> [snip]
> > Also check out certain "problem passages" of the Bible for pro-life activists, such as Exodus 21:22-25, or Numbers 5:11-31.
> [snip]
>
> I only have one translation available to me at the moment (my King James--my NIV is in the car and I have no idea where my NRSV is) but in that translation, I don't see how either of the passages you have mentioned are problem passages for pro-life activisits. The first passage appears to me to be an argument for the pro-life stance and the second appears to relate to adultery but not pregnancy. Perhaps it is just the translation I have, but in any case, would you (or someone like Nyperold who may be familiar with the Hebrew in these verses and the original meaning of the words used) be willing to expound on the meaning of these passages and how they might serve as problem passages to the pro-life movement? Thanks.
>

I'm going to answer here, hoping that someone will prepare a better and more thorough explanation. Don't worry about being redundant because this post is more about my confusion rather than my greater attempt to shed light. :-(

I have come across these passages in Bible study, and in passing I thought they were odd; but never saw the difficulties before in this light.


/ / / / / Exodus 21:22-24. If men struggle with each other, and strike a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her [i.e. a miscarriage results], and yet no mischief follows: he shall surely be fined, according as the woman's husband may impose upon him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if any mischief [further injury] follow, then you shall appoint as penalty life for life,


Okay, I can see how Exodus 21:22 might pose a big problem in that a deliberate miscarriage is defined by God as "no damage"(!), one that is not even worth the life-for-a-life penalty of retribution. Is that about right?

The other chapter in Numbers 5 is a little harder for me to understand in terms of its consequences. Would the correct interpretation imply that not only the possibly-adulterous woman AND her child in her womb are being judged and cursed, *regardless* of whether she was faithful or not? Moreover, doesn't the passage say that God is commanding the people to utterly revile and reject the woman AND the unborn child if it turns out she *is* unfaithful and she "bears [gives birth to?] the consequence of her sin." It would seem, then, that the life of an illegitimate fetus is not valued as that of an "innocent," and God himself will cause her to abort? She then becomes barren thereafter.

Wolf "sigh" spirit