@LibertineStates ; You're just an ignorant Communist brainwashed by Communists in our public education system which makes you a traitor to the United States of America.

@Dee ; The Scripture is not relevant to our Omniscient Creator.

PS. Your infatuation with Biblical slavery is misplaced. You do not know the era or the pagan culture that our Creator dealt with concerning slavery, an institution that has existed since The Genesis. You're kicking against the goads and storing-up wrath against yourself in the Day of Wrath when God's righteous Judgment will be revealed. You are not judged in accordance with the Covenant of Law but the Covenant of Grace.

@smoothie ; 1) Sexual perversion is a major tenet of the Progressive Platform. You don't see Conservatives espousing this vile and destructive ideology, do ya? Sexual perversion is destroying America's posterity and needs to be tucked back into the dark, deep, closet from which slithered!  Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) is an embarrassment to the American people!

2) You support the bigotry and racism of Progressive-Socialism-...the Democrat Party...hypocrite!

@smoothie ; I don't support "gay" anything...it's a mental and moral sickness in our Nation. Homosexuality is sin and unless the Homosexual repents and trusts in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of that sin, they will not see life in God's Kingdom. Homosexuality is the tell-tale sign of God's wrath on any people. Homosexuality is a shame and an embarrassment to any people seeking to live in a Nation espousing sustainable mores, norms, values, with honor and dignity.

@YeshuaRedeemed ; It is not possible for one to know and love Yeshua and advocate for the murder of His children...this won't happen. You may have uttered some words, sat in a Church building, taken a religious bath, but you've never known the love of Jesus Christ and you've never known the indwelling Holy Spirit. You might fool yourself and others, but you're not fooling our Omniscient God and you don't fool me.  It is weak to report another for the Truth in response to your lies.

You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.  Matthew 17:16-20 (NKJV)

@YeshuaRedeemed @Dee ; Shame on you...nothing you have cited is advocacy for abortion in the Bible...not one thing. You cite evidences of war and God's judgment upon pagan nations that attempted to annihilate the children of Israel. Then you cite Numbers 5, often used by demonic atheists to suggest the Bible advocates for abortion by using the NIV Bible translation that is not a correct translation of the Hebrew. You are simply wrong and both of you are murderous servants of Satan. @YeshuaRedeemed, you make an alliance/pact with the Devil as represented by @Dee and you consider yourself a Christian? Really?

Numbers 5:11-31 (Test for Unfaithful Wife)

Numbers 5 is far too often used by pro-choice advocates in their efforts to prove the Bible supports abortion. The atheist/pro-abortion advocate will cite Numbers 5 in the NIV which incorrectly translates the Hebrew.

Numbers 5:21, 22, 27, 28 (NIV)

21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse 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.”

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.

Numbers 5:21, 22, 27, 28 (NASB)

21 (then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), “the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people by the Lord’s making your thigh [m]waste away and your abdomen swell; 22 and this water that brings a curse shall go into your [n]stomach, and make your abdomen swell and your thigh [o]waste away.” And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.”

27 When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her [r]and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will [s]waste away, and the woman will become a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive [t]children.

Note: In the Hebrew, this test does NOT involve a child or a pregnant woman, but is simply a test of faithfulness v. unfaithfulness. If the Woman is guilty, her uterus will be made sterile or “waste away.” If the Woman is not guilty of adultery, she will be able to bear children…there is no mention of a miscarriage or abortion in the Hebrew…it’s simply the difference between sterility and fertility, but no child is mentioned in the text other than in v. 28 stating that the innocent Wife would be fertile and able to bear children.

See the following verses in Numbers 5 in Hebrew and note “nephal” (Strongs 5307) (waste away) is used and NOT “nephel” (Strongs 5309) (miscarriage or abortion).

v. 21 in Hebrew: https://biblehub.com/text/numbers/5-21.htm

v. 22 in Hebrew: https://biblehub.com/text/numbers/5-22.htm

v. 27 in Hebrew: https://biblehub.com/text/numbers/5-27.htm

The Hebrew word for miscarriage is “nephel” (Strongs #5309) (miscarriage or abortion) but Numbers v. 21-22 and 27 use the Hebrew word “naphal” (Strongs #5307) (to fall, lie) concerning the woman’s uterus (thigh or abdomen).  There is no mention of “miscarry” or a child in the Hebrew relevant to Numbers 5:21-22, 27.

