Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dubya ain't the only one getting his instructions fro...

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 10/25/06 5:11:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you read the explanation above the word in Hebrew is not miscarriage but > rather premature birth. If there is no further damage a fine is paid. However > if there is damage up to the ultimate damage , death, then the law of > retaliation applies. > Not according to the Talmud, which was finally written down about 2 thousand years ago based on the legal practices of the Jews during the time of Jesus. There are at least two problems with this interpretation. First, the normal Hebrew word for miscarry is not used in this passage (cf. Gen. 31:38; Exod. 23:26; Job 2:10; Hos. 9:14). Most commentators now believe that the action described in verse 22 is a premature birth not an accidental miscarriage. Second, even if the verses do describe a miscarriage, the passage cannot be used to justify abortion. The injury was accidental, not intentional (as abortion would be). Also, the action was a criminal offense and punishable by law. __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___