What Does the Bible Say about Abortion?

[@bobstine3785]

When Roe was decided, the Southern Baptist Conference initially took the position that abortion was an individual decision. Evangelicals turned against abortion when the so called "Moral Majority concluded it was a divisive issue that they could exploit.

[@pebystroll]

Who are the moral majority?

[@zapkvr]

"Roe" was based off the earlier Menhennit ruling in Victoria, Australia in 1969. It's where they got the foetal viability bullshit from in the first place. They didnt just conjur it up out of thin air.

[@zapkvr]

@@pebystroll Jerry Falwell invented the pressure group in the seventies. They claimed Reagan was elected because of their influence. Were you alseep in the eighties?

[@Whiskey.T.Foxtrot]

​@@pebystrollIt was a conservative political movement in America in the late 1970's in America.

[@gloriab357]

@@pebystroll Maybe you've heard of Jerry Falwell, the founder of Liberty University, an extremely conservative Christian college. Jerry Falwell spoke about his perception that there were a lot of quiet conservative Christians who would have a lot of power if they just formed a coalition. So he formed that coalition and called it the Moral Majority in about 1978-79, a faction of the Republican party. Republicans who were eager to get elected tried to align with the Moral Majority so they were talked about quite a bit during the 1980s and 1990s by Republicans. I think this marked the place where Republicans veered off from their former respectable stance as a party interested in smaller federal government, strong military, and favor of business owners (as opposed to union workers). Falwell finally died and few people refer to the Moral Majority anymore. After all, look at Trump and his flaunting of immorality -- lying, cheating, breaking laws, etc. It would be fairly ridiculous for Republicans who support Trump to refer to the Moral Majority. So remnants of this movement remain but the term Moral Majority is seldom used anymore.

[@SirSpenace]

I recently had the pleasure of traveling to Barbados and while I was there I went to a botanical walk at a place called Andromeda Gardens. The guide there taught us about the Pride of Barbados (Caesalpinia pulcherrima), their national flower. Enslaved women used to use its seeds as a way to induce abortion so their children wouldn't be born into the system. It wasn't just a way to take back their bodily autonomy, they were making sure no one could profit off their kids too. They were heroes and they're still honored to this day for their sacrifice 🇧🇧

[@zapkvr]

Thank you for sharing this

[@mtauren1]

Good that nobody needs to be that kind of a hero anymore, at least in the West.

[@SirSpenace]

@@mtauren1 I disagree, any woman who has been or is incarcerated in a state with limited access to abortion is still living this horror out. Imagine being clean for years only for contraception to fail and then be forced to give a child up for adoption because you have a record and can't find a job to provide. Imagine being forced to carry a child you desperately want to term, only to be told your past makes you incapable of parenting (despite being capable enough to do it for the nine months you carry them). That's what women face today in the United States.

[@SirSpenace]

@@zapkvr Thank you for reading it!

[@matthewwood2638]

In the American South cotton root was widely used for this purpose.

[@williamfinucane]

Congratulations on 2 years. Idk how long I've been here, but I've really enjoyed learning.

[@sdrtcacgnrjrc]

5:58 gets going 13:45 part two 34:33 part three

[@lukemaas6747]

If God gave the law for priests to give 'the water of bitterness' to a pregnant woman, with the intention being, that an abortion would occur if that woman had a different partner than her husband, then God is saying that not only is abortion permissible, but it is called for in these dubious situations.

[@williamcody3415]

100% END OF DISCUSSION!!! though a fake god.... One of the bible GODs gave them a ritual abortion and a reason for it. If your owner / husband did not knock you up to carry on his line, then say a chant and drink the curse drugs and flush it out. I looked for years also and one day came across this. when ever challenged that the bible god is against killing kids is easy, but aborting.... is right there. if not by your husband..... its outta there

[@bubbag8895]

Don't put words in God's mouth

[@VeridicusMaximus]

@@bubbag8895 He did not - don't assume someone is. Do you understand the word IF?

[@TheLucanicLord]

tHe BarBel iS MetERfOrecUL! Except the parts I agree with.

[@Watchingtheparadegoby]

Actually, pregnancy is not the issue in Numbers 5 but Jealousy. The curse would go farther than just aborting a fetus if present, it could cause the woman to perish by her belly swelling and thigh rotting. That being said, this is not the only time that God was indifferent to a fetus. He actually put out order of death on the new born son of Bat Sheba before she gave birth!

[@jimmcculloch5825]

We should also remember that the Constitution says that religion should not be the sole basis for a law.

[@Dizzinator2114]

They use plausible deniability. We know that they will use their religious bias to craft laws, but their arguments tend to leave out their religion and shape it as something else. You can see this because the logic of their arguments waver with the circumstances.

[@Zachary_Setzer]

Which provision says that?

[@yallimsorry5983]

@@Zachary_Setzer “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

[@Zachary_Setzer]

​@yallimsorry5983 The quote I was replying to said religion can't be the basis for a law. I fully agree the Constitution says Congress may not establish a state religion, but that's not the claim here.

[@zapkvr]

@@Zachary_Setzer The same provision exists in the Australian Constitution and it has been interpreted very narrowly. The state props up religion here to an absurd degree funnelling billions to them.

[@ConservativeMirror]

Discussion of Numbers 5 begins at 20:50.

[@Incredabad1337]

Very grateful for your podcasts. Your scholarships are great gifts to the world. Please keep up your great work!

[@DrVictorVasconcelos]

AFAIK people in the ancient near east didn't seem to get that philosophical about individual lives, ever. It'd be completely non-controversial that a fetus's life was 100% under the control of their family. It was not considered their own life to begin with.

[@albertmagician8613]

The foetus was thigh, in other words a part of the woman's body. She is totally entitled to prefer her health over the foetus. Not the GOP way that she should sacrifice her life to bring forth a possible unviable baby.

[@Zachary_Setzer]

​@@albertmagician8613 Can I get a reference to someone advocating that position? I don't think I've seen it.

[@zapkvr]

Correct. As if it was even relevant.

[@signespencer6887]

@@Zachary_Setzer any number of cases in the news recently- where women were refused care until they were actively dying, even when there was no possibility of a live healthy baby as an outcome, sometimes even when the fetal electrical activity/ “heartbeat” had ceased

[@Zachary_Setzer]

@@signespencer6887 The claim I was referring to is that the GOP way is that a woman should sacrifice her life. I was wondering if anyone has actually seen that position advocated. I haven't seen it. I'm pretty sure it's a fabrication, but I'm open to seeing contrary evidence.

[@jessicabosco3009]

Good points. Plus it makes sense as to why abortion is the big issue verses going after men and their issues raping, incest, and male contraception

[@ceilingfan12345]

Last I checked, rape was already illegal and thoroughly prosecuted, male contraception is widely prevalent, and I'm not sure what incest has to do with abortion except for the cases that would already be categorized as rape.

[@nathanaelink]

I feel even the language of being “born again” and the language around becoming a *new person* in Christ all imply that birth is when personhood begins. Im not defending that view, but I’m saying I think the NT seems to suggest that

[@serversurfer6169]

The penalty described in Exodus 21 for causing an _unwanted_ miscarriage gives the impression that intentional abortion wasn't considered noteworthy. Indeed, since the fine was primarily at the father's discretion, he could simply not penalize them at all if he chose. 🤔

[@avishevin3353]

That's my understanding as well. Not only an unintended miscarriage, but by a third party. There's no suggestion in the text that if the woman herself induced the miscarriage that there would be anything done.

[@donsample1002]

Asking if a fetus is alive is asking the wrong question. A petunia is alive, but you won’t find many people who think killing a petunia is murder.

[@Thindorama]

Thank you.

[@happyguy650]

for them human beings are a special creation by God to be treated with higher standards from any living thing on this planet.

[@mcollins630]

Abortion has never been and will never be murder. You can't murder something that emits as many brain waves as a person who's been declared legally dead.

[@jeffburns4219]

You are entirely correct, of course. Not only is a petunia alive, but so is a Covid-19 virus.

[@jeffburns4219]

@@happyguy650 Then what about underutilized human egg cells and human sperm cells? These are also completely alive. Is killing a human sperm cell or allowing one to die through negligence murder?

[@eldorian91]

I thought that, in the ancient world, Zoroastrian Persians believed that freeing a slave was a Good Deed and that doing Good Deeds is at the center of the religion. Meaning there were people in the ancient world who believed slavery was wrong. Cyrus famously freed slaves, including the Jews in Babylon, so they should have been aware of this moral concept from the Persians.

[@rdklkje13]

What makes you think that the Jewish elites deported to Babylon became slaves there?

[@Mac_an_Mheiriceanaigh]

They believed freeing someone was a good deed, but they did not believe slavery was wrong. Slavery was what happened naturally when you ran out of money or when you lost a war, and then a particularly nice king or gentleman could free you if they wanted to be nice. Obviously I don't agree with this.

[@eldorian91]

@@Mac_an_Mheiriceanaigh Believing something is morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory is still a moral concept. The Zoroastrian Persians believed performing Good Deeds was morally obligatory, and that freeing a slave was a Good Deed, among others. I don't think, therefore, it's true to say that no one in the ancient world realized slavery was bad.

[@rdklkje13]

@@eldorian91 Either way, the deported Jewish elite weren’t slaves in Babylon. That’s why many chose to stay there after the forced exile, and went on to form a highly successful Jewish community until Israel made that impossible after 1949. Avi Shlaim has written and spoken excellently about this history.

[@avishevin3353]

@@rdklkje13 If Israel's mere existence made it impossible to tolerate Jews who had never been to Palestine, then those communities were always a hair's breadth from extinction.

[@howardmestas7522]

Lots of UNBORN babies in NOAH'S flood!

[@areuaware6842]

Abrahamism was founded on ritual child sacrifice.

[@bubbag8895]

Irrelevant

[@VeridicusMaximus]

@@bubbag8895 Irrelevant that it's irrelevant - its a FACT -- COPE!

[@macroman52]

I was told once that god must have made everyone sterile for the required number of years so that no children born or unborn were killed by the flood. Why the flood was then even necessary, just wait longer to end the human race, was not explained.

[@serversurfer6169]

Ah, but those fetuses were incorrigibly evil, just like everyone on the planet apart from _one_ family and the chicks that their sons married. 😜

[@magicdog9523]

Ooh, this should be a juicy one. You two are doing a public service!

[@CalebJudah-l3q]

22“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

[@HernanToroA]

Hosea 13:16 (Abortion as punishment) Hosea 9:14 (Miscarriage as punishment) Numbers 5,11-28 (Abortive ritual) Job 3:16, Job 10:18-20 (Miscarriage as positive option)

[@CalebJudah-l3q]

Exodus 21:22,23 22“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

[@HernanToroA]

@@CalebJudah-l3q Even accepting your biased translation, I never mentioned Exodus. Anything against my points?

[@avishevin3353]

@@CalebJudah-l3q What does that passage tell you?

[@HernanToroA]

@@avishevin3353 what do my passages tell you?

[@bitofwizdomb7266]

Who’s responsible for the estimated 20 million spontaneous abortions aka miscarriages, that occur globally every yr ? 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@billyhw5492]

Nobody?

[@bitofwizdomb7266]

@@billyhw5492 great point, Billy!

[@wpatrickw2012]

That is a very low number. Most pregnancies result in a miscarriage even before the woman knows she is pregnant.

[@billyoumans1784]

Really important discussion. Thank you.

[@robbabcock_]

A great and timely episode! Thanks to Bart and Megan.

[@kevinnazario1015]

Numbers 5 is very clear. God himself is commanding and explaining how to perform a MAGIC SPELL that carries a CURSE if the woman was unfaithful and if pregnant to cause a miscarriage or abortion. Is so freaking clear that i cannot believe people still try doing headstands to say is taken out of context.

[@rangerjesse1659]

A Christian once told me that the holy spirit guides modern Christians to interpret the Bible the correct way regardless of how previous Christians interpreted the Bible.

[@juanausensi499]

The 'holy spirit' is everyone's inner voice. That's why it always agree with the 'enlightened' and that's why the 'holy spirit' says different things to different people. Reading the Bible with 'the guidance of the holy spirit' means believing blindly whatever you interpret from the text. It means being convinced by yourself, but imagining you were convinced by a supernatural entity.

[@taylor_brownie]

@@juanausensi499well said.

[@johaquila]

How nice of the holy spirit to have recently started to guide Christians the right way. What was he doing before?

[@joymarie3326]

The old & New Testament talks a lot about adultery, but I don’t hear the white men in control talking about this at all 😂

[@russellmiles2861]

well if the gospels are to be believed, Jesus says marriage after divorce is prohibited ... that is certainly a topic best avoided

[@judyfreeman5193]

The pregnant girl is not a concubine. She is a real person with real feelings and should be in charge of what happens to her body. I am pro life of the pregnant person.

[@derstoffausdemderjoghurtis]

her body is her body, the babies body is the babies body. Two different and unique DNA's, two different and unique bodies, two different and unique persons.

[@bubbag8895]

How dumb an argument

[@juanausensi499]

@@derstoffausdemderjoghurtis Personhood is a legal concept, you shouldn't derive that from DNA. There are persons without DNA (organizations), and unique strands of DNA that aren't persons (tumors)

[@mtauren1]

​@@juanausensi499and if the law says that some humans are slaves so then they don't have rights and that is a legal concept and that's where the discussion ends.

[@donsample1002]

A concubine is a real person with real feelings.

[@larryacheson6645]

I disagree with Bart D. Ehrman's conclusion, as well as his interpretation of Exodus 21:22-23. It can be demonstrated that NT writers quote from the Septuagint (or possibly the Hebrew text from which it was translated) considerably more often than they do from the Hebrew version currently available (it only dates to the early 11th century). The Septuagint reading of Exodus 21:22-23 varies significantly from that of the Hebrew version currently available. Instead of the death penalty being for the death of the woman, it's for the death of the miscarried child, assuming it is "completely formed" in all its parts. It's a "life for a life," which means the miscarried baby was a "life." A fine is imposed if the fetus is "not completely formed." First-century Jew Philo of Alexandria, in his commentary on this passage, expressed this exact understanding of the judgment against the offending party ("The Special Laws, III", XIX [108]). That a fine is imposed for an incompletely-formed baby, in and of itself, suggests that it, too, is a life. I highly doubt you could compare the fine to the fine for an overdue library book. I'm sure it was quite substantial. First-century Jew Josephus wrote that any woman who "aborts that which is begotten" is a "murderer of her child" (Against Apion, Book II, 25). I am persuaded that somewhere along the way, someone altered the text of Exodus 21:22-23, possibly an otherwise righteous scribe who wanted to justify an abortion.

[@topercaker2646]

Underrated reply

[@thedj3319]

A completely fallacious argument. Let me explain 1. The reason why the Qumran scrolls are relevant is that they demonstrate high accuracy of transmission of the text in Hebrew. In other words, the "alteration by a righteous scribe" cannot be given a pass as a reasonable assumption but a claim to be proven, or dismissed if cannot be. 2. Greater errors in transmission can occur due to translation than mere transcription copying, because the translators inherently bring their own understaning of both languages on top of their own prejudices. This is particularly true given point 1, where special care was given to transcription (thereby the gap in likelihood is increased). In fact, we have clear examples of this phenomenon with regards to biblical text, something that Ehrman himself has used as an argument that the writers of the New Testament had Jewish sources; namely certain verses, like Mark 2: 27-28, make more sense in Aramaic than Greek. 3. Therefore, if anything was changed, it is far more likely it was in the Greek translation, not the original Jewish text. Philo and Josephus comment some 200 years after the translations were made- ample time for the perspectives on abortion to diverge based on these changes. Remember, we are still operating under your implicit assumption that changes in text leads to diverging perspectives. 4. The fact that there was a fine and not an immediate death penalty for an incompletely formed fetus by default shows that it wasnt a human being, as killing a human being _universally_ demands a death penalty in the Bible. Point blank period. There is much to be said for the distinction between life and being, but that would be a digresion.

[@larryacheson6645]

@@thedj3319 Actually, whenever there's a discrepancy between the Masoretic Text and the LXX, the Qumran scrolls tend to favor the LXX over and above the Hebrew. I might also mention the discrepancy between Isaiah 61:1 and how Yeshua the Messiah quoted that verse in Luke 4:18. Here's how Luke 4:18 reads in the King James Version: 18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, AND RECOVERING OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, to set at liberty them that are bruised, Now if you look at the phrase I capitalized, where it says “And recovery of sight to the blind,” then cross-reference over to Isaiah 61:1, you will notice this phrase is not found in that verse, at least not in any version that was translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text. This is because that phrase is simply not found in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 61:1. So if “And recovery of sight to the blind” is not found in Isaiah 61:1 of our English translations from the Hebrew, then how and why is it found in Luke 4:18, which is a direct quote from Isaiah 61:1? That’s because the phrase “and recovery of sight to the blind” IS found in the Septuagint version. Due to the many variations between the Septuagint translation and the Hebrew text that’s currently available to us, it is clear that the Septuagint was translated from a different Hebrew original, a Hebrew Bible that is different from the Hebrew Bible that’s currently available. And there is currently only one Hebrew Bible out there from which the Old Testament is translated. That Hebrew Bible is known as the Masoretic Text. It’s called the Masoretic Text because Jewish scribes called Masoretes added vowel points to the text to facilitate pronunciation of the Hebrew words. The Hebrew Bible from which the Masoretic Text was copied is lost, and it, too, was most likely a copy from another copy. The Greek Septuagint has many deviations from the Masoretic Hebrew Bible, so we know the Septuagint was translated from a different Hebrew Bible. For our weekly Torah readings, my family reads from the King James Version while I follow along with the Septuagint. We all agree that in MOST cases wherein there's a discrepancy between the two, the LXX corrects the MT. I might add that a Hebrew version of Luke has been discovered, and ch. 4:18 includes the phrase “and recovery of sight to the blind." So my point is, it is clear that when Luke penned his quote from Yeshua in Luke 4:16, he had Yeshua quoting from a text that comes closer to the Septuagint reading than the Hebrew Masoretic Text reading. I could cite several examples, but the one from Luke 4:18 is my favorite one.

[@thedj3319]

@larryacheson6645 Except for the fact that it's not a refutation of the arguments presented. Of course that the Masoretic text will have greater differences than the Septuagint- we are talking about _at least_ 900 years worth of accumulated errors (and that is if we base it on earliest BC manuscripts/ date when the Masoretes started distributing their copies; the date when Exodus was composed pushes it to +1000 years), versus translations made around the time we have the earliest fragments. The point is twofold: - The Masoretic text is _surpisingly accurate_ given the timeframe of copying a text. - LXX shows differences despite being virtually within the same time period as the copies that we do have. In other words, it demonstrates that it is true for the Hebrew Bible what we already know to be true for all texts- translated texts accumulate errors (or if you prefer variations) faster than mere transcription, especially when there is a tradition of faithful transcription. The most famous issue? Of course, Isaiah 7:14, with tectonic theological implications for later Christianity, especially when there were two words, one for virgin and one for young maiden. The Masoretic matches Qumran here. This doesnt take away from the scientific argument that the Septuagint is a faithful translation; but it does show that one cannot merely argue that the Judaic ideas about abortion have to stem from scribal changes, while ignoring that translation issues offer a far more likely route for any changes that may result in understanding of the text. This is compounded by the fact that Philo, a Hellenized Jew, and Josephus, influenced by Philo and writing in Greek are more likely to fall under the translating traditiono of the Septuagint that the Judaic. Case in point, rabbi Ishmael, a non hellenized Jew, who believed that the punishment of death referred to injury of the mother, not the fetus- and he wasnt that far removed from Josephus. Even if we are generous and assume that the Melkhita was an entire invention without any true references to his opinions, we are still talking about around 200 AD.

[@larryacheson6645]

@@thedj3319 The reason the information I supplied is not a refutation of the facts (to you) is because you are too biased to see things any other way. The fact of the matter is, either the Septuagint--or the underlying Hebrew text from which it was translated--was widely used by 1st century Judaism. Your ad hominem attacks on Philo and Josephus are unfounded and unfair, but not uncommon, as I've been hearing the same unfounded attacks for over 30 years now. In a city populated by hundreds of thousands of Jews (Alexandria, Egypt), Philo's peers chose him to lead the delegation to Rome to plead their cause against the pogroms perpetrated against his people. He would not have been considered for the task if they had gone by your unflattering and biased report. Philo's fame was so great that even historian Josephus, over 50 years younger, spoke highly of him. Had mainstream Judaism believed your report, you can be certain that by the time Josephus came along, he would have either ignored him or denounced him. The fact that both of these men just happened to count to Pentecost the same way demonstrates that they both used the LXX translation of Lev. 23:11 (or the Hebrew text from which it was translated). During the days of Yeshua the Messiah, there are no recorded disputes over how the count to Pentecost was reckoned, certainly not in the Messianic accounts. Philo and Josephus are two 1st century witnesses in favor of the method prescribed within the LXX. The reason rabbinic Judaism later rejected the LXX is because the Greek word used in Is. 7:14 (parthenos) can only mean one thing: virgin, whereas the Hebrew word from which it was translated (almah) may be understood as meaning either "virgin" or the rabbinically-preferred "young maiden." The rabbis were none too pleased when Jewish Messianic believers used the LXX translation to prove Yeshua was born of a virgin in fulfillment of prophecy. As for your ad hominem attack on Josephus, I will simply supply a quote from Magen Broshi of The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, who in 1982 authored an article titled “The Credibility of Josephus,” which first appeared in Journal of Jewish Studies: Essays in Honor of Yigael Yadin, by the Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies. In his concluding paragraph, Broshi had this to say: "This duality of sharp criticism alongside fulsome appreciation has consistently accompanied the scholarly treatment of Josephus’ works. It has not been our intention here to prove that he is always exact or correct in every statement, but to show that his data are in many instances accurate, and that they stem from reliable sources to which he had access from the very beginning of his literary career." This is a far better summary of Josephus than you seem willing to consider. I prefer unbiased opinions. By the time Ishmael came along (some 50 years after Josephus), rabbinic Judaism had already rejected the LXX, primarily due to their disdain over its translation of Isaiah 7:14. As for the Mekhilta, it is falsely attributed to Ishmael, and many scholars, such as the late Dead Sea Scrolls scholar, Ben Zion Wacholder, gave the 8th century as its date of composition. Are these the best witnesses you can come up with? The fact that both Philo and next generation Josephus shared the understanding as presented in the LXX version of Exodus 21:23-23--that the punishment of death referred to miscarriage of a fully-formed fetus and not the mother--this sufficiently affirms these two witnesses' narrative supportive of the LXX over and above the Hebrew found in today's MT.

[@kathrynsamuelson1983]

Dr. Ehrman, what do you consider to be the most accurate English translation of the Bible?

[@timcarbone007]

Great discussion as always

[@tkgsingsct]

I am in favor of abortion. It's a medical procedure other people might have that has *nothing* to do with me. And I don't care why anyone has one, it's simply not my business.

[@noahziegler3478]

Nobody cares

[@tkgsingsct]

@@noahziegler3478 you clearly cared enough to expend the energy to comment.

[@hive_indicator318]

Yup. I don't have a uterus, so my stance on it doesn't matter. But I will fight for others' bodily autonomy.

[@Rain-Dirt]

That is such an interesting take on the Jeremiah example. The interpretation Bart proposes is one of two I would align myself with, the other one being that of god being an "artist" who has an idea in mind that god wants to create. God had "jeremiah as a prophet" planned to exist, and decided he would be created inside the womb of a woman who would become Jeremiah's mother. So in essence, the pregnancy is a process in creating an "endproduct", for lack of better wording. Even with Psalm 139 this could be seen as such. When someone wants to make a pie, it needs ingredients that need to be combined together and go through the right process in order to become an actual pie eventually. And if someone would ask you what you were making, you would say you are making a pie, and nobody would believe it already was a pie. Furthermore, when considering Exodus 21:22-25, suggests that those who wrote Exodus did not consider the "fetus" as a fully grown human or indeed did not have the status of being a real person yet. The laws spoken about here seem to focus on loss or potential loss. So the potential of being a mother or having a help in the household or a bride to be (to receive money after the wedding) or the setting forth of the name. It's never really about a "person" which would be the case if the fetus was considered as such. And indeed, the description of the "shaping" of Adam or Eve, the body first needs to be made and only when that part is finished, god "BREATHES" life into the body. Just like what happens at birth, with a slap on the butt to fill those lungs with AIR, which is the starting point of the journey outside the womb. It would further imply that without "being born" one is not really a human yet. *It's super interesting to now know (thanks to the video) that in Hebrew the same word is used for both 'spirit' and 'breath'.* _(this makes me think of the reason why we say "god bless you" when someone sneezes, because it would have something to do with a part of your "soul" ~air leaving your body involuntarily, so it would seem. Hence the blessing bestowed upon the one who sneezed). Interestingly first responders do the "breath of life" and tissue dies without oxygen, in broader terms meaning that we all die when our vital organs do not get enough oxygen any longer._ In either case - both medically speaking and what the Bible seems to suggest - the fetus is not considered a human being yet. That is also why it annoys me greatly when politicians refer to a fetus as a baby and saying "killing a baby". But yeah.. mothers to be tend to already feel like a mother and speak of the fetus as their baby.. so I get it.

[@MogalyBogal]

I don't think even it you take it litterally not metaphorically that something like "god knew me when i was in the womb" implies god considers fetuses to be people. no one is denying that every person used to be a fetus. and if god is omniscient then obviously if someone is pregnant then god knows, and you could say knows what that fetus will grow up to be like. but you could also point to a wooden chair and say god knew that chair when it was a tree. of course he did, but that doesn't mean god considers trees to be the same thing as chairs or thinks all laws which apply to chairs should also apply to trees.

[@derstoffausdemderjoghurtis]

Do you realise that trees do not grow up naturally to be chairs? You have to kill a tree to make a chair out of it. But fetuses naturally grow into an adult human being. If you don't kill them, that is.

[@CalebJudah-l3q]

read exodus 21:22,23

[@avishevin3353]

@@CalebJudah-l3q What do you think those passages are telling you?

[@jamesvastine1577]

Is the NINT event held at the University of North Carolina? Lots of great info about the event….. just not if you want to attend in person.

[@OldMotherLogo]

It is an online webinar, not an in person event. I attended the first one and enjoyed it a lot.

