Is abortion always a sin?

[Radrook]

"Spreads them out like a tent to live in" does not mean that they are continually expanding, rather that the heavens are spread around the earth like a canopy to cover the earth. I went camping the other day and my tent was the same size when I got up as it was when I went to sleep.

The verbs "spread" and "spreads" are two different words.
One is past perfect the other is present continuous which indicates action that encompasses the present. The other action that happemed and has finished.

It is the same difference that exists between "spoke" and "speaks" "walked" and "walks" "ran" and "runs."

Radrook, again you are interpreting biblical statements to fit the facts as we know them today. God created the world in six days = big bang, relativity = lord knows?

About the six days, the word used in Genesis is not restricted to a 24 hour day. That's why Adam died in the same day as God said he would but yet lived more than 900 earth years.


Genesis 5:5
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.


Other scriptures repeatedly remind us that God views time differently from humans.

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.



So the days mentioned in Genesis need not be understood as earth days unless one wishes to ridicule. In which case the reader would be conveniently giving meaning to scripture to fit his needs.

Also, you confuse the earth preparatory peroid with the period preceding them when God created the heavens and the earth. That creation period prior to the first preparatory day allows the Bigg Bang with its billions of earth year requirement.

Circle = spherical - No. If you stand at a point and look around you what do you see? A circular plane, therefore why should ancient writers believe that the world was anything but circular (and flat). Why did they not say "the globe of the earth"?

But the Hebrew "Chuwg", can mean a sphere.
So why should it be interpreted as circle that is flat when that would mean interpreting scripture so that it fits in with a reader's preconceived ideas and need to ridicule?


Excerpt:
The Bible of course teaches the correct shape of the earth. Isaiah 40:22 says God sits above 'the circle of the earth' (the Hebrew word for 'circle' can also mean a 'sphere').

Also, Luke 17:34-36 depicts Christ's Second Coming as happening while some are asleep at night and others are working at day-time activities in the field-an indication of a rotating earth with day and night at the same time.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html

The concept expressed in Isaiah of the earth placed on nothing?
That can only be determined by viewing it from space.

BTW
The fact that the world is a sphere is not a recent concept.
It has had been around for hundreds of years prior to Columbus.

 

[Beancounter]

The verbs "spread" and "spreads" are two different words.

Jeepers, Radrook, now we are arguing semantics.

"Like a tent to live in" - I reiterate, tents do not expand. If the bible meant an expanding universe/firmament/whatever why wasn't it clearer? Things growing was a concept they were familiar with.

About the six days, the word used in Genesis is not restricted to a 24 hour day. That's why Adam died in the same day but yet lived more that 900 earth years. Other scriptures repeatedly remind us that God views time differently from humans. So the days mentioned in Genesis need not be understood as earth days unless one wishes to ridicule. In which case the reader would be conveniently giving meaning to scripture to fit his needs.

I can't argue with the meaning of the word in the bible as I am not a scholar in these things Others may be able to comment. However, if god views time differently from humans, given that the bible was written down by humans for humans, surely the authors would have explained the situation in words that you and I would understand literally. Why use phrases that might mean one thing or another - particularly when referring to days/millenia? Again this smacks of interpreting the bible to fit the facts that we know now whereas previous translations were done to fit the facts they knew then.

Also, you confuse the earth preparatory peroid with the period preceding them when God created the heavens and the earth. That creation period prior to the first preparatory day allows the Bigg Bang with its billions of earth year requirement

Again my biblical knowledge lets me down here but what preparatory period would that be? (I don't recall that one being taught in RE) And did this period appear when the big bang theory was promulgated? See above re. interpretation.

But the Hebrew word can mean a sphere.
So why should it be interpreted as circle that is flat when that would mean interpreting scripture so that it fits in with a reader's preconceived ideas and need to ridicule?


Excerpt:
The Bible of course teaches the correct shape of the earth. Isaiah 40:22 says God sits above 'the circle of the earth' (the Hebrew word for 'circle' can also mean a 'sphere').

