From: n5ppm264 (Charlie Board)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The sin of shaving? (was Homosexuals anywhere...)
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:40:25 GMT
Organization: bnr

In article <64620@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Jul29.173334.1518@brtph560.bnr.ca< n5ppm264 (Charlie Board) writes:
> <In article <64598@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
> <> 
> <> In article <1992Jul29.134833.28005@brtph560.bnr.ca> n5ppm264 (Charlie Board) writes:
> <> >
> <> >[Examples of laws Christians conveniently ignore deleted]
> <> >And let's not forget Numbers 5:12-31, where god not only approves of but
> <> >COMMANDS that abortions be performed on women suspected of adultery. This
> <> >is the ONLY place the Bible directly addresses the subject of abortion...
> <> >have you ever heard a fundie anti-choice preacher address it?
> <> 
> <> COULD YOU QUOTE some of these specific verses, for I read them and
> <> do not see at all what you are talking about.
> <> 
> <> The offerings mentioned are for the jealousy (founded or unfounded) that
> <> the husband had about his wife, who may or may not have committed adultery.
> <> 
> <> The concluding verse Numbers 5:31 says that "Then shall the man be free
> <> from iniquity and the woman shall bear her guilt."   The point is that
> <> the offerings were made for the man's actions/thoughts of jealousy and
> <> the curse was for the woman's act of adultery, but if she had not
> <> committed adultery, then she would not have to bear any guilt and if
> <> she had no guilt, then she bore none.
> <> 
> <OK. In my (NIV) Bible this whole section is given the heading "Test For An 
> <"Unfaithful Wife".  
> 
> I don't have my NIV handy, but I use it most of the time - so no problem
> there - in fact I'm glad you have an NIV.
> 
> <Verse 11 states that this a commandment of God.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> <Verses 12-25 basically say that if a man suspects his wife of sleeping with 
> <another man he is to bring her (along with an offering to cover his
> <jealousy) before the priest. The priest will concoct a
> <potion, "the water that brings a curse", and utter certain spells (I'd rather
> <use a less perjorative word but cant think of one) over the potion. We pick
> <up the action in the latter half of verse 26
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> <v26  ....after that, he is to have the woman drink the water.
> <v27  If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then 
> <     when she is made to DRINK THE WATER THAT BRINGS A CURSE, it will go into
> <     her and cause bitter suffering; SHE WILL HAVE BARRENNESS AND A 
> <     MISCARRYING WOMB, and she will become accursed among her people.
> 
> NOTE: this is a curse that is fulfilled on one who is guilty, not on one
> who is not guilty.  This is a punishment to one who sins - death was
> also a punishment for sin.  The purpose of the passage is two fold, I
> believe, one is to cover the debt for the man sinning by being jealous and
> the second is the public justification of the women, if she was not guilty.
> 
> Miscarrying is the means of public humiliation for the woman's guilt.
> Today guilt or worry or whatever emotion you want to name can cause and
> is often reconginzed as the cause of physical problems.  Here the problem
> and the resultant guilt was brought to a head and should be seen as a
> law of cause and effect, for if she was not guilty there was no problem.
> The NT statement on this is 'you reap what you sow'.

I agree it's cause and effect but didn't you spot where the word "cause" is
in the verse? The "water" CAUSES the abortion. The abortion only occurs
when she's guilty, but it's clear the guilt doesn't cause the abortion (if
so, there would be no need for the water:))
> 
> What is interesting is that here miscarrying (or abortion) was seen as
> a punishment and even invading armies would cut open pregant women as
> they brought havok and pillaged the subdued area.  Today what was
> called punishment is sought out as a right.

I don't see anything in the verse to justify that abortion is to be seen as
a punishment...my reading is that she is "accursed among her people"
because she has been shown to be an adultress. However, let's suppose that it
is a punishment for adultery. Then how can you deny an abortion to any woman
who admits to adultery nowadays?
> 
> <v28  If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity,
> <     she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
> <
> <v30  .....The priest is to have her stand before the LORD and is to apply
> <     this entire law to her.
> <
> <[Capital emhasis is mine]
> <
> <So what do we have. The woman ingests "water that brings a curse" [remember
> <that the "curse of woman" is menstruation and a miscarraige is similiar]. If
> <guilty she has a(n) (induced) miscarraige. Now what is an induced miscarraige?
> <Why, an abortion of course!  The "water" is clearly an abortificient...sort
> <of a primitive version of RU-486.  
> 
> No. Cause and effect.

I've already addressed this..the verse clearly states that the "water" CAUSED
(the word's even in the verse) the miscarraige...therefore it's an 
abortificient. Again, if guilt was the cause then the water would not be
necessary..but the whole point of the commandment is to give a the 
procedure necessary to dtermine guilt..hence the water must be necessary.

> 
> <Note that I DID not have to stretch anything to reach the conclusion that
> <this is about abortion - as far as I can see it is the most natural and 
> <literal sense of the text.  (BTW, I do not have exact references, but have
> <been told that the crucial Hebrew word here - the one translated miscarraige
> <- is routinely translated as miscarraige in the rest of the OT)
> 
> Note, in verse 28 above, there is a slight point I'd like to bring out.
> It says 'she ... will be able to have children' - the KJV says 'she will
> conceive', as if the former did not imply conception.  The curse here is 
> the lack of conception and so the lack of children.  Likewise, I need to
> check a reference for the word meaning and I'd like to check the NASB
> translation.

I'd appreciate references myself - as I said I've been told that the Hebrew
word is routinely translated miscarraige in the rest of the OT, but I don't
have the resources to verify that myself. Please post references if you find
them. You've confused me here. A couple of paragraphs back you said that 
the curse [punishment] was the abortion, now you're saying that the curse
is the barrenness. I know botched surgical abortions can result in sterility,
I don't know if any of the "natural" abortificients had this side effect. 
However, again the verse states that the water causes tha abortion and the
barrenness
> 
> <A side-issue in this passage is the gross inequity of this whole procedure.
> <If the man has a SUSPICION (note no evidence required) the wife MUST undergo
> <a test which could cause her great suffering and barrenness. Yet more
> <evidence that this god fellow is a pretty malignant being.
> 
> On the contrary, a major point of the passage was the public display 
> of the women's innocence.  What's the method today to redeem the woman's
> honor?  At least they had one.

I sure hope you're joking here...God endorses the idea that you must PROVE
innocence from any accusation thrown at you? Too bad he didn't give 
instructions on what was to be done to the innocent woman who did the only
honorable thing and refused to drink the water.

Ironic,isn't it? Back then God commanded that abortions take place and the
woman had no choice in the matter..today the right would decree that no 
abortions take place, still no choice for the woman. Sounds to me like
she's getting (bad pun alert) shafted.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Richard Pitts

Equally Sincerely,
Charles Board
email: cnc405@bnr.ca

> 
> -- 
> rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
> Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
>                         -|-  |  -|-
>                          |   |   |
> 
*************************************************************************
The views above, while probably not uniquely mine, have no known
relationship to those of my employer and do not represent said employer.
**************************************************************************
>