Not joking by the way, this was made by a conservative artist
Original twitter post: https://twitter.com/GPrime85/status/1697222846030721336
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.)
Just ask them how god defines weddings in Christianity then point out Jews had weddings first.
They’re both abrahamic religions… It would make sense that God (being the same supernatural being in both religions) would have the same definition under both religions…
It would but it doesn’t. Jews by and large don’t care about homosexual marriage and even find it acceptable per God’s teachings. The only ones who don’t are the conservative Jews.
Christians on the other hand by and large care about homosexuality alot. Add to it Christians (in the states at least) like to say that they defined marriage, there’s proof that isn’t true. So if Christians didn’t invent it and were born of Judaism that would say to be that Christian belief regarding marriage is irrelevant from a “we created it” standpoint.
Tying it back to my original thought, pointing that out to Christians pisses them off.
This also works with abortion. Most Jews don’t care about it, some even go so far as to say this “a baby before birth is merely a part of the mother’s body.” Meaning it’s up to the mother what to do about her body. Up to and including termination.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205:11-31&version=NIV
It’s not really a recipe but the Bitter Waters can be viewed as an abortifacient.
Regardless of if true - that verse does show that the christian god is pro-abortion.
There is a kind of “recipe” in Numbers 5:11-31
It’s a “test for an unfaithful wife” but it’s a curse which would make a woman miscarry a child if it belonged to someone other than her husband.
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.
Born, or birthed? A stillborn is still birthed. See, we can play this game for millenia, others already have.
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.
