Amaleq13

The king did not command them to do their jobs as midwives. The king commanded them to kill any male babies but the midwives saved them instead. Surely you can't be serious in offering this perversion of the text as a genuine argument?

No, he asks why they saved the babies and they deny saving them.

Kill the male babies as they assisted in their births.

Setting aside the credulity required in accepting such a notion, you continue to ignore that the author has already indicated the action above does not qualify as "saving" the babies but does tell us that the midwives saved them. That alone indicates that they did something else.

Thank you for repeating your conclusion. Have you thought up a supporting rational argument that relates to the text yet?

I have to wonder if you really know what "a priori" means because it has no relevance to anything I've pointed out about the text since it all follows from an examination of it.

Isn't that a tautology?

I'll lay it out for you one more time:

Text evidence: The author states that they saved the babies but the midwives told Pharaoh that they didn't.

Reasoning: If the first statement is true, the second must be false.

Conclusion: They lied to Pharaoh.

Text evidence: Pharaoh accused the midwives of saving the babies but the midwives deny it and claim they arrived too late to kill them.

Reasoning: Their explanation must constitute a denial of the accusation.

Conclusion: The author does not consider arriving too late to kill the babies to qualify as saving them.

Resorting to insults is an excellent indicator that you are quite well aware that your arguments are without merit. I'll take that as an affirmative answer to my question.

Amaleq13

That sounds like it might be an a priori assumption underlying someone's preferred "interpretation".

rhutchin

It was not meant as an insult. I have limited time to spend here (not that I don't enjoy it, but because there are other demands on my time).

If you are going to require that people repsond to your msgs within a certain timeframe, then you need to find something else to do in between responses.

If you had a solid argument, it would seem that you would have presented it by this time. It seems that you are working on that argument (as I am for the opposite position), and that takes time also.

rhutchin

We have--
16 And [Pharaoh] said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.[/quote]

You seem to be ignoring the part that says, “When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women...”

If Pharaoh wanted the boy babies killed, he could have sent his soldiers out to do it like Herod in the NT. It seems that Pharaoh fears the consequences of that action. Consequently, we see him directing the midwives to do that which he cannot. He does not tell the midwives to go snatch newborns from the arms of their mothers and throw them into the river. He specifically tells them to kill the boy babies as they assist in the delivery (as they do the office of a midwife). The midwives then decided that they would not attend the delivery but would only arrive afterward. In other words they acted to save the babies doing the only thing in their power to do and are properly credited for doing so.

I do not see a perversion in that which I offer and you have not made a case for it.

OK. Then, when asked by Pharaoh why they did not do as he had instructed them... They explained that the Hebrew mothers gave birth prior to their arrival so that they had no opportunity to kill the babies. They do not deny not killing (i.e., saving) the babies. They agree that they have not killed the babies and explain how this had come about. They told the truth.

You have not established that the midwives had to be present and had to have opportunity to kill the babies. It is possible that they were not present. I don’t think you have inside information on what actually happened and are merely assuming that which supports your argument.

What credulity? They were midwives. They would have noticed such trends. It is you who desperately want to disqualify any action by the midwives other than that which you need for your argument. The author is not supporting you.

Yep. Now, you just need to come up with a counter argument that works.

You basically are assuming your conclusion.

Here is what it really says--

Text evidence: The author states that they saved the babies and the midwives explain to Pharaoh how it was not possible for them to kill the babies.

Reasoning: The first statement is true, and the second statement is true.

Conclusion: They told Pharaoh the true situation.

Text evidence: Pharaoh accused the midwives of saving the babies but the midwives, rather than deny it (because they knew that they had not killed the babies), explain how they arrived too late to kill them.

Reasoning: Their explanation fits the evidence. Pharaoh is frustrated in his attempt to kill the boy babies.

Conclusion: The author credits the quick thinking midwives with saving the babies.

Amaleq13

I'm not ignoring it, I'm denying your claim that it is part of Pharaoh's command when it clearly is not. It simply informs the midwives "when" to carry out his order to kill the male babies.

That is an incorrect condition since the text makes it very clear that Pharaoh did want the males dead. It should read: If Pharaoh was unconcerned about being blamed for their deaths, he could have sent his soldiers out to do it.

Yes but, contrary to your "interpretation", he does not order them to assist in the deliveries. The "when" indicates he assumed that they were going to do this anyway.

If arriving too late qualifies as saving them, why didn't Pharaoh punish them for disobedience?

The text denies your "interpretation" and you've done absolutely nothing to change that. The author states they saved the babies. The author states they were accused of saving the babies. The author implies that arriving too late does not constitute saving the babies since he has the midwives using that as their denial of disobeying Pharaoh.

Exactly and, from this, we know that they deny doing what the author says they did and that arriving too late does not constitute saving the babies. IOW, the author clearly denies your "interpretation".

It is obviously offered as a denial of saving the babies. Otherwise, Pharaoh would have punished them for disobedience.

The author establishes this by asserting that they saved the babies and reinforces this by later asserting that God rewarded their actions. Arriving too late leaves their fate to chance or God.

Only if we assume the author was a very poor story-teller.

I don't need any inside information nor make any assumptions beyond assuming the author wrote to be understood. I just need to take the story at face value.

It requires credulity to believe that Hebrew women give birth earlier than others.

Good point but not one that supports your position because the excuse only works as surprising information to the midwives. Assuming that the birth-speed claim was true, it requires credulity to believe that the midwives were unaware of this and did not delay their arrival deliberately.

There can be no question that Pharaoh is depicted as quite credulous in this story.

There is no desperation involved in taking the text at face value and everything I've said comes from no other source but the author. You seem to be projecting your own situation here.

No, I had no opinion on this passage prior to the existence of this thread. I read the passage and found absolutely no support for your "interpretation". I've simply presented what the story states in opposition to your somewhat creative attempt to rewrite it.

I am always willing to accept the interpretations of the faithful if it relates to the text. Yours simply does not.