See the Hebrew word “nephel” designating “abortion or miscarry which is NOT found in Numbers 5: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5309.htm

See the Hebrew word “nephal” (nō-p̄e-leṯ) as used in Numbers 5 meaning “to fall or lie” or to “waste away” https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5307.htm

Note: The NIV is the ONLY version that uses “miscarriage” in v. 21 and 22, see: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17009/does-numbers-511-22-describe-sanctioned-abortion

“Got Questions” agrees that Numbers 5 is not discussing an abortion and notes that the NIV mistakenly translates “miscarriage.” See: https://www.gotquestions.org/Numbers-abortion.html

Also see: http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2015/01/numbers-5-and-water-of-bitterness.html?showComment=1549839721300

@Dee ; Not a thing you have cited, Satan, is Biblical advocacy for abortion...NOT one thing. Try again?

@Dee ; Again, Numbers 5 has NOTHING to do with an abortion or a miscarriage.

Numbers 5:11-31 (Test for Unfaithful Wife)

Numbers 5 is far too often used by pro-choice advocates in their efforts to prove the Bible supports abortion. The atheist/pro-abortion advocate will cite Numbers 5 in the NIV which incorrectly translates the Hebrew.

Numbers 5:21, 22, 27, 28 (NIV)

21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse 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.”

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.

Numbers 5:21, 22, 27, 28 (NASB)

21 (then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), “the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people by the Lord’s making your thigh [m]waste away and your abdomen swell; 22 and this water that brings a curse shall go into your [n]stomach, and make your abdomen swell and your thigh [o]waste away.” And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.”

27 When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her [r]and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will [s]waste away, and the woman will become a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive [t]children.

Note: In the Hebrew, this test does NOT involve a child or a pregnant woman, but is simply a test of faithfulness v. unfaithfulness. If the Woman is guilty, her uterus will be made sterile or “waste away.” If the Woman is not guilty of adultery, she will be able to bear children…there is no mention of a miscarriage or abortion in the Hebrew…it’s simply the difference between sterility and fertility, but no child is mentioned in the text other than in v. 28 stating that the innocent Wife would be fertile and able to bear children.

See the following verses in Numbers 5 in Hebrew and note “nephal” (Strongs 5307) (waste away) is used and NOT “nephel” (Strongs 5309) (miscarriage or abortion).

v. 21 in Hebrew: https://biblehub.com/text/numbers/5-21.htm

v. 22 in Hebrew: https://biblehub.com/text/numbers/5-22.htm

v. 27 in Hebrew: https://biblehub.com/text/numbers/5-27.htm

The Hebrew word for miscarriage is “nephel” (Strongs #5309) (miscarriage or abortion) but Numbers v. 21-22 and 27 use the Hebrew word “naphal” (Strongs #5307) (to fall, lie) concerning the woman’s uterus (thigh or abdomen).  There is no mention of “miscarry” or a child in the Hebrew relevant to Numbers 5:21-22, 27.

See the Hebrew word “nephel” designating “abortion or miscarry which is NOT found in Numbers 5: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5309.htm

See the Hebrew word “nephal” (nō-p̄e-leṯ) as used in Numbers 5 meaning “to fall or lie” or to “waste away” https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5307.htm

Note: The NIV is the ONLY version that uses “miscarriage” in v. 21 and 22, see: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17009/does-numbers-511-22-describe-sanctioned-abortion

“Got Questions” agrees that Numbers 5 is not discussing an abortion and notes that the NIV mistakenly translates “miscarriage.” See: https://www.gotquestions.org/Numbers-abortion.html

Also see: http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2015/01/numbers-5-and-water-of-bitterness.html?showComment=1549839721300

@Dee ; Prove me wrong...study the Hebrew and prove me wrong. Stop lying for Satan. I challenge you...prove me wrong!!!

Numbers 5:11-31 (Test for Unfaithful Wife)

Numbers 5 is far too often used by pro-choice advocates in their efforts to prove the Bible supports abortion. The atheist/pro-abortion advocate will cite Numbers 5 in the NIV which incorrectly translates the Hebrew.

Numbers 5:21, 22, 27, 28 (NIV)

21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse 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.”

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.

Numbers 5:21, 22, 27, 28 (NASB)

21 (then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), “the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people by the Lord’s making your thigh [m]waste away and your abdomen swell; 22 and this water that brings a curse shall go into your [n]stomach, and make your abdomen swell and your thigh [o]waste away.” And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.”

