Democrats freaking out about church speech

@fmf said
When you say "All leaders are appointed...", you mean all leaders are ordained by God and placed in government by God?

Daniel 4:17
This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.

@secondson said
Daniel 4:17
This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.

My questions to KellyJay and Philokalia are triggered by Romans 13.1

@fmf said
My questions to KellyJay and Philokalia are triggered by Romans 13.1

Yeah! And I posted from Daniel on the basis of what you said in the post I posted in reply to.

Are you confused?

@philokalia said
You're actually a bit off...

The passage is in Exodus:

[quote]The Hebrew Bible makes only one reference to abortion, and this is by implication. Exodus 21:22-23 states: “And if two men strive together and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, accordingly as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him, and he ...[text shortened]... ed church traditions which account for it, and so there is not a reason to view it as so persuasive.

In the article you cited the author explains that when Exodus 21:22-23 is read simply as written in the original Hebrew, "the passage does not say that a fetus is alive but that the mother is" and that "the words if 'no harm follows' the ’hurt' to the woman refers to the survival of the woman following her miscarriage."

The author further explains that "these passages clearly indicate that the killing of an unborn child is not considered as murder." The author continues by explaining that "the Christian tradition disputing this view goes back to a mistranslation in the Septuagint, the early Greek translation of the Bible that sometimes contains significant errors".

You then cite the NIV which is a paraphrase of the mistranslation that gets one even further from the word of God as originally stated.

Your interpretation of this actually isn't that great.

Interesting that in your mind, your conclusions drawn from a paraphrase of a mistranslation trump conclusions drawn by reading the text simply as written in the original Hebrew.

The article you cited makes caissad4's case for her.

@whodey said
@ThinkOfOne

Well let's look at the verse, shall we?

Exodus 21:22
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.

So we see two men "striving", then a woman accidentally gets harmed with ...[text shortened]... he death results from the premature birth to the woman or child, then it would be an eye for an eye.

Interesting that like Philokalia, you also cite the NIV and largely draw your conclusions from a paraphrase of a mistranslation instead of drawing conclusions by reading the text simply as written in the original Hebrew.

See my response to Philokalia.

@thinkofone said
Interesting that like Philokalia, you also cite the NIV and largely draw your conclusions from a paraphrase of a mistranslation instead of drawing conclusions by reading the text simply as written in the original Hebrew.

See my response to Philokalia.

Interesting, you failed to address my Hebrew translations.

@thinkofone said
Interesting that like Philokalia, you also cite the NIV and largely draw your conclusions from a paraphrase of a mistranslation instead of drawing conclusions by reading the text simply as written in the original Hebrew.

See my response to Philokalia.

Right! Tell us you can read Hebrew now.

@whodey said
Interesting, you failed to address my Hebrew translations.

God used a phrase to denote a miscarriage rather than two words you believe denote miscarriage. In your mind why exactly isn't that permissible?

What makes it even more laughable is that your interpretation of the KJV translation you wrote:
<<So we see two men "striving", then a woman accidentally gets harmed with a subsequent miscarriage. >>

There you've clearly acknowledged that it was a miscarriage.

Once again, see my response to Philokalia. While you're at it, read the article that Philokalia cited.

@secondson said
Right! Tell us you can read Hebrew now.

How exactly does your comment make any sense in light of what I wrote to Philokalia?

@fmf said
When you say "All leaders are appointed...", you mean all leaders are ordained by God and placed in government by God?

Read the words used.

@kellyjay said
Read the words used.

Although you don't necessarily think Trump is "good" or a "Christian" or even a "good Christian", do you believe that the power that he wields is ordained by God and that he was placed there in government by God?

@fmf said
The majority of American Christians voted for Trump. He was their choice. He is now the president.

It's like you don't even want to bother looking like the original point you made is relevant.

Zero effort here, FMF.

You agree with me, then, and accept my analysis of the situation, that he was voted for as the conservative candidate, and not as a paradigm of Christian morality or anything, right?

@fmf said
Is this a 'debating point'?

Yes, it is. I would contend that atheist Britons are generally less informed in the American Christian conservative electorate.

And you're the proof.

@fmf said
Although you don't necessarily think Trump is "good" or a "Christian" or even a "good Christian", do you believe that the power that he wields is ordained by God and that he was placed there in government by God?

Yes.

Just as how all things are interconnected, sure.

I believe in occasionalism.

@thinkofone said
In the article you cited the author explains that when Exodus 21:22-23 is read simply as written in the original Hebrew, "the passage does not say that a fetus is alive but that the mother is" and that "the words if 'no harm follows' the ’hurt' to the woman refers to the survival of the woman following her miscarriage."

The author further explains that "these passages ...[text shortened]... xt simply as written in the original Hebrew.

The article you cited makes caissad4's case for her.

The NIV is a completely new translation. It doesn't paraphrase the KJV.

The HuffPo article,while advancing the wrong perspective, noted that the Catholic and Orthodox have long been noting this difference as they have been using the Greek Septuagint which lines up with our traditional interpretation making the post by Cassiad even more off base.