[@bartdehrman]

Hi James, it is a virtual event and you get lifetime access to the recordings if you can't make the live times. - Social Media Team

[@DavidStrchld]

Re: Ex 21, while I agree with your conclusion, I disagree with your interpretation that the further harm (mischief) that would lead to an eye for an eye, life for life, is for the mother (as she would already have those rights), but would apply to a live premature birth who suffered 'further mischief' ( where 'further mischief is a direct literal translation of the scriptures). But the baby being born would be needed to gain justice under the law is what I see is shown here. Further it does not state 'miscarriage', which as a specific meaning and assumption of a still born. But it states literally 'cause her fruit to come out'. This could be alive or dead. If it's dead there appears to be only a fine, but if born alive and suffers further harm (mischief) it would be what the law prescribes for the now born baby (the mother would already have justice under the law for any additional harm, so that is talking about the premature baby. We know that 'further mischief' does not apply to the fetus as it would not be possible to have burn for burn, and very unlikely to have tooth for tooth for a fetus from a strike to the mother. But after birth the law would apply as stated under further mischief. A furtherance of the need to be born to be under the law, Gal 4:4 states that Jesus was born under the law (as opposed to conceived under the law), though Jesus seemed to be in the fetus inside Mary when we read about John the baptist leaping in Elizabeth's womb as Jesus was close in Mary's womb. That verse seems to indicate the need to be born to obtain birthrights, and I don't know of any passage where God indicates any conception rights.

[@elizabethsadowski9423]

A high percentage of women wouldn’t choose abortion if they knew about acres to helpful resources. What are we doing to support these women? Pregnancy resource centers are a part of this solution. Look up one in your community and find ways to support the work they do.

[@therealzilch]

Thanks. Another typically fascinating, erudite, and illuminating episode, on a topic that's more important and divisive than ever.

[@joeg46Highlands]

The argument should be about a universal right to appropriate medical/surgical treatment.

[@dwaynesimpson288]

I get the argument that the Old Testament passages mentioned we’re metaphorical. How about the passage in Luke where it says Elizabeth felt John leap when Mary, who was now pregnant with Jesus entered the room? It seems there was a connection made between the unborn cousins. At least that’s what the passage seems to be saying.

[@Merrick]

On the matter of Zoroastrian influence - I think it makes sense it would take a long time for post-exilic Judaism to embrace the Persian concepts. Scholars posit that the Jews maintained their mythology throughout their captivity. Upon release they are not going to immediately adopt their captors' stories. But they probably learned them... If grandpa was captive we can't like the stories (other than rebellious younglings who would have been spreading it around), but once we're a few generations removed... plus it takes time for ideas to disseminate and build momentum. I think it makes perfect sense Persian ideas wouldn't appear in Jewish writing until quite a bit after the exile ended.

[@neomatrix4412]

what about johns mother and john receiving the holy spirit

[@bluelithium9808]

How many unborn children were killed during the flood? How many children?

[@mor4652]

What I really appreciate about Bert and this podcast is that he's an atheist who is genuinely interested and values the Bible as history and literature, and not just trying to "disprove" or criticize religion and believers.

[@calebhintz5374]

I don’t know why Bart keeps asserting that the Biblical view is of personhood beginning at the point of “viability.” He himself says that the biblical authors assume personhood begins with first breath. That is, birth. This is not the same as viability, not at all.

[@rayneweber5904]

I think he might mean the " quickening", as in John the Baptist kicking in the womb. Also, if only breathing defines life what if a baby is delivered but you hold your hand over their mouth and never let them breathe, not even biblical people would see that as less than murder

[@ChopperChad]

You know the point he's making.

[@aaronparry2636]

Well old testament authors would have most likely defined life as beginning at first breath. But hellenized Jews had been influenced by greek philosophy and so new testament authors are more likely to have believed life began at the quickening, when the fetus begins to move (easily confused with viability, though not quite the same). So biblical authors believed both depending on which biblical authors you're talking about.

[@calebhintz5374]

@@aaronparry2636 maybe so, I’m just responding to Bart here

[@Mac_an_Mheiriceanaigh]

Bart understands 'viability' in this context to mean that the baby could breathe if outside.

[@SP800.69]

I have a question! I read the passages about the two men fighting and accidentally striking and hurting a pregnant woman. I put the verses from a few versions side by side and it seemed to me that that the verses say that IF the woman OR the fetus die, then the man who killed them will be killed (eye for an eye). But if they're just hurt, he pays a fine. Is it different in ancient Greek ? From what I read in English, there was little wiggle room to say that if ONLY the fetus dies, then pay a fine. Either of them dying was punishable by death.

[@JackMagger]

The entire book of Exodus, was originally written in Hebrew. Exodus 21:22-25 has been construed by men of good faith to have different meanings. By today's standards, the statute is very poorly constructed and highly ambiguous. Your construction, while not my own, is reasonable. If you're going to attempt a construction from scratch, my advice would be to disregard the NIV translation and use the Hebrew. I read verse 21 to mean that if the woman miscarries, her children are dead, but she is unharmed, the offender's punishment is a fine. I read verses 22-25 to mean that if the woman suffers harm, the offender is punished according to the principles of exact retaliation. I do not see the statute envisioning a scenario where the children in the woman's womb survive premature birth. I do not see the the principles of exact retaliation applying to the death of her children.

[@SP800.69]

​@@JackMagger Thank you for that reply and clarification. I accidentally conflated Greek for Hebrew as I was thinking of the New Testament gospels at the same time. This is very interesting insight and will look into it in Hebrew as well. Again, thank you sir. :)

[@jamie5mauser]

Need time stamp for when discussion begins

[@shella7670]

6:10

[@MELLMAO]

​@@mrfunkington exactly the reason for listening

[@rdklkje13]

@@mrfunkington Who understands Christianity better than most people in the US who call themselves Christian but come across as monsters to many of the rest of us. That's why I'm here. Looking for information to help me get my head around why so many US self--proclaimed Christians are so hell-bent on destroying their god's creation, rather than be its stewards, as their Bible instructs them to be. Or on claiming some nonsense about abortion while being perfectly okay with letting millions of children live in poverty, without healthcare, or be at the receiving end of genocides they themselves take part in committing..... Utter madness.

[@PeteOtton]

@@mrfunkington He is an ex-christian. He is however and more to the point a biblical scholar who has studied the bible and how it came to be, which makes him an expert on what the ancients thought.

[@jeffburns4219]

@@mrfunkington Why are you here?

[@PersonPlaceThing1]

32:40 Are there any sources for the one-up reactions to morality? I just know that a fundamentalist will want to scrutinize and discredit that if I just say "trust me bro"

[@ml-s3512]

We need a deeper analysis of the facts in this video. This is a very important issue touching all aspects of our lives. Having two people back and forth in a discussion is better than a one person course, imo. A conversation is ideal.