27 When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her [r]and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will [s]waste away, and the woman will become a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive [t]children.

Note: In the Hebrew, this test does NOT involve a child or a pregnant woman, but is simply a test of faithfulness v. unfaithfulness. If the Woman is guilty, her uterus will be made sterile or “waste away.” If the Woman is not guilty of adultery, she will be able to bear children…there is no mention of a miscarriage or abortion in the Hebrew…it’s simply the difference between sterility and fertility, but no child is mentioned in the text other than in v. 28 stating that the innocent Wife would be fertile and able to bear children.

See the following verses in Numbers 5 in Hebrew and note “nephal” (Strongs 5307) (waste away) is used and NOT “nephel” (Strongs 5309) (miscarriage or abortion).

v. 21 in Hebrew: https://biblehub.com/text/numbers/5-21.htm

v. 22 in Hebrew: https://biblehub.com/text/numbers/5-22.htm

v. 27 in Hebrew: https://biblehub.com/text/numbers/5-27.htm

The Hebrew word for miscarriage is “nephel” (Strongs #5309) (miscarriage or abortion) but Numbers v. 21-22 and 27 use the Hebrew word “naphal” (Strongs #5307) (to fall, lie) concerning the woman’s uterus (thigh or abdomen).  There is no mention of “miscarry” or a child in the Hebrew relevant to Numbers 5:21-22, 27.

See the Hebrew word “nephel” designating “abortion or miscarry which is NOT found in Numbers 5: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5309.htm

See the Hebrew word “nephal” (nō-p̄e-leṯ) as used in Numbers 5 meaning “to fall or lie” or to “waste away” https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5307.htm

Note: The NIV is the ONLY version that uses “miscarriage” in v. 21 and 22, see: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17009/does-numbers-511-22-describe-sanctioned-abortion

“Got Questions” agrees that Numbers 5 is not discussing an abortion and notes that the NIV mistakenly translates “miscarriage.” See: https://www.gotquestions.org/Numbers-abortion.html

Also see: http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2015/01/numbers-5-and-water-of-bitterness.html?showComment=1549839721300

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

Exodus 21:22-23

---

“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, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

---

The standard reasoning attached to this verse, and that which is implied in the meme, suggests that when a fetus is miscarried, the penalty is only a fine, whereas in the following verse, if the mother is killed, the penalty is life.  It has been articulated as follows:

“In other words, if you cause the death of the fetus, you merely pay a fine; if you cause the death of the woman, you lose your own life. Thus, the Bible clearly shows that a fetus is not considered a person. If the fetus were considered to be a person, then the penalty for killing it would be the same as for killing the woman—death. Abortion, then, is not murder.”

The conclusions made in this reasoning stem from the belief that the Hebrew word יָצָא (yâtsâ) should be translated as “miscarriage” or as “depart”.  While the idea of “departing” is consistent with a possible translation, the concept of miscarriage is not.  This is a gloss based on the semantic range of the verb.  At its core, the verb is an action of “going out” or even “bringing forth”, which is its most common use in the OT. This has also been acknowledged in modern English Bible translations, as the only version that translates this as suggesting the death of a child is the KJV.  All other English translations of this passage render the verse as “gives birth prematurely” which, while still being a gloss, is a more accurate treatment.

What is additionally important in this passage is the line that immediately follows:

---

“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm…”

---

The “harm” in question here, is applied to the child, but could also, indirectly apply to the mother.  Let us also point out that even if we were to accept the tenuous linguistic argument that a “miscarriage” is in view here, that is not the same as an abortion.  An abortion is the intentional ending of an unborn human life.  A miscarriage can happen for many reasons, but always unintentionally.

What’s more, in the following verse there is the penalty for what is to happen if harm does occur to the baby or the mother.  In such a situation, the law of lex talionis (eye for an eye) applies.  While those who use this passage to suggest that the Bible does not view a fetus as a human life argue that v. 22 applies to the fetus dying and v. 23 applies solely to the mother, they are making that argument on speculative grounds linguistically, and largely from presuppositions made prior to reading the text.  That is why this verse led scholars like Meredith Kline, formerly of Gordon-Cromwell, to say:

“This law, found in Ex. 21:22-25, turns out to be perhaps the most decisive positive evidence in Scripture that the fetus is to be regarded as a living person.”

