For popular or very good threads
I prefer "thought for thought." That seems less prone to error, especially in a language hardly any of us are going to be familiar in.
If some passage is questionable or I want to deep dive, then some times I compare different translations favoring the word-for-word or even the interlinear versions.

Research Acts 8:37 in the NASB
Yeah, for good or bad, the new NASB can be brutal. It omits that passage entirely. Just skips from vs. 36 to 38.

It does make a comment about it in the footnotes, at least.
 
Yeah, for good or bad, the new NASB can be brutal. It omits that passage entirely. Just skips from vs. 36 to 38.
Kinda hard for me to trust a translation that omits twenty-some verses. I’ll stick with my King Jimmy and research the words I’m not familiar with.
 

22 "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [or has a miscarriage] 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.”

- New International Version

— — —

Are pregnant women really hit accidentally that often, to have a rule about it and all?

I think the truth is that pregnant women are high maintenance. They have food cravings, complain of backaches, etc. And the husband hits the wife. It's terrible, but it happens.

And a scribe wants to keep the good favor of his patriarch, and that's what's mainly going on.

And a lot of the Bible is written in small parts which are put together later.

— — —

And a miscarriage is an injury, for crying out loud!
 
Last edited:

22 "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [or has a miscarriage] 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.”

- New International Version

— — —

Are pregnant women really hit accidentally that often, to have a rule and all?

I think the truth is that pregnant women are high maintenance. They have food cravings, complain of backaches, etc. And the husband hits the wife. It's terrible, but it happens.

And a scribe wants to keep the good favor of his patriarch, and that's what's mainly going on.

And a lot of the Bible is written in small parts which are put together later.

— — —

And a miscarriage is an injury, for crying out loud!
This shows the value God places on infants still in the womb. If the child lives, the perpetrator shall pay what the husband demands. If the child dies, the offender must die as well. BTW, it wasn't scribes that came up with this idea. It was God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
This shows the value God places on infants still in the womb.

I think you're a better man than your holy book. The footnote about miscarriage is grouped in with “but there is no serious injury . . ”

And when people go through heartache, and we don't know how hard a husband and wife might take a miscarriage. They certainly might be asking God, why? ?? Questioning and blaming themselves, and so on and so forth.

Sometimes I think just a heart-felt hug and just being there for the person is best of all.

And not trying to lay a bunch of philosophy on them.

— — —

22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, . . . ”

[
e] = Or she has a miscarriage
 
Last edited:
@Multicolored Lemur

🤔 hmmm..

After your point this has me questioning if the injury applies to the baby at all, and if vs. 23 is referring just to the woman's health...

23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,
It's reasonable to consider given that a miscarriage would likely mean death for the baby, but as you bring up, it's being put together with "no serious injury" in vs. 22. But this would also depend on what's defined as a "miscarriage".

Here's one definition from Cleveland Clinic:
A miscarriage (also called a spontaneous abortion) is the unexpected ending of a pregnancy in the first 20 weeks of gestation.

So what if the pregnant woman was beyond 20 weeks and an injury caused her to have the baby early? What was considered a miscarriage to ancient Israel or are the English translators imposing 21st century concepts and definitions on the text?

I like how the NASB is more precise in their footnote...
“Now if people struggle with each other and strike a pregnant woman so that [w] she gives birth prematurely.

w. Or an untimely birth occurs; lit her children come out

That footnote does not specify time of the pregnancy nor if it is alive still unlike how other English translations do by using the specific term 'miscarriage' in the text or footnote. How miscarriage is defined today would mean that the unborn infant would die. But if the passage is referring to any time period in the pregnancy, like the NASB footnote suggests, then it's possible for a premature baby to survive (assuming it passed miscarriage time period).

She has premature baby and it is alive = "no serious injury" (Ex. 21:22).
If woman have premature baby and it dies (includes miscarriage)= "serious injury" (Ex. 21:23).
 
Last edited:
This shows the value God places on infants still in the womb.

it's being put together with "no serious injury"

Okay, we could start to view it as 2 conditions —— premature and no "serious" injury.

But then, why put miscarriage or "untimely birth" in a footnote? ?? To me, that changes how we can view it. And probably should view it.

Saying "untimely" means things go badly for the baby.

— — —

The modern person translating the ancient Hebrew may have thought it should go in a footnote because it's an implication of the Hebrew word . . .

And I'm stretching as much as I can.
 
Last edited:
PSI legit consider myself to be both pro-life and pro-choice.

I mean, ask yourself— If you don't want to donate a kidney to a sibling or cousin, does larger society have a right and duty to strap you down to a gurney and make you do it anyway? ! ? More abstractly, how personally can a "duty to help" impose on you.