[@user-li4hv8yn4]

The Mosaic Law of Jealousy never outlined the adulteress being “stoned to death” Since the Mosaic Law of Jealousy was established to address allegations of “undetected” adultery as outlined in Numbers 5:11-15, it did not meet the requirement of having at least two witnesses for all legal cases as outlined in Deuteronomy 19:15, so the death penalty mandated in Leviticus 20:10 in cases of adultery was not applicable as punishment, therefore, if proven guilty, a lesser sentence was imposed on both the wife and her paramour. This lesser sentence included infertility and becoming curses among the people. Additionally, the wife would then lose all rights to her marriage contract, the Ketubah, and she would be restricted from having any further relations with her paramour.

[@Mac_an_Mheiriceanaigh]

You are missing the obvious point that if the ritual indicates that she was unfaithful then the priest and the husband both become witnesses to this....

[@coosoorlog]

There is one single passage that can be interpreted as describing a method of abortion to me administered as a punitive measure. But it's quite contested by scholars. Other than that... Not. A. God. Damn. Thing.

[@CalebJudah-l3q]

Exodus 21: 22“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

[@longcastle4863]

Thank you for addressing this issue

[@wpatrickw2012]

16:40 For all-knowing (past and future) God, knowing someone before they were conceived would be easy.

[@AaronGardner98]

I love that Burt mentioned the Didache and what it has to say about abortion. No discussion of this topic can be complete without touching on early church’s rather speedy conviction on abortion.

[@CalebJudah-l3q]

bart lied about exodus 21 .. 22“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

[@AaronGardner98]

@@CalebJudah-l3q the secondary harm is referring to the woman, not to the unborn child.

[@johaquila]

@@CalebJudah-l3q "So that her children come out" here clearly means that birth is induced before the child/children can survive. I agree that if you really want you can read into it what you say, but it's not the natural reading and almost certainly not how it was interpreted at the time. A child being born a week earlier than expected with no complications and growing up to become a healthy adult would hardly have been a reason for the "the one who hit her [to] surely be fined". You need to read such passages in the context of others, such as Deuteronomy 21:18-21, which show that human life was not an absolute value and that children were the property of their parents.

[@ajeet490]

We are, including the foetus, made of food which does comes from the earth. (Psalm 39) "earth to earth".

[@CGHandle12321]

9:25 Stipulating “before viability” is a big condition, given that late term abortion is a major point of disagreement.

[@mcollins630]

"Late term abortion" has no legal or medical meaning. Terminating a pregnancy in the 8th or 9th month is inducing birth.

[@kahlilbt]

My idea was that the Bible was always clear that life begins at first breath. At least, for all us _nefesh_ lol.

[@kahlilbt]

Note, I'm not a believer any longer, nor do I believe the Bible has a clear, singular commentary on most modern political topics

[@user-li4hv8yn4]

Genesis 2:7 describes one singular non-repeating event, the creation of Adam; establishing him as “the first man,” serving as “the progenitor of our species and the point of origin for human society”. It has never equated Yahweh's breath of life, the starting of biological human life, or the onset of lived sentient experiences, with childbirth or postnatal respiration. Genesis 2:7 also does not prescribe any actions pertaining to the creation of Adam's progeny or the subsequent propagation of humanity through intercourse, conception, gestation, and birth from the wombs of our mothers. That initial propagation between Adam and Eve is described in Genesis 4:1-2 and Genesis 4:25, where it is noted that Adam's children-Cain, Abel, and Seth-were all “conceived and born” from Eve’s womb from Adam's seed “that God has set,” rather than being “formed from the dust of the ground” like their father or “fashioned from the rib” like their mother.

[@elainejohnson6955]

Leviticus 27:6 says babies aren't worth anything until they are 1 month old. It also says that females are always worth less than males.

The actual discussion begins at 7:12

[@Rain-Dirt]

I do believe that Aramaic was one of the langauges used in the Persian Empire for official communication and that the rulers of Persia allowed the lands they ruled over - outside the iranian plateau - to keep their culture and language. The jews got freed from Babylonia thanks to the persian conquest. There are scholars who argue that parts of the Old Testament find their origin in Babylon during captivity. Perhaps due to this nature of influence and adaptation and the Persian "tolerance" for allowing identity, it is possible that Persian Zoroasterism only later managed to spread into the regions of Judea, etc and influence the religions there. Jesus' language was most likely a Galilean Aramaic dialect. Demonstrable, maybe not yet.

[@imankhandaker6103]

What does the Bible say about suffering a witch to live?

[@launiesoult3248]

0 this whole conversation is ridiculous a life is a life no matter how young it is still a life 😢

[@kahlilbt]

That's your opinion but you can't prove it and you shouldn't enforce it on anyone else

[@bmt-zo1ue]

And different religions have different views - and rarely make sense with an understanding of female biology; reproductive biology or reproductive medicine.

[@HowardJohnson-r3f]

Thank you Dr. Bart Ehrman .

[@tc103point3]

I was just thinking that you guys needed to do a video on abortion. You guys read my mind!

[@MichaelYoder-e8g]

The Greeks had the concept of a "soul" being up in heaven, knowing what their life would be, but then have to pass under the throne of Zeus , the throne of fogetting, and then pass down into the world to be born, but not remembering what they decided their life would be - however!!! the soul was accompanied by a daimon who would try to direct them to experience what the soul had chosen.

[@missanne2908]

The historical way to create lye was to run water through ashes, which the dust of the temple would be. So the result of the Biblical recipe would be a crude form of lye. Lye has been used to as an abortifacient historically, so that mixture would probably be effective at least part of the time.

[@welcometonebalia]

Thank you.

[@lesbendo6363]

At the 30 minute mark it seems history is repeating itself today. Very good video! 🇨🇦

[@carolynsilvers9999]

In the creation poem Genesis, Adam doesn't become a living soul until air is breathed into his body...so for those who believe Genesis literally ... a fetus isn't a person until he/she breathes air.

[@billyhw5492]

Because we make babies out of clay?

[@robertlee8474]

Absolutely great podcast

[@Viodoxz]

I'm prolife, I use logic. Fetus, embryo, these are all word concepts to explain stages of human life. Therefore, if a human ends it, you should understand what that is. On this video, the Didache could have easily been in the new testament canon. Many church fathers thought it would be, it says do not have abortions.

[@Bronco541]

Shame the moral one upmanship never stopped to this day... Even with the child molestations and televangelist grift and such..