And if this were not enough, there is the larger corpus of Scripture which clearly presents the unborn life as sacred.[5]

Leviticus 27:6

---

“The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, If anyone makes a special vow to the Lord involving the valuation of persons, then the valuation of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old shall be fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary.  If the person is a female, the valuation shall be thirty shekels.  If the person is from five years old up to twenty years old, the valuation shall be for a male twenty shekels, and for a female ten shekels.  If the person is from a month old up to five years old, the valuation shall be for a male five shekels of silver, and for a female the valuation shall be three shekels of silver.  And if the person is sixty years old or over, then the valuation for a male shall be fifteen shekels, and for a female ten shekels.'”

---

The argument from this passage is largely an argument from silence.  Not much need to be said here in the way of refutation, for there is nothing in the verse to bring one to the conclusion found in the meme.  What is at issue is that the law in this passage refers to the value to be paid for a person, beginning with full grown males and females, down to children up to 1 month old.  The argument then, is that since there is no monetary value listed for children less than 1 month old, the passage is positively stating that children less than a month (a fetus included) are not considered human life.

Hopefully it is clear, at the outset, that not having a monetary value attached to children under 1 month does not necessarily, or even logically, conclude that they are not considered human life.  Formally stated, the argument from “silence is, in many cases, a lack of evidence, for the reason that the matter in question did not come within the scope of the author’s argument.” The assumption imported into the pro-abortion argument behind this verse is that a votive offering is somehow indicative of the redemptive value of human life.  The problem with such an assumption is that it is exactly that, an assumption.  The nature of a votive offering is unclear, especially in this text.

A votive offering is generaly recognized as an offering paid as part of a vow to God.  This vow could be for many reasons.  It could be a vow that resulted in blessing or protection.  In such cases the offering is either being paid by the offeror for themselves, or for the other party, but has no direct impact on the recognition of that individual’s humanity.  The reason for this is precisely as Dr. Briggs noted above so many years ago, the idea of the humanity of the individual was not within the scope of the argument.  As we have already seen, the value of unborn life was already clear in Jewish culture, and thus not part of the guidance in Lev. 27:1-7.  Even if the votive offering were one of redemption, it would be to redeem those who had made a vow, of service in most cases, to the temple or to the Lord in some fashion. One can hardly expect a child less than one month old to be of service in a temple, especially since they would still be nursing.  A child of one month to five years could easily be of service, first with the mother, and then on their own, once old enough to work.  In either case, it has nothing to do with the humanity of the child.

Numbers 3:15-16

---

“And the Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, saying, ‘List the sons of Levi, by fathers’ houses and by clans; every male from a month old and upward you shall list.’  So Moses listed them according to the word of the Lord, as he was commanded.”

---

Suffice it to say, the repetitious nature of these citations should become very clear at this point. This is, yet again, an argument from silence.  The context of the passage is the official numbering of the Israelites by tribe.  Given that the infant mortality rate (as far as it can be determined) for Israel in Late Antiquity (3-8th century AD) was as high as 30%, the mortality rate for the Ancient Near East would be considerably higher.  Thus, when taking a census, it would not be reasonable to count children highly unlikely to survive.

Again, it must re-stated that the humanity of the child is not in the purview of the verse.  What is in  sight is the population count.  A child less than one month would be less likely to be counted, given the mortality rate.  Additionally, to reason that the verse above necessitates a conclusion that the infant is not human, begs the question.  One must begin with the presupposition that (a) an unborn child is not human, or (b) the Bible explicitly states that an unborn child is not a human.  Option (a) is a modern philosophical invention being imported into the text, and option (b) is non-existent in the text.

Numbers 31:15-17; Hosea 9:14;16; 13:16; 2 Samuel 12:14

---

“Moses said to them, ‘Have you let all the women live?  Behold, these, on Balaam’s advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.’ “

“Give them, O Lord—what will you give?  Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts….Ephraim is stricken; their root is dried up; they shall bear no fruit.  Even though they give birth, I will put their beloved children to death….Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword; their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.”

“Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord,the child who is born to you shall die.”

---

Given that several passages are in view here, let’s address them at one time.  To begin, the statement attached to these passages in the meme points out that God either “approves of” or actively “kills” fetuses or newborns.  Before even looking at the verses in question, an immediate response can be made on purely theological grounds.  As I have addressed in another post, God is the rightful owner of all humanity as He is the ultimate cause for all human life that ever has been and ever will be.  Because of this, it is solely within His right to take the life of whomever He pleases.

Setting that point aside, Numbers 31:15-17 refers to the killing of male children, not unborn babies, while addressing the issue of killing children is a topic worth discussing, it is not part of the argument for abortion that this meme is attempting to make, unless the abortion advocate is willing to acknowledge that a fetus is as much a human life as a born child, to which we would agree, but this is not an argument many will make.  The command to kill the male children is to prevent the Midianite boys from growing up to seek vengeance upon the Israelite people.  While it might seem extreme to modern sensibilities, it was a common practice of the age.

When addressing the Hosea 9 passages, it should be understood from the beginning, that the language used is poetic and figurative.  The nation of Israel is being represented in many ways, but all negatively.  Chapter 9 begins with punishments that will befall Israel because of their rejection of the law of God.  The verses immediately prior to those in the meme declare that the nation will be childless, either in an inability to conceive or to bring to term, and it is God acting out this judgment.  All references to unborn children in 9 are to miscarriage or infertility.  The direct killing stated in v.16 refers to born alive children.  While it is true that judgment language of this kind is found in many Ancient Near Eastern texts, they are commonly hyperbolic in the extremity to which they will go.

Clearly the Israelites did bear children that survived, as there are Israelites still living to this day.  Therefore, what we have in Hosea is a divine judgment text, not meant to be taken woodenly but as a blanket judgment of destruction to the people.  Barrenness itself was considered a divine curse throughout this time and beyond. While Numbers 13:16b is the closest any of these verses might come to speaking of an unborn child being murdered, it again falls within the context of a judgment text.  These actions did take place, and they were under the sovereign will of God, but to be equivalent to the pro-abortion argument it would require the proponent to believe that God was actively commanding them to commit the abortion AND that the abortions being performed were part of God’s judgment on the people receiving them.  Again, this is not an argument that will be made.

Lastly, 2 Samuel recounts the well-known passage in which David’s child by Bathsheba dies.  While the statement attached to this verse in the meme is technically correct, it again does nothing to support the current, pro-abortion, position.  Yes, it is true that God allows the death of, or even kills, a child to punish the parents.  This is clearly the case for David.  Yet, this is not normative either.  It is not abortion on demand for any reason, at any time.  Also, as has been stated above, it is God’s prerogative to take human life, and in this case, it is in the form of a child dying of natural causes AFTER birth.  It is not a case of child neglect, as has been approved in states like Virginia and New York, and is not tantamount to an abortion.  Secondly, as was also noted above, this is DIVINE JUDGEMENT upon the parents.  Unless the abortion practitioner or the one promoting abortion is suggesting that they are God’s tool of judgment upon the mothers, the reasoning does not follow.

Numbers 5:21; 27-28

---

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the people of Israel, If any man’s wife goes astray and breaks faith with him, if a man lies with her sexually, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband…the priest shall bring her near and set her before the Lord. And the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water….Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, ‘If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while you were under your husband’s authority, be free from this water of bitterness that brings the curse.  But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband’s authority, and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your husband has lain with you…the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your body swell. May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.’ And the woman shall say, ‘Amen, Amen.’”

---

This passage is often cited as one in which God “causes an abortion”.  At best, what may be in view here is another example of a miscarriage, but even this is suspect.  No, popularly used, English translations interpret this text to reference an abortion.  The exact statement is that the “abdomen will swell” and the “thigh will fall away”.  Both are euphemistic terms that are unclear.  While it is possible that the swelling of the abdomen might be suggestive of an illegitimate pregnancy that fails to come to term, the reference to the “thigh” is consistently euphemistic of the sexual organs.

Rather, “The most probable explanation for the phrase ‘and make your abdomen swell and your thigh waste away . . .’ is that the woman suffers a collapse of the sexual organs known as a prolapsed uterus. In this condition, which may occur after multiple pregnancies, the pelvis floor (weakened by the pregnancies) collapses, and the uterus literally falls down. It may lodge in the vagina, or it may actually fall out of the body through the vagina. If it does so, it becomes edematous and swells up like a balloon. Conception becomes impossible, and the woman’s procreative life has effectively ended . . .”  This being the case, pregnancy is not in view but rather the inability to ever conceive.