Also, Luke 17:34-36 depicts Christ's Second Coming as happening while some are asleep at night and others are working at day-time activities in the field-an indication of a rotating earth with day and night at the same time.

Again I cannot dispute that circle may equal sphere in Hebrew but again I question the clarity of the text. If god told us that the world was round why did this not become accepted until [scientist/historian to insert appropriate date].

I've had a quick look at the Luke verses and it is clear to me that it is dealing with a period of a day "in that day" not a point in time, consequently it is quite possible that "in the day" the son of man is revealed some are sleeping and some are working (at different times of course).

The concept expressed in Isaiah of the earth placed on nothing? That can only be determined by viewing it from space.

Indeed it could only be proven from space, but it can be speculated from right where I am sitting. The answer doesn't prove the answer (or something - I am sure there is a latin phrase for that but I will have to leave that to Doctor X) Incidently, this is the same Isiah that stated that the moon gave off its own light (13:10 and 30:26).

BTW, as I have mentioned elsewhere, this is all a trifle academic because if the bible was not written by god, these arguments are baseless (but they are interesting )

 

[Doctor X]

Beancounter:

Indeed it could only be proven from space, but it can be speculated from right where I am sitting. The answer doesn't prove the answer (or something - I am sure there is a latin phrase for that but I will have to leave that to Doctor X) Incidently, this is the same Isiah that stated that the moon gave off its own light (13:10 and 30:26).

Petitio principii or "question begging argument" which is a mere restatement of the argument in other terms. Since most people misinterpret "begs the question" you can also call this, Circulus vitiosus or argumentum in circulo for a circular argument.

However, I am not certain that is the fallacy you want given your first sentence.

However, however, remember that before "creation" in the P myth that opens Genesis there are the waters of the deep.

So you have all of this water just sitting there in space. . . .

Sure. . . .

--J.D.

 

[Beancounter]

Dear Doc

What I was looking for was:

The fact that the earth does "rest on nothing" and that this could only be proved from space, does not prove that the people who made the statement "the earth rests on nothing" had actually been to space (or god told them it was so). They could merely have made a supposition.

Maybe there isn't a phrase for this fallacy?

 

[Doctor X]

Beancounter:

How abouts an invalid premise?

You see, anyone can circumnavigate the globe in numerous ways and demonstrate the absence of "something" "underneath" the Earth--including turtles.

Incidentally, science "assumed" the existence of a "cosmic ether" through which light traveled. The attempts to measure its effects on light--Michelson-Morely Experiments--in many ways led to Einstein's postulate that light has a constant velocity in a vacuum.

I just know some physicist is going to jump down my throat on that. . . .

Westermann makes a very good point in discussion cosmology. Myths are not trying to explain "what is" they are trying to justify "what is." Genesis' P myth preserves a very locative universe--us on ground--Big Daddy up there. What is around us? Water.

Contrary to fundamentalist mindset--given the variations of myths in cultures--this includes the many different creation myths in the OT--people did not require "literal word-for-word" truth in their myths. They wanted/expected stories that supported their view of order.

Most--perhaps all--"creation myths" are "reordering myths" to reestablish order or create a new one. Elohim does this in P. Very little details exist in the J myth--he concentrates on the whole Garden of Eden thang.

Not that Radrook is paying attention; however, I recall a poster who figured out the "math" behind the Flood. Of course, we have at least two versions in the OT. Nevertheless, he calculated the volume of water required for the flood.

Well . . . you have a "water-hammer" that would flatten everything.

I personally love the calculations of the man-hours required to remove the crap produced by the beasties every day.

--J.D.

 

[Beancounter]

Beancounter:

How abouts an invalid premise?

You see, anyone can circumnavigate the globe in numerous ways and demonstrate the absence of "something" "underneath" the Earth--including turtles.

I was assuming that circumnavigation had not taken place at the time of writing and therefore the authors didn't have a clue what was 'underneath" the world.

In this case is it still an invalid premise or one of your latin thingamies?