[@wpoe54]

Why did the early church make such an issue of it? This is from a query to ChatGPT. Pre-third century theologians such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others did indeed address the issue of abortion, typically within the context of broader discussions about the sanctity of life and Christian ethics. Here’s a summary of their views: Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130 - c. 202 AD): Irenaeus, in his work "Against Heresies," does not directly focus on abortion, but he emphasizes the sanctity of life, particularly in the context of creation. He argues that God is the creator of life, and therefore, human life, even in the womb, is sacred. He emphasizes the importance of human life as created in the image of God and argues against anything that would destroy or harm that life. While he doesn't explicitly mention abortion, his theological framework would suggest that abortion is contrary to God's creative work. Tertullian (c. 155 - c. 240 AD): Tertullian is one of the earliest Christian writers to directly address the issue of abortion. In his work "Apology," Tertullian condemns abortion as murder, equating it with infanticide. He argues that life begins at conception, stating that "the embryo becomes a human being in the womb long before delivery," and therefore, any act to destroy it is morally wrong. Tertullian’s writings provide a clear and early Christian condemnation of abortion, reflecting the view that life is sacred from the moment of conception. Additionally, in "De Anima" (On the Soul), Tertullian discusses the ensoulment of the fetus, arguing that the soul is present from the moment of conception, reinforcing his stance against abortion. Ambrose of Milan (c. 340 - 397 AD): Although Ambrose lived slightly after the pre-third century period, he was influenced by earlier Christian thought. Ambrose strongly opposed abortion and viewed it as a grave sin. In his letters and sermons, he condemns abortion as an act that destroys a life that God has begun to form. He views abortion as not only a violation of divine law but also as an affront to the community, which is deprived of a future member. Other Early Christian Writings: The Didache (c. 50 - 120 AD): This early Christian text, often called "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," directly condemns abortion. It states, "You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born." This is one of the earliest explicit references to abortion in Christian literature. The Epistle of Barnabas (c. 70 - 132 AD): This early Christian writing also condemns abortion, stating that Christians should not "kill the child by procuring an abortion; nor, again, shall you destroy it after it is born." General Consensus in Early Christianity: The general consensus among early Christian theologians was a strong opposition to abortion, rooted in the belief that life begins at conception and that taking that life is equivalent to murder. These views were influenced by Jewish ethical teachings and were often articulated in response to practices in the Roman world that the early Christians found morally reprehensible. In summary, early Christian theologians, including Irenaeus, Tertullian, and later Ambrose, as well as early Christian documents like the Didache, consistently condemned abortion as contrary to Christian ethics and the sanctity of life. This opposition formed a key part of early Christian moral teaching.

[@scienceexplains302]

I have found chatGPT to be very inaccurate as to conclusions on religion. It is heavily biased in favor of religions. I point out data that it hadn’t taken into account and it will agree with me in that session. But the next day in a new session, it reverts to pro-religion conclusions.

[@CalebJudah-l3q]

or just read the Bible, no need to consult the early Father's exodus 21 22“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

[@matthewwood2638]

Bart, you are following established Rabbinical interpretation and the Hebrew text in regard to God making Adam from the dirt or indeterminate particles (adamah) with breath, which is his spirit. The standard interpretation is that there are three parts of the human being mentioned in the first chapters of Genesis: the nephesh (animal soul), nechama (human soul), and ruach (spirit). The composition of the human being is more complex than Christians understand. Jews generally agree that life starts with breath and have already gone to court against laws against abortion. One case has been thrown out for lack of standing (none of the women were pregnant).

[@IheartDogs55]

At the very end, Professor Ehrman stated that the Hebrew Bible we have today is from a manuscript from the year 1000. Does anyone here know if he meant BCE or CE? The closed captioning didn't properly spell out the name of the codex he referenced. EDIT: I'll be using the Google method to see if I can find my answer, too, but many folks here are quite knowledgeable. I'm a rookie in the area of Biblical scholarship. 😊

[@PeloquinDavid]

He's referring to the so-called "Leningrad codex" (the earliest surviving Hebrew-language version) that dates to medieval times (so definitely CE). But the earliest attested version is a more ancient Greek translation (the Septuagint) that dates back to - if my memory is correct - to the 2nd or 3rd century BCE. The Septuagint is undoubtedly the version the Greek-speaking writers of the New Testament knew best. And recent findings (in the Dead Sea scrolls, I believe) of more ancient Hebrew versions of some texts from the Tanakh do match the Septuagint fairly closely.

[@charliewatts6007]

14:44 Jerimiah 1.

[@ClementGreen]

I like the way Dr Ehrman starts off with an appeal to authority - his own: 'The bible says nothing about abortion', and then goes on to list the verses where it does. I'm sure Dr Ehrman is aware of Dr Sagan's assertion that 'arguments from authority are worthless': so well played!

[@CalebJudah-l3q]

Bart also blatantly lies about what exodus 21:22 says. go read it

[@VeridicusMaximus]

@@CalebJudah-l3q You are the liar!

[@VeridicusMaximus]

So Dr Sagan's assertion and your use of him as an authority is also worthless - awesome! FM!

[@VeridicusMaximus]

No he went on to discuss verses that people think are about abortion.

[@ClementGreen]

@@CalebJudah-l3q This bit? 'If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine'. I mean it does sound like a fine, but perhaps 'pay' has a wider meaning?

[@PoloMaldonadoM]

I think Ehrman is biased. Here's an accepted translation of Exodus 22: “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." I must suppose that "serious injury" means a miscarriage or any damage to the baby (this one is intentional) or the woman, including death. Now, the text refers to "giving birth prematurely" not, necessarily, to a miscarriage (accidentally.)

[@OldMotherLogo]

You should not rely on translations as the language they use will differ.

[@PoloMaldonadoM]

​@@OldMotherLogoI'm not sure that Ehrman's translation is better than the ones I have been consulting.

[@PoloMaldonadoM]

Regarding the literal meaning of Psalm 139-13, even if poetic, we need to consider these distinctions were disregarded by Israelites, for them they were commands from Yahweh, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made", being Ehrman's interpretation simply modern.

[@OldMotherLogo]

@@PoloMaldonadoM You wrote, “Here is an accepted translation.” That is the problem: you are relying on *one* translation. If you cannot read the original then you are going to have to rely on a translation. Don’t assume that the translation you are using is more correct. This is why actual scholars learn to read ancient languages, so they can go back to the earliest texts we have and read them for themselves in context. Since you are relying on a single translation, why do you assume that your interpretation of that text is correct and Ehrman is biased?

[@PoloMaldonadoM]

Regarding Jeremiah 1, 4-5, 4, "The word of the Lord came to me, saying, 5 'Before I formed you in the womb I knew[a] you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations"', it's evident the Ehrman's view is based on his personal incredulity. He's saying that since he believes spirit can't exist before pregnancy, the text is, thus, allegorical.

[@baonemogomotsi7138]

Dan McClain has made a similar case as Bart, that ancient Hebrew mythology and culture did not view fetuses as fully human. Hence, why the miscarriage verse in Numbers exists. It's supported by the historical understanding of Hebrew culture and of ancient Near Eastern culture, too.

[@John.Flower.Productions]

The supposed Jews of today believe that only Jewish males are fully human, no one else. Their own mothers, wives, daughters, sisters, et cetera are not even human beings.

