From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The sin of shaving? (was Homosexuals anywhere...)
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:33:52 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Jul30.214025.19510@brtph560.bnr.ca> n5ppm264 (Charlie Board) writes:
<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:))

The water WITHOUT GUILT did not cause any problem, did it?  So isn't it
a combination and not just 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?

Women then, as often seen by society now, were seen to be unliked by God, 
when they they did not have any children - check out Jacob's wives, Rachel
and Leah - Genesis 29-30, specifically, 30:1-2.

<> <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.

Or to give a precdure to let the guilt come to the surface - do you
think the water (with the dust, I believe) actually did something to
the women?  It didn't without her guilt.

<> <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

The NASB as mentioned in another post did not use the word miscarrying.
Nor did the Strong's Concordance.

Anyone else, got some info.
 
<> <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.

No - God provided a way for one's innocence to be publically displayed.
Today how is this done?  Is it unheard of for a man or a woman to 
falsely accuse their spouse of unfaithfulness????????

<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.

Again, your arguement is based on the interpretation that this is an
ABORTION and not the LACK of CONCEPTION.
 
Sincerely,
Richard Pitts

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

ps. I just noticed your email address - it is not the same as the header.
If I'd noticed it earlier, I'd have tried it.


-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:12578 talk.philosophy.misc:1448