djmullen

Fortuna, which translation did you use? I see that most of the "translations" have the passage changed or "clarified" to indicate premature birth instead of miscarriage. Honestly, I expected that from the NIV, but I had no idea how widespread that deliberate mistranslation is.

Fortuna

djmullen,

The KJV uses "that her fruit depart from here". A miscarriage IS a premature birth, that's what happens. You've really got no problems there.

Using the term "premature birth" doesn;t change anything.

djmullen

No, miscarriage means "The expulsion of a fetus before it is viable, esp. between the third and seventh months of pregnancy; spontaneous abortion," to quote www.dictionary.com. "Premature birth" refers to delivering a live baby before the full nine months is up.

Assuming the KJV gets the flavor of the original Hebrew right when they translate it as, "so that her fruit depart from her", then they appear to be talking miscarriage, which means dead baby. That's how I read it too. But if the fundies look at most translations, they'll see "premature birth" which means live baby. I think that's a deliberate mistranslation designed to make the Bible more compatible with modern morality. That keeps this passage from being a knock-down argument, which is probably the intent of the (mis)translators.

John Kesler

Keep in mind that the context of Leviticus 27 is vows that one makes to Yahweh, in which a monetary sum is given in lieu of the person used as "collateral." The fact that infants under a month old aren't assigned a monetary value is based on the pragmatic realization that such an individual may not survive, which mitigates the amount of risk and sacrifice involved by the person making the vow. I would not expand this regulation into a generalization that the Israelites and their deity didn't think that babies had value.

Champion

Fortuna:

You are right in saying that the Saducees had no beliefs about the afterlife. However, if you read Ecclesiastes 2:10-23 interpretting it the same way you interpretted chapter 4 I think you will get a very skewed view of what the author is trying to say. One might even leave this book thinking the author is a nihilist which of course isn't true.

I think it's safe to say that when the author talks about things "under the sun" he is referring to so called "earthly" things.

I apologise for my off the cuff response and I'm certainly no biblical scholar. My scriptural support comes from the first two chapters of the book which state a very, very apathetic worldview towards all of lifes pursuits. One might even think the author contradicts himself two chapters into the book:

ecclesiastes 1:13-14 "I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! 14 I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

Ecclesiastes 2:13 "I saw that Wisdom was better than folly, just as light is better than darkness"

These two passages side by side beg the question: "What makes wisdom better than folly if all is meaningless". I think this illustrates that the author is trying to get at something deeper. I just don't see how your interpretation meshes with the character of Solomon or even a Saducaic (Mispronunciation?) worldview.

Anyway, I think you have some very developed arguments on Abortion and the Bible, I just feel that using that ecclesiastes excerpt is a bit of a stretch.

Fortuna

djmullen,

The verse could probably refer to either situation where the fetus/infant dies. Again, these are both the same. Viable or not, the fetus is expelled. I'm sure the fine is levied whether it is a miscarriage or a premature birth where the child dies.

Remember, "should the fruit depart from her". That seems designed to refer to a miscarriage afaic, but would include the premature birth cae if the infant died.


Champion,

Another source for the Sadducee's non-belief in afterlife comes from Flavius Josephus. In his "War of thte Jews" at Book 2, chapter 8, para 14 he says;


These guy were also said to be strict Torah literalists, and there is no mention of nor belief on any sort of afterlife in the Torah.

Thus many of us have the belief that Ecclesiastes is a production of the Sadducees. It aligns fairly well with their philosophy. It looks like that was a later development in Judaism, possibly following the Babylonian or Greek view of afterlife (or a fusion of the 2).

Anyway, that whole "under the sun" argument smacks of apologetic. Nowhere does the book say what you are trying to imply.

Well, that I agree with that, but I'm not sure how you get from there to your
apologetic.

. But read closer. That author doesn't believe in any kind of afterlife, much as Josephus describes the Sadducees. So ther are no punishments in Hades nor rewards in heaven. This is consistent with the author of Ecc.

I would like to see some kind of support for what you are saying, and I don't see any.

I think quite the opposite. It aligns very well with the Sadducees point of view. re-Read what Josephus says ;

Matches up pretty well, I think.

Champion

Fortuna:

I am aware of the fact that the Saducees did not believe in an afterlife and I have not argued that point. I'm just not so sure that Ecclesiastes fits the profile.

But this completely contradicts the conclusion to the book: "For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil."

Does not correspond to the passage you quoted:

"God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil..."? It makes no sense given the book's conclusion.

There is a fairly obvious contradiction there. I think you are oversimplifying what the text has to offer.

Then you are saying that the book contradicts itself. How can it simultaneously say that good and evil are merely choices which lead to the same end and then conclude with an exhortation to "fear God and keep his commandments for God will bring every deed to judgement, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil"

Or better yet, how does the conclusion fit in with what the author says in Ecclesiastes 9:1-2?

All share a common destiny—the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad, the clean and the unclean, those who offer sacrifices and those who do not. As it is with the good man,
so with the sinner;
as it is with those who take oaths,
so with those who are afraid to take them.