many times I have heard pastors, preachers, lay people, retranslate the KJV Englyshe "on the fly", saying "now what this means...".

There are very, very good reasons to use modern translations!

a) They are written in a language that is meant to be clearly understood.  You and I and everyone else speaks/reads/writes in modern English, so why shouldn't the Bible be written in our normal, modern language?

b) There are many more source documents now than there were in the early 17th Century.  The KJV is based on a) a limited set of late medieval texts, b) the Latin Vulgate, and c) a few early English translations.  By comparison, modern translations are based on a much greater (and earlier) collection of sources,  Additionally, there are many ancient non-Biblical documents that clarify the meaning of the languages.

c) The art/science of textual criticism is far more advanced than it was in the early 1600s.

d) Unlike the committee that was beholden to one secular ruler to produce a translation that established his personal doctrine as the truth (clearly ignoring the politics of a secular king's quest for legitimacy), modern translation committees are composed of people from different denominations to insure that there is no secular bias.  That alone should be reason enough to use a modern translation!  

e) Every good translation should convey the words and meaning of the early writings as clearly and as accurately as possible.  One should not have to re-translate 17th Century Englyshe to understand what God wants us to understand.  You and I and everyone else on this forum uses conventional English in our communications.  Why? Because we want to be clearly understood.  It is the same with God: He wants us to clearly understand His words.

That is the primary reason that everyone should use a Bible that is translated into our language, as clearly and accurately as possible.

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

P.S. The Puritans fled James' rule, with their Geneva Bibles (including the footnotes!) under their arms to escape persecution.

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

2 Corinthians 5:21 (KJV)

21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (BTW, "21" is not part of the text, so why is it included?)

NRSVue, "For our sake God made the one who knew no sin to be sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

NIV, "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

NET, "God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God."

NASB, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

I see no problem with any of these translations of that verse!  So, what is your problem with them???

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

Be careful playing with deadly snakes and drinking poison!  Even if your trustworthy KJV says that it's okay in Mark 16:18, I strongly advise against it!

Edited June 9, 2023 by JimmyB

[LiveWire]

On 6/5/2023 at 9:08 AM, Slibhin said:

My rabbi, who is fluent in rabbinical Hebrew, says that Exodus 21:22 literally translates as the fetus "leaving the woman". Unfortunately the wording is unclear as to if it means premature birth or a miscarriage. The following "eye for eye, tooth for tooth..." is referring to injury to the woman not the fetus. Therefore anyone can read that and apply whatever meaning they wish depending on their own preconceived bias and prejudice.

וְכִֽי־יִנָּצ֣וּ אֲנָשִׁ֗ים וְנָ֨גְפ֜וּ אִשָּׁ֤ה הָרָה֙ וְיָצְא֣וּ יְלָדֶ֔יהָ וְלֹ֥א יִהְיֶ֖ה אָס֑וֹן עָנ֣וֹשׁ יֵעָנֵ֗שׁ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר יָשִׁ֤ית עָלָיו֙ בַּ֣עַל הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וְנָתַ֖ן בִּפְלִלִֽים׃

When [two or more] parties fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact, the payment to be based on reckoning.

 

 

וְאִם־אָס֖וֹן יִהְיֶ֑ה וְנָתַתָּ֥ה נֶ֖פֶשׁ תַּ֥חַת נָֽפֶשׁ׃

But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life,

 

עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן שֵׁ֖ן תַּ֣חַת שֵׁ֑ן יָ֚ד תַּ֣חַת יָ֔ד רֶ֖גֶל תַּ֥חַת רָֽגֶל׃

eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

 

כְּוִיָּה֙ תַּ֣חַת כְּוִיָּ֔ה פֶּ֖צַע תַּ֣חַת פָּ֑צַע חַבּוּרָ֕ה תַּ֖חַת חַבּוּרָֽה׃ {ס}        

burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

[FJK]

1 hour ago, Slibhin said:

What is your training in Rabbinical (Mishnaic) Hebrew? My rabbi is fluent. It does not say miscarry, it literally says "leave the woman" not "miscarry". That word didn't even exist back then.

