From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Study of Numbers 5 in relation to abortion discussion
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:35:30 GMT

In article <Bsxoq3.8pB@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>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]
>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.
I did, Mr. Harvey. And I came to the conclusion that the evidence
is insufficient to conclude that an abortion is involved.

Mr. Harvey: The translators were attemptin to render a text into
English. Now, your argument that an abortion is involved hinges
upon a specific reading of the TRANSLATION, that describes the
medical phenomenon allegedly involved. If you can't even get
an unambiguous picture out of the translation, and have it
support your story--which I have just shown you can't, you
certainly have no basis for claiming that the passage means
what you say it does.

>>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.
Please stop posturing, Mr. Harvey. This is not a court of law. Truth
is not decided by majority rule.

>>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.
On the contrary, Mr. Harvey. I gave it much consideration, and
concluded it was ambigious at best.

>>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.
Hmmm....I don't remember things this way at all. Do you have a citation?

> 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.
This rests upon the questionable assertion above.

> 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.
Perhaps. However, have you considered the possibility that this is merely
an ignored special case?

>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.
No, Mr. Harvey. Once again you misunderstand the process of
proving an assertion.
YOU have made an assertion, YOU must back it up. I am under no
obligation to help you. Your assertion: This passage involves
an abortion.
Your proof has not been forthcoming.

As I have made quite clear several times, though you seem
to refuse to see it, I do not HAVE a fixed interpretation of this
passage. I see it as ambiguous. I am NOT, however, convinced that
an abortion is what is occurring here. Since you can only
derive a positive conclusion about the Bible's position on
abortion if you have unambiguous knowledge about what is occurring
in this passage, ambiguity in this passage--of which there is
plenty--prevents this text from being useful in this discussion.

As for your ridiculous extend/distend comparison. Well, it is
generally considered completely inadequate to base your
interpretations of a passage on the specific English words
used by the translators, and yet that is PRECISELY what you
have done here. Perhaps it's time for you to get your hands
on a decent Hebrew text and make sure it really says what
you think it says.

In either case, it is time for you to substantiate your
reading of the passage. Please show in some convincing fashion
that what is going on involves either pregnancy or abortion,
or stop asserting it. MErely asserting it with greater vigor
as you have been doing, does absolutely nothing to prove your case.

-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.