[@ioneltorac]

Megan was in my country? OMG !

[@ConservativeMirror]

The Christian defence of Numbers 5 is they say that since verse 28 says that an innocent woman may conceive, any woman undergoing this ritual had necessarily not conceived and thus could not have been pregnant thus no termination could have occurred.

[@johnrangi4830]

That's a bad argument, if a woman has conceived it is not specifically talking about abortion. Chapter 5 is not talking about after a child has been conceived. therefore it is talking about abortion by divine intervention. To be more specific a foetus already exists according to chapter 5 so the foetus is not been conceived.

[@markbcrich]

Some of the guilty ones will have conceived. So, there will still eventually be abortions if this procedure is carried out.

[@PeteOtton]

@venenareligioest410 If a god can't be clear and concise in its word choices, why should I follow a babbling idiot?

[@CalebJudah-l3q]

Exodus 21 specifically says life for life for unborn babies. go read it Bart lies

[@markbcrich]

@@CalebJudah-l3q Exodus 21 is talking about the life of the woman, not an unborn baby. Notice it says life for a life, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, hand for a hand, foot for a foot. Unborn babies don't have teeth to knock out.

[@nuynobi]

What's wrong with the idea of pre-existing souls? Bart shrugs it off so casually like it was the most obvious thing.

[@jiohdi]

the Bible allows for post birth abortion to the age of 12 (Deuteronomy 21), and the current view of among Jews is that it's a fetus until it graduates medical school.

[@CalebJudah-l3q]

lol

[@johaquila]

Ah, yes. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is about the stoning (very late post-birth 'abortion') of rebellious sons. The precise age limit of 12 years must be extra-biblical, though.

[@jiohdi]

@@johaquila Around 12 is the bar mitzvah. After that out of the parents control.

[@johaquila]

@@jiohdi Bar mitzvah is from Mishnah and Talmud, not from the Bible.

[@jiohdi]

@@johaquila The point being the reason why I said 12 years old is because of the age of accountability under the law. Which by tradition was around 12 or 13?

[@KravMagoo]

I'm going to walk up to the next beautiful woman I see and declare, "God KNOWS our child before it has been conceived...we must oblige His will and fulfill His objectives!!"

[@Pootycat8359]

40:20 Nobody, in the ancient World, opposed slavery. Today, we oppose slavery, as, no doubt, pep[le will, in the future, oppose killing & eating animals.

[@areuaware6842]

The facts are the facts.

[@joemedley195]

Great episode as usual! I think, though, that you should have called this week’s episode “Misquoting Moses.”

[@mddale]

If you are born in England aren't you already abroad?😊

[@JillMorgan-b7y]

Speaking of babies, please comment on Psalms 137-9. This talks about being happy to dash infants against rocks! What are they actually try to say here? Thanks.

[@areuaware6842]

Abrahamism was founded on ritual child sacrifice.

[@scienceexplains302]

They’re telling us how great they (the author and his immediate group) think it would be to murder defenseless Babylonians.

[@davidk7529]

Should I just skip checking the comments for this one 🤔

[@angusmackaskill3035]

Short answer, nothing

[@eusebiuse6537]

Was the death penalty applied for killing slaves or non-Jews in the bible?

[@stJamescross]

Nothing bitter water

[@UnimatrixOne]

15:43 !

[@UnimatrixOne]

19:43

[@UnimatrixOne]

22:44

[@bubbag8895]

Everyone go read Exodus 21:22 for yourselves

[@AbdulHannanAbdulMatheen]

👏🙂 Very interesting.

[@dannyguillory8941]

And I wonder what 'believers' would say about god creating or knowing people like: Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Ted Bundy, and the whole cast of 'monsters' that are part of our world history! I only mentioned some of our modern day monsters because the list would just go on and on.

[@KaiHenningsen]

My first time out of the country, I must have been something like 6. The one and only vacation we took the plane. My mother flew to Italy with me (my father rarely took vacations with the family, both too much work and different tastes in vacations). We spent some time in Bellaria (Rimini), and a day trip to Venice, and that's most of my memory. We had a bit of weather. Lots of fun standing right at the bow until the crew insisted we go inside, where it was warm and study and I spent most of the time sleeping. After debarking in Venice, I noticed the ship had acquired some new vertical racing stripes. I think the journey back was by bus. In any case, since then I know I don't get seasick.

[@victorkuznetsov9845]

Напишу на русском, Толстой, Достоевкий и другие великие писатели России. Мастера и Маргариту Булгатова читали?

[@sp00kthebourgeois]

23:56 I would just be careful in your wording when you say "Nobody is in favor of abortion". I think the more precise wording would be "nobody is in favor of the causes of abortion". However, I very much AM in favor of abortion being available freely and safely, when those unfortunate causes do happen.

[@derstoffausdemderjoghurtis]

so the vast majority of abortions, those which don't have these unfortunate causes, should be illegal? Because the number of abortions that are done after sa or to save the mothers life are very much the exception.

[@sp00kthebourgeois]

@@derstoffausdemderjoghurtis you're leaving out "unfortunate causes" such as "women being forced to choose between motherhood and careers," etc. I wasn't just talking about sa and medical emergencies

[@CalebJudah-l3q]

youre not far from the banality of evil

[@robertomoreno5526]

Is it a sin to kill a four day features

[@larryacheson6645]

May I ask what is a "four day features"? All I know is, a fetal heartbeat is not detected until at least a heartbeat (at around six weeks). Our goal should be to preserve a life, not end it. I hope that is also your goal.

[@robertomoreno5526]

@larryacheson6645 sorry I meant to say fetus.

[@larryacheson6645]

@@robertomoreno5526, thank you for the clarification--it did occur to me after posting my response that you most likely meant to type "fetus." In response to your question about whether or not it's a sin to kill a 4-day old fetus, I would say, "Yes," but as to "who sinned," it depends on the situation. Either way we look at it, it's a life, so either way, it's a tragedy. But if a woman is raped, I do not regard her decision to have an abortion as being a sin on her part. It's the rapist who sinned, and in my opinion any laws prohibiting abortion would need to be applied to him, not her. On the other hand, if a woman willingly has relations, then as an afterthought requests an examination wherein it's determined that she is 4-days pregnant, I am persuaded it would be a sin for her to have it aborted. According to the law of the land, she could legally have the abortion, but she may have to answer for that sin on the day of judgment. According to 1st century Jewish historian Josephus, "The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind; if any one, therefore, proceeds to such fornication or murder, he cannot be clean" ("Against Apion," Book II, 25). So believers during the 1st century, such as Flavius Josephus, understood that a fetus is a living human being. A righteous society will understand this to be true, and will endeavor to preserve the life, not end it.

[@johnthekeane]

So no, it doesn't...and now?