 

[Doctor X]

BeanCounter:

Hrrmmm . . . ancients actually knew the world was round long before Megellan's crew returned complaining about the fish in Luzan. Sagan's Cosmos gives a great presentation of one of the Greeks who figured out the circumference.

My point [He has one?--Ed.] is that the premise: "the only way to prove it is FROM SPACE!!" is incorrect for many reasons.

You can have the best logic, but if your premise is wrong, your conclusion is wrong. I would go with that.

I suppose I could look up "incorrect premise/principle."

The Latin thingamagings are classical fallacies. These are incorrect reasonings.

These can blend, of course. For example, if I start with "Radrook is a country-western fan" as a premise, one can attack the premise--"I am not! I only lust after Shania Twain!"

However, if I use it as the basis to attack an argument irrelevant to his obsession with Shania, it becomes a fallacy.

--J.D.

 

[Beancounter]

Okey dokey - I see your point. The problem was my lack of historical knowledge.

If the ancient Greeks knew the world was round is it therefore possible that this knowledge could have found its way to the writers of the OT or are the dates not comparable? If they are, this is then a logical explanation (as opposed to god told me) for the use of the word "sphere".

Incidently, if Radrook lusts after Shania Twain, he's alright in my book.

Edited to add: Actually Radrook may be offended by this as one given Exodus 20:17 and the fact that Shania Twain is (was?) married.

 

[Doctor X]

If the ancient Greeks knew the world was round is it therefore possible that this knowledge could have found its way to the writers of the OT or are the dates not comparable?

Probably not.

The earlier dates for P are the time of Hezekiah (715-687 BCE) according to Friedman. Scholars traditionally date P much later--post-exilic. Not to tear into that debate, though I tend to agree with Friedman. Part of it has to do with the obvious borrowing of myth from Sumerian/Assyrian/Bablyonian cultures--Gilgamesh. However, these myths were fairly popular--people moved about/talked/did lunch.

So . . . I do not think this would influence the mythmakers--and I do not think the mythmakers cared about exact history.

Though you ask an interesting question--"when did cultures figure out the world is round?" I will have to look into that.

If they are, this is then a logical explanation (as opposed to god told me) for the use of the word "sphere".

I do not buy the translation of "circle of the Earth" as "sphere," nor do translators.

Incidently, if Radrook lusts after Shania Twain, he's alright in my book.

I remain an optimist.

--J.D.

 

[Doctor X]

Actually Radrook may be offended by this as one given Exodus 20:17 and the fact that Shania Twain is (was?) married.

Well if he is not offended by the whole mass-slaughter of children, methinks he can get around this one!

It should be worth it to get around her [Right! Stop that!--Ed.]

--J.D.

 

[MRC_Hans]

About the six days, the word used in Genesis is not restricted to a 24 hour day. That's why Adam died in the same day as God said he would but yet lived more than 900 earth years.

Terribly sorry, but that does not work. You see, life on Earth is organized in complex ecosystems, with food-chains, symbiosis, even climate regulation. You can't create som of the world, then wait for a prolonged period before doing the rest. Either you do it quick before all these interdependent creatures starve, or it evolves slowly over billions of years. There is no logical in-between.

The fact that the world is a sphere is not a recent concept.
It has had been around for hundreds of years prior to Columbus.

Make that thousands. Sea-faring people have probably known it way back, since it is very evident at sea that the Earth is round.

Hans

 

[Radrook]

Dear Doc

What I was looking for was:

The fact that the earth does "rest on nothing" and that this could only be proved from space, does not prove that the people who made the statement "the earth rests on nothing" had actually been to space (or god told them it was so). They could merely have made a supposition.

Maybe there isn't a phrase for this fallacy?

The answer was given in response to the accusation that the Bible is the cause of the flat earth idea that many continued to have even after it was well known by the knowledgeable that the earth is a sphere.

A supposition based on what observable evidence?

 

[Radrook]

I was assuming that circumnavigation had not taken place at the time of writing and therefore the authors didn't have a clue what was 'underneath" the world.

In this case is it still an invalid premise or one of your latin thingamies?

It would be an invalid premise if indeed I had used an invalid premise.

If I had written for example:

"The only way to know that it could be known that the earth is round is for God to tell us."

But that was not my premise nor trhe main thrust of my argument.
My argument was that the Bible is not the source nor the promoter of the flat earth idea as the other poster seemed to be saying.

IAlso, it was not the earth's roundness that I referred to when I mentioned how could the Hebrews know.

It was its being placed upon nothing since the only way to see such a thing is from space.

 

[Doctor X]

The P myth presents a flat Earth.

Then you have that whole "four corners. . . ."

--J.D.

 

[Doctor X]

Incidentally, there are "serious" flat-earthers out there and some cite the Bible.

There are also those who believe the world is hollow and we live on the inside. The proponent of that theory about 100 odd years ago--Cyrus Teague--had a better source than the Bible--an angle told him! He was also told to change his name to "Koresh."

The P story--like most creation stories--depict a flat-earth with a hierarchy suggestive of what a monarchy would want--according to some scholars: US up here, youse peasants down der.

Did the author(s) of the P story "believe" it?

--J.D.

 

[Beancounter]

For thousands of years people believed the earth was flat and there were dragons and unicorns. Belief in a situation does not make that situation fact.

My argument was that the Bible is not the source nor the promoter of the flat earth idea as the other poster seemed to be saying.

I was not implying that the bible was the source of the flat earth myth but rather that a long held belief doesn't become true just because it is believed for a long time. This was in response to the following:

[

Additionally, for thousands of years neither the Jews, nor Christians, nor Moslems considered these events myths.

However see Dr X's post above - I can't comment.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Dr. X,

Enjoying your commentary as always..


Though Radrook continues to ignore you ( with any direct response,--- obviously unequipped to do so ....), they are providing you with many opportunities to justify our being here..



Oh, and regards the original question..

"... Is abortion always a sin?


Always.. If one believes it to be so..

 

[Radrook]

Jeepers, Radrook, now we are arguing semantics.

"Like a tent to live in" - I reiterate, tents do not expand. If the bible meant an expanding universe/firmament/whatever why wasn't it clearer? Things growing was a concept they were familiar with.

If semantics become relevant it is because words are being misunderstood and misapplied. There is another scripture that compares it to the heavens being stretched out like a gauze. This was not a statement limited to Isaiah.

I can't argue with the meaning of the word in the bible as I am not a scholar in these things Others may be able to comment. However, if god views time differently from humans, given that the bible was written down by humans for humans, surely the authors would have explained the situation in words that you and I would understand literally. Why use phrases that might mean one thing or another - particularly when referring to days/millenia? Again this smacks of interpreting the bible to fit the facts that we know now whereas previous translations were done to fit the facts they knew then.

The Bible does explain it but you immediately use that very explanation to throw suspicion on the Bible. In other words the Bible is damned if it doesn't and damned if it does from where you stand.

Again my biblical knowledge lets me down here but what preparatory period would that be? (I don't recall that one being taught in RE) And did this period appear when the big bang theory was promulgated? See above re. interpretation.

This period has been mentioned in Genesis for thousands of years.
Are you now saying that as soon as the Big Bang theory was put forth people began adding verses to Genesis? Or are you saying that Bible scholars should never view the Bible as being in harmony with scientific theories because if it is then it means that you will immediately accuse them of tampering with it?

Perhaps I should join in the party and say that when the evolutionists had sea creatures followed by land creatures just like Genesis tells us the Evolutionists were happily copying that order from the Genesis?

Or that when geneticists found that interbreeding of different animal kinds is impossible they got their inspiration from Genesis that tells us that animals multiply according to their kinds? Or even that maybe that the Greeks and other ancient scientists got their idea of a round earth from the Bible? Or that the Big bang idea with the stretching of the universe was borrowed from the book of Isaiah? Or that the concept of germs was inspired by the cleanliness stipulations of Levitucus with its quarantine requirements when infectious decease was involved? Or that te water cycle idea was gotten from the first chapter of Ecclesiastes which mentions it?