Slibhin, ask your Rabbi if there is a difference between knowing and understanding, and which has the greater worth?

I would be interested in knowing his answer.

[LiveWire]

3 hours ago, Slibhin said:

What is your training in Rabbinical (Mishnaic) Hebrew? My rabbi is fluent. It does not say miscarry, it literally says "leave the woman" not "miscarry". That word didn't even exist back then.

Because, my Heritage is Sephardim, and you normally use a Version of the Chabad, which is both Ash and Sephardim and goes all the way back to the time of Sages copying the Mishnaic.

Your Rabbi could be doing the same.  Just because one is fluent, does not mean they are not using the same Materials and just giving their own spin towards it.

 

Here is that Version, which is slightly different than the Verses I posted before.

 

22And 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].

כבוְכִֽי־יִנָּצ֣וּ אֲנָשִׁ֗ים וְנָ֨גְפ֜וּ אִשָּׁ֤ה הָרָה֙ וְיָֽצְא֣וּ יְלָדֶ֔יהָ וְלֹ֥א יִֽהְיֶ֖ה אָס֑וֹן עָנ֣וֹשׁ יֵֽעָנֵ֗שׁ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר יָשִׁ֤ית עָלָיו֙ בַּ֣עַל הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וְנָתַ֖ן בִּפְלִלִֽים:

[JimmyB]

On 6/9/2023 at 11:16 PM, LiveWire said:

וְכִֽי־יִנָּצ֣וּ אֲנָשִׁ֗ים וְנָ֨גְפ֜וּ אִשָּׁ֤ה הָרָה֙ וְיָצְא֣וּ יְלָדֶ֔יהָ וְלֹ֥א יִהְיֶ֖ה אָס֑וֹן עָנ֣וֹשׁ יֵעָנֵ֗שׁ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר יָשִׁ֤ית עָלָיו֙ בַּ֣עַל הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וְנָתַ֖ן בִּפְלִלִֽים׃

When [two or more] parties fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact, the payment to be based on reckoning.

 

 

וְאִם־אָס֖וֹן יִהְיֶ֑ה וְנָתַתָּ֥ה נֶ֖פֶשׁ תַּ֥חַת נָֽפֶשׁ׃

But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life,

 

עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן שֵׁ֖ן תַּ֣חַת שֵׁ֑ן יָ֚ד תַּ֣חַת יָ֔ד רֶ֖גֶל תַּ֥חַת רָֽגֶל׃

eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

 

כְּוִיָּה֙ תַּ֣חַת כְּוִיָּ֔ה פֶּ֖צַע תַּ֣חַת פָּ֑צַע חַבּוּרָ֕ה תַּ֖חַת חַבּוּרָֽה׃ {ס}        

burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

I don't know what you all are debating, but it seems to me that the meaning is obvious: the woman loses the child.  It is worthless to say that it's a "miscarriage" or a "premature birth", as there was no ambulance or EMT rushing to the scene to try to save the fetus.  The fetus died as a result of the fight.

[LiveWire]

23 hours ago, JimmyB said:

I don't know what you all are debating, but it seems to me that the meaning is obvious: the woman loses the child.  It is worthless to say that it's a "miscarriage" or a "premature birth", as there was no ambulance or EMT rushing to the scene to try to save the fetus.  The fetus died as a result of the fight.

It's significant how God defines this.   And in those days, the death of a fetus would be considered a human life, and property.   This is why there's damage listed for more than just the Mother.

[JimmyB]

4 minutes ago, LiveWire said:

It's significant how God defines this.   And in those days, the death of a fetus would be considered a human life, and property.   This is why there's damage listed for more than just the Mother.

Retrobyter wrote that a "miscarriage" implies the death of the baby. That has not yet been established in that verse.