Comments by "@level Joe" (@leveljoe) on "Forbes Breaking News"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@sovelissskirata8105
Look how hard you try to pervert this...
Where did it say miscarriage?
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."
Once again, nowhere does it say anything about a miscarriage.
Nowhere did it say the fruit departing is death. The fruit departing the mother is birth. An early (premature) birth.
Mischief is the death of the child.
Even if your ridiculous translation (that you pulled out of thin air) was accurate, it's clearly up to the father to decide the punishment because (according to you) it was a wrongful death. It says nothing about the woman destroying the child up in her belly.
If it was the death of the mother as you think, it would have been murder. That would also be wrong.
Also, "he will pay as the judges determine" indicates that the premature birth (or death according to you) of the child was a wrongful act that needs to result in punishment by the state, and that punishment is in addition to what the father does.
Either way, the death of the child (in my view or yours) leads to repercussions for the person that caused it.
You're losing this argument 20 ways to Sunday.
It's funny. Your fixation on this one passage is all you have, and you have it all backward.
You then went on to say this passage was to be ignored because it could lead to "an eye for an eye."
So which is it?
Do we use it or ignore it?
God knows the child before it is born. If the child was a blank slate, what would there be to know?
Mehhh, you'll ignore this part because there is no room for you to twist it to your liking.
I eagerly await your response.
lol
3
-
@sovelissskirata8105
Hold your horses. Your opinion CAN'T be based on this passage. The passage is clearly in direct opposition to what want it to say.
Look, kid, it's obvious you're making most of this up.
Your older version is a Bible app???
WTF
If you're using an "older version" of the Bible, which version is it?
If you're going to prove you're not making it up as you go along, it needs to contain the word miscarriage in this passage, as you said it does.
It's funny that you expect me to believe that your version is older but uses modern vernacular.
"Premature pregnancy..."
What is a premature pregnancy?
Talk about word salad!
You're right about one thing, premature birth usually (but not always) resulted in death in those times, and that's why the punishment was dependant on the result of the premature birth (life or death).
Haha
If it was a miscarriage as you claim, what more "mischief" could occur if the child is already dead? If "mischief " is the death of the mother, they would have simply said the strife killed a pregnant woman.
You're making absolutely no sense.
lol
You are still ignoring that the act resulting in the loss of the child is a punishable act, and it's not the mother's choice.
How inconvenient for you.
You then go on about, "...is a fine,not an eye for an eye."
then your next statement says it's, "...a life for life in this case." That makes zero sense.
Is it life for life or a fine?
You really don't know...
Where did I say anything about the separation of church and state?
Are you high???
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2