Genesis 38:24

---

“About three months later Judah was told, ‘Tamar your daughter-in-law has been immoral. Moreover, she is pregnant by immorality.’ And Judah said, ‘Bring her out, and let her be burned.’ “

---

The caption attached to this last verse declares that the “law of God” required the execution of pregnant women by burning to death.  Suffice it to say that the Law does not prescribe the burning of pregnant women, least of all here.  The larger context of this story is a narrative, not a legal passage, therefore drawing the conclusion that the actions taken or even attempted are approved by God would be contrary to the genre of the text.

The narrative within which this verse falls is the deception of Judah by his daughter-in-law, Tamar.  In the story, Tamar, has married Judah’s son, Er, but he has died without producing an heir.  According to the law, it falls to the closest male sibling of her husband to marry her and produce a child. Judah commanded his second son, Onan, to perform his duties as the levirate, but Onan did not.  This left Tamar without an heir and without a husband, leaving her helpless as a woman in that time.  Tamar’s recourse is to disguise herself as a prostitute and convince her father-in-law, Judah, to sleep with her.  He does this, and she becomes pregnant.  The law actually requires that Judah marry Tamar at this point.

When Judah is told that his daughter-in-law has conceived through prostitution, he responds violently, but not in any way sanctioned by OT law.  When he learns that he is actually the father, he immediately adopts his role as her kinsman redeemer.  Judah, the one calling for her to be burned, is depicted in this narrative as the enemy, not the hero.  It is Tamar that is the righteous character in this story, for she is doing what is necessary to protect herself and ultimately continue the messianic line that would lead to David (Ruth 4:18-22) and ultimately to Christ (Matt.1:6-17).  Therefore, this verse neither promotes abortion, nor does it depict the law of God as validating the burning of a pregnant woman.  To suggest so is, like every other claim in the meme, a non sequitur.

Prove me wrong, Satan @Dee

@Dee Again, in your ignorance, Dee, the Scripture, Psalm 137:9, is a lament by the psalmist who is angry and consumed with hate for what has been done to the people of Israel by the Edomites and Babylonians. Why not study as opposed to serving Satan and dying in Hell?

Psalm 137:9 is found in one of the Imprecatory Psalms (or Precatory Psalms) that speak of violence against the enemies of God. That verse reads, “Happy is the one who seizes your infants / and dashes them against the rocks.” To “imprecate” means to “pray evil against,” and the imprecatory prayers in the Bible strike people today as strange or wrong. It is important to understand the context of this verse and others like it. The background is the Jewish people calling upon God to exact revenge upon their military enemies.

Psalm 137 is in the context of the Jewish exile in Babylon (Psalm 137:1) where they had been taken as slaves after the Babylonians burned down the city of Jerusalem. The Jews in exile were then told to “sing us one of the songs of Zion!” (Psalm 137:1), adding further humiliation and frustration to a defeated people.

The psalmist recalls both the disgraces of the Edomites (who looted Jerusalem) and the Babylonians who destroyed their capital city. He comes to two conclusions to end the psalm. First, he says, “Happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us” (Psalm 137:8). This cry for revenge desired the destruction of their enemies.

Then in verse 9, the psalmist adds further detail to this cry for revenge, claiming, “Happy is the one” who kills the infants of their enemy. The desire is graphically stated, but it is simply a call for the destruction of the entire nation—the nation that had enslaved the Jews, killed their babies, and destroyed their city. The destruction of Babylon was expressly foretold in Isaiah 13:16, and by referencing that prediction, the psalmist may mean to say that the men who were God’s instruments in carrying out that prophecy would be happy in doing His will.

If we keep in mind that the psalms are songs that express intense emotions, a statement such as “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks” should not shock us. The writer did not intend to go out and kill babies; rather, he desired justice, which required the death of his enemies. Even today, those who have lost loved ones at the hands of others understandably desire the death of those who committed the crime.

We must be careful to interpret Psalm 137 in its historical context and apply it appropriately in connection with the full counsel of Scripture. It is a normal human desire to see justice done and for enemies to be defeated. However, Romans 12:17–19 commands, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.” Psalm 137 is not a selfish prayer for personal revenge. It is a plea for God to intervene in the affairs of men to keep His covenant and right all wrongs.

@Dee ; You're proud-full and foolish and you've chosen death...you're not worth the argument. The Holy Spirit spoke well of you.