What happened to LDS apologist Doug Marshall?

Post by **_beastie** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:25 pm

OMG!

Mind boggling!!

BC, this verse makes ZERO sense with your interpretation:

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.

According to you, the death of the fetus means the life should be taken - and yet the verse clearly states the offender will pay a fine/!!!!!

The loss of the woman's life is the only possible further "mischief" that makes any sense, given the eye for an eye Old Testament credo.

Post by **_Tarski** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:08 am

beastie wrote:OMG!

Mind boggling!!

BC, this verse makes ZERO sense with your interpretation:

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.

According to you, the death of the fetus means the life should be taken - and yet the verse clearly states the offender will pay a fine/!!!!!

The loss of the woman's life is the only possible further "mischief" that makes any sense, given the eye for an eye Old Testament credo.

Does it even matter what "further mischief" means? Unless it is anything and everything there is therefore at least one common case where the abortion has occurred and the penalty is merely a fine. Am I missing something?

Post by **_beastie** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:29 am

Does it even matter what "further mischief" means? Unless it is anything and everything there is therefore at least one common case where the abortion has occurred and the penalty is merely a fine. Am I missing something?

No, you're not missing anything. I'm beginning to think BC is missing the english language.

Post by **_bcspace** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:40 am

According to you, the death of the fetus means the life should be taken - and yet the verse clearly states the offender will pay a fine/!!!!!

Unless there is additional harm. But where is it mentioned that this harm results in the death of the woman? Hence, life for life can only mean it's because of the fetus.

The loss of the woman's life is the only possible further "mischief" that makes any sense, given the eye for an eye Old Testament credo.

Then why stop at harm?

No, you're not missing anything. I'm beginning to think BC is missing the english language.

You're just gnashing your teeth because yet another countermo chestnut has been debunked.

Post by **_Chap** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:26 am

Instead of wasting your time trying to talk to bcspace, why not read the words of a true master of logic and textual interpretation

http://www.literature.org/authors/carro ... er-06.html

.... There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

`Would you tell me, please,' said Alice `what that means?`

`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'

`Oh!' said Alice. ...

If you leave bcspace alone on top of his wall he will do no harm to anybody, since absolutely nobody agrees with a word he says (anybody out there to contradict me?).

Post by **_beastie** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:29 am

Unless there is additional harm. But where is it mentioned that this harm results in the death of the woman? Hence, life for life can only mean it's because of the fetus

There are no words that can adequately express my reaction to the fact that you are seemingly incapable of understanding simple English.

The fetus is already dead. The fetus was already dead when the penalty of the fine was affixed.

The only person that can be involved in additional harm is the woman.

The life for life is only affixed if further harm takes place.

If you leave bcspace alone on top of his wall he will do no harm to anybody, since absolutely nobody agrees with a word he says (anybody out there to contradict me?).

Ain't that the truth.

Post by **_bcspace** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:59 pm

There are no words that can adequately express my reaction to the fact that you are seemingly incapable of understanding simple English.

Well, you could, in English or Hebrew, show where the mother has died or must die. It's just simple intellectual honesty that compels you to do so if you want your chestnut proven right.

Post by **_beastie** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:01 pm

Well, you could, in English or Hebrew, show where the mother has died or must die. It's just simple intellectual honesty that compels you to do so if you want your chestnut proven right.

The fetus is dead. Fine = penalty.

More mischief occurs = penalty - life for life

Who is the "more mischief" happening to, if not the mother?

Post by **_cksalmon** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:29 pm

beastie wrote:
Well, you could, in English or Hebrew, show where the mother has died or must die. It's just simple intellectual honesty that compels you to do so if you want your chestnut proven right.

The fetus is dead. Fine = penalty.

More mischief occurs = penalty - life for life

Who is the "more mischief" happening to, if not the mother?

Much as I'd like to disagree with bcspace, beastie, I'm not sure that your summary captures what is in view in Ex. 21.22-23. Honestly, I don't know which interpretation is warranted, but bcspace's is not (I don't think) out in left field.

At any rate, this peculiar passage is the subject of much debate. To get something of a flavor of the various understandings, I'd recommend checking out this brief discussion in James Davis's Lex Talionis in Early Judaism and the Exhortation of Jesus in Matthew 5.38

Chris

Post by **_bcspace** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:35 pm

The fetus is dead. Fine = penalty.

More mischief occurs = penalty - life for life

Who is the "more mischief" happening to, if not the mother?

Life for life. Did the mother die? If so, where does it say that? And why just mischief (harm, evil) instead of death? Without the mother's death it life for a fetus. Bottom line: You've had a gospel hobby and now it's time to get serious, put away your toys, and get down to some real intellectual honesty.

At any rate, this peculiar passage is the subject of much debate. To get something of a flavor of the various understandings, I'd recommend checking out this brief discussion in James Davis's Lex Talionis in Early Judaism and the Exhortation of Jesus in Matthew 5.38

An excellent find cks. Page 39 and the top half of page 40. Apparently I came to the same conclusion as Daube.