Btw
What is RE?

About the Genesis prep days you ask about,
The preparatory periods are periods translated as days.
The period which can encompass the Big Bang and billions of our earth years is before the first prep day.

Before that first day the earth is described as being covered by water [again how did the writer know] and as being dark and void.

BTW
That darkness could have been due to the still present original nebula from which the earth was formed blocking out the much of the sun's light.

As to the water, geologists admit that earth was covered by water before dry land appeared. Maybe the Genesis writer was a geologist? Or maybe as soon as Christians and Hebrew scholars they found out about all this the Bible fanatics immediately began rewriting the Bible to fit in with the recent wrinkles.

Of course such an idea is ludicrous but it does have the saving grace of assuaging the fears of those who might begin to feel a bit twad uneasy with so many biblical scientific harmonious coincidences.

Again I cannot dispute that circle may equal sphere in Hebrew but again I question the clarity of the text. If god told us that the world was round why did this not become accepted until scientist/historian to insert appropriate date

I fail to see how inserting an appropriate date makes the concept acceptable. An Egyptian scientist had speculated that the earth is round and even calculated it circumference.

So there were certain observations on earth that indicated to the ancients that the earth is round. For example, the earth's curved shadow could be observed on the moon. The ships in the distance would present their masts first before presenting their hulls.

I've had a quick look at the Luke verses and it is clear to me that it is dealing with a period of a day "in that day" not a point in time, consequently it is quite possible that "in the day" the son of man is revealed some are sleeping and some are working (at different times of course).

That's OK by me.

Indeed it could only be proven from space, but it can be speculated from right where I am sitting. The answer doesn't prove the answer (or something - I am sure there is a Latin phrase for that but I will have to leave that to Doctor X) Incidentally, this is the same Isiah that stated that the moon gave off its own light (13:10 and 30:26).

BTW, as I have mentioned elsewhere, this is all a trifle academic because if the bible was not written by god, these arguments are baseless (but they are interesting

Not to worry.
No one will suspect that you are giving credence to the Bible since it is more than obvious by your posts that you are not.
But it pays to post a reminder now and then just to make sure.

The Bible doesn't deny that it was written by men.
If it did, then it would not tell you who were the men that wrote it.
The Bible claims inspiration by God.
There is a fine distinction there.


Isaiah 13
10 The stars of heaven and their constellations
will not show their light.
The rising sun will be darkened
and the moon will not give its light.

Do you require everyone who speaks of moonlight to imediately qualify his statement by saying that he meant reflected light or do you reserve that requirenent for Bible writers?

Actually, Isaiah makes the moonligght contingent on the sun since he tells us that as soon as the sun goes out the moon follows suite.

 

[bluess]

If a mother will die giving birth if she carries the child to full term and she has no recourse to hospital incubation facilities, is aborton still a sin?

Who said abortion was a sin to begin with?

And why is the entire discussion being couched in terms of the Xian bible? Do Buddhists, Hindus, Shintoists or Muslims consider abortion a sin? How about agnostics or Gaea worshippers?

If you are Xian and asking this question, perhaps it needs to be directed to folks within your particular brand of Xianity. Ditto if you are of any other particular religious affiliation.

If you aren't affiliated, please provide your definition of sin.

Edited for spelling.

 

[Radrook]

Re: Re: Is abortion always a sin?

Who said abortion was a sin to begin with?

And why is the entire discussion being couched in terms of the Xian bible? Do Buddhists, Hindus, Shintoists or Muslims consider abortion a sin? How about agnostics or Gaea worshippers?

If you are Xian and asking this question, perhaps it needs to be directed to folks within your particular brand of Xianity. Ditto if you are of any other particular religious affiliation.

If you aren't affiliated, please provide your definition of sin.

Edited for spelling.

I would if I could but I can't so I won't.

Please understand that you baffle me when you claim not to notice that there are Christian who oppose abortion because they consider it a sin. It makes me wonder just where you have been all this time. After all, it's been all over the news for the better part of the previous century. It';s been debated and redebated and has even been an electotral issue.