It’s funny how ‘getting an abortion’ is the most atheist thing the artist could think of - I believe that’s not even forbidden in the Bible?

There’s a recipe to induce abortion in the Bible.

Not reading it is part of the book club.

I’ve been trying to find that bit and my apparently poor googling techniques are finding nothing. Do you mind sharing an article or passage? (Just got back from a vacation with some fairly religious family members who were goddamn tiring, would be nice to be able to cite this next time.)

Oh, if you want more fun, read them these two verses:

Exodus 21:12:

Anyone who assaults and kills another person must be put to death.

And Exodus 21:22:

When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage but no other injury occurs, then the guilty party will be fined what the woman’s husband demands, as negotiated with the judges.

Then ask them why the punishment for killing a person is not the same as the punishment for causing a miscarriage.

After that, ask them why, if the Bible is the “inerrant” word of God, do some translations of that second verse use “miscarriage” while others say something more general like “caused a premature birth” instead? Because the meaning of that verse changes drastically depending on which way it’s translated.

At this point, you’ll probably be called a godless baby killer and uninvited from Thanksgiving dinner.

After that, ask them why, if the Bible is the “inerrant” word of God, do some translations of that second verse use “miscarriage” while others say something more general like “caused a premature birth” instead? Because the meaning of that verse changes drastically depending on which way it’s translated.

According to Google Translate, the original Hebrew for just that phrase directly translates to “and her children went out,” but with the full context of the verse it becomes “and her children are born.” Make of that what you will.

I could translate it to “and she gets a black eye,” but that doesn’t make the word itself any less reliable, only my wrong translation. I don’t know about the people you hang out with, but I’m pretty sure it’s important for Christians to understand that human translations are prone to error.

It’s problematic to try to read that verse as just meaning “born” exactly because of the context. The whole passage is about restitution in two scenarios: a pregnant woman who is injured as a bystander from two men fighting and

suffers an unclear birth event with no additional damage

suffers an unclear birth event with additional damage.

Breaking it down that way, it seems apparent to me that the birth event must mean a miscarriage. If two men fight and that causes a woman to go into labor, but her child is safely delivered, what restitution would be owed? What harm has actually been caused? That actually eliminates scenario 1. The only way the whole passage makes any sense for the father to be owed payment is to see what property he has been deprived of- a potential child, or a potential child and his wife. And this just helps to reinforce the point: the punishment for causing the death of a person is not the same as for causing a miscarriage, which means that in the Old Testament unborn fetuses we’re not equal to people

And no, American Evangelicals do not allow any room for error in translation of the Bible, because they see it as God’s direct word to man and therefore it can’t be wrong.