From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Study of Numbers 5 in relation to abortion discussion
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:46:34 GMT

In article <12890@inews.intel.com> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.023929.27809@cs.yale.edu> 
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
><I received Mr. Harvey's mailed version of this before it was
><posted. I replied in email. Seeing as I don't still have a copy,
><unless Mr. Harvey is dying to do this on the net, I think I'll
><just leave it in email.
><Mr. Harvey: If you feel the need to do this in a public forum, please
><post a copy to the relevant newsgroups. (I think t.a should suffice.)
>
>I recieved your email, read it and then aborted it. ::B^} If I understand your
>position correctly, you say that since abortion is not directly mentioned
>in the KJV or JPS English translations, then Numbers5 has no relevance to
>abortion.
Perhaps you should refrain from trying to summarize my position.
I said no such thing. All I did was challenge your assertion that
abortion is what is being discussed here. I don't think you've shown
it at all conclusively. 

> That is certainly a valid position. I believe you, or perhaps
>someone else, mentioned that the belly swell and thighs rot may be Yahweh's
>idea of a cruel joke, such that if the wife has been unfaithful but is not
>pregnant, then the bitter water will give her the appearance of pregnancy,
>but she will not retain seed.
I did.

> JPS says belly distend and thighs sag which
>is exactly what would happen in the case of abortion.
You keep saying that. Do you have a medical reference?

>thighs would sag as opposed to strenghthen and she would not retain seed. I
>see that as an abortion, as have many other Bible scholars much more 
>knowledgable than me.
Argument from authority?

> If you recall the excellent listing of various
>English translations, you will see that many others also saw abortion here.
Do not confuse textual notes with translations. The only TRANSLATION
of the text that I saw which said anything like abortion was NRSV.

>Do I misrepresent you here? You refuse to see abortion and you have that right
>to ignore the evidence before you.
You're starting to sound like more of a fundamentalist every day.

"refuse to see abortion" "ignore the evidence before you."?????

So if I don't believe in Ted Holden's Cosmic Billiard Balls scenario,
I'm "refusing to see Worlds In Collosion" and "ignoring the evidence
before me"???? Bullshit. I looked at your argument, considered what
I knew about the texts, and came away unconvinced that abortion was
what was being discussed. I did not "ignore the evidence." Rather
I examined it and decided it was insufficient to draw the kind
of strong conclusion you are attempting to draw.

Perhaps it's time you learned the difference between closed-mindedness
and simple skepticism, Mr. Harvey.
-Ekr

  







-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion