From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Study of Numbers 5 in relation to abortion discussion
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
	<12961@inews.intel.com> <1992Aug13.002134.16131@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:01:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.002134.16131@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>"distend: To swell out or expand from or as if from internal pressure."
>[American Heritage, ISBN: 0395-32944-2]

Please, the dictionary is a good place to start, but don't limit your
studies to it. Think about how the word DIStend is different from the word
EXtend. If you must, start with what you find in the dictionary, but don't
stop there. English is much richer that what you will find in any dictionary.

>BTW, just a warning: The tactic of generating another dictionary
>entry with a different entry for "distend" won't work. You'll have
>to go back to the original text to make your case, because all
>you'll be able to show with another dictionary entry is that
>the text is ambiguous, which only serves to undermine your conclusion.

Look, of course the text is ambiguous, any good text is. It's purpose is for
you to study it. Learn from dogma, but don't be dogmatic.

>Ratshit. You gave me opinions about the text. That's argument from authority.
>You give me references to dictionary entries about the relevant Hebrew
>words and then we'll be talking evidence.

You're putting far too much weight in the dictionary. I assure you that the
Hebrew scriptures were not translated to English with a dictionary. I gave
you what many consider to be the best English translation, it is your job
to interpret the words and please, do not limit yourself to a dictionary. That
is insulting to any good text. Please study the other "good" English 
translations as provided in a previous post.

>Then why did you accuse me of "ignoring the evidence," Mr. Harvey?

Fair enough, that probably was a bit harsh. Since you have not explained how
you interpret the text, I assumed you were ignoring my interpretation. My
interpretation is some of the evidence available to you. I'm using evidence
as soft evidence here, not something that is black and white. Of course, if
you take your mind out of the dictionary, you realize that all evidence is
subject to interpretation, not even video tape is proof. Evidence is mearly
evidence, it is up to the jury to decide.

>Well, actually, you accused me of "ignoring the evidence" which is close
>enough for my taste.

I may have falsely accused you of ignoring the evidence, but I see no evidence
in your posts that you have given it much consideration.

>But then you asserted that you were right, which is not fine.

I never said I was right.

>When you do that, you incur an obligation to back up your opinion.
>I've been waiting for you to do that ever since this thread began.
>You have the burden of proof. Meet it or admit you can't.

I have no burden of proof. I have mearly analyzed the words of Numbers5 and
have explained why I see abortion. It seems to me that in the context of the
times of Numbers, if a man suspected his wife of cheating, he could have her
stoned without proof. But, if she was also pregnant, we have a moral dilema.
The husband does not know if his wife is carrying his seed or the seed of
another man, so stoning is not a very good solution to the problem. And so
we have Numbers5. This passage does not say that the wife is pregnant, but
it does not exclude pregnant women, so any reasonable person should assume
that in some cases of application of this law, the wife may be pregnant. This
law provides a way out of the dilema for the man. For a fee, the priest will
force the wife to drink the bitter water and if she has been unfaithful, her
belly will distend (as opposed to extend) and her thighs will sag (as opposed to
build-up) and she will not retain seed and she will be a curse among her
people. The husband is free of all guilt in either case. The wife is guilty
until proven innocent. 

Now please, put down the dictionary, and explain to me why you do not see
an abortion here. If you do not see abortion, do you see a forced miscarriage
instead, as one of the "good" translations of Numbers5 says? Please explain
how you interpret this passage.