CAMPAIGN 2008

'More Comfortable with McCain'

Why evangelical leader Dobson is warming to the GOP candidate

By Lisa Miller | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jul 22, 2008 | Updated: 12:23  p.m. ET Jul 22, 2008

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: Chris1110022 @ 08/12/2008 7:18:43 PM

    Comment: Well, one grouchy septuagenarian is thinking about endorsing another, big surprise? Dr. Dobson's power jones was far too strong to sit this one out. You'd think if we could send this guy to rehab maybe he'd get over his addiction to access to power. I wonder if Rudy had the GOP nomination if he'd still find a way to flip-flop for access. It would appear that the authoritarian contingent is coming to power, maybe Mccain promised Cindy to Dobson for one of his favorite spankings, after all he promised her to the McBuffalo chips pageant, ya know the one where the women take their clothes off. Sounds moral to me. Yeesh, Republicans are GROUCHY this election season, it must be buyers remorse over their terrible candidate from a mediocre field. While this being America meaning anyone willing to prostitute their beliefs and become vile smear merchants have a chance, it would be best if conservative sit this one out. McCain is doubtlessly endulging in heaping helpings of perception management and has been coercing Republicans who once correctly called him unbalanced to support him, or maybe they really are authoritarians afraid to upset daddy, since McCain is old enough to be the moons daddy, he can be the one they try to please. Nuff said here, if this isnt a walk away victory for Obama its going to be because enough cognitively lacking people bought into the dumb smear attacks: "He's a muslim" "He's anti-American" (that one kills me, Obama being where he is demonstrates both his belief in and the abject greatness of America when it progresses). As for the GOPers out there, name me one issue the Republicans have to run on that isn't manufactured or cheap politics at work and I'll buy you a white haired wig to wear for your aging party with its near-extinct ideas. One last issue, those who reject Evolution do in fact demonstrate its existence, evolved minds accept reality when they see enough proof behind it, relics from a previous era stick with fanatical devotion to a story with a talking snake and woman being fashioned from a rib. It's cool to believe in god, I do, but sometimes stories that you bought as a child need re-examination. Obama in '08

  • Posted By: 8yearsoffear @ 08/02/2008 10:01:10 AM

    Comment: The GOP would rather you like McCain, because he seems so solidly 'old school'...so wonderfully patriotic, after all he has been in Washington for 25 years...he was a pilot (logged a whole 20 hours of flying) during Vietnam. Well, here are some facts, since the GOP doesn't like to deal in those:

    McCain graduated from college at the BOTTOM of his class: 894th out of 899th. That alone makes it easy to see why he can't keep the factions and politics of the middle east strait when talks about them. It also explains why he says he doesn't know much about the economy...I certainly believe it!

    McCain on Family values: After returning from Vietnam, he finds that his wife has been disabled in a car crash. While still married and living with his 1st wife in 1979 he was, according to The New York Times, ???aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich.??? (McCain then divorced his wife, who had raised their three children alone while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, and launched his political career with his new wife???s family money.)

    McCain on the Economy:
    - In December 07 he said, "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should."
    - In January 08 he said, ???I don???t believe we???re headed into a recession,??? he said, ???I believe the fundamentals of this economy are strong and I believe they will remain strong.???
    - In March 08 he said, "I will not play election year politics with the housing crisis," adding, "I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers." - Guess it's not his problem if thousands of Americans become homeless thanks to deregulations in the mortgage industry (which were supported by McCain).
    - In April 08 when asked about the state of the economy, "I???m very concerned about it, Neil. And obviously the way it???s been going up is just terrible. But I think psychologically ??? and a lot of our problems today, as you know, are psychological ??? the confidence, trust, the uncertainty about our economic future, ability to keep our own home."
    - In April 08 when asked about why he supported the gas tax holiday, "This might give them a little psychological boost. Let???s have some straight talk, it???s not a huge amount of money"

    McCain on Taxation:
    - In 2001 he argued AGAINST Bush's tax cuts saying, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief."
    - In 2006 he said, "The tax cuts are now there, and voting to revoke them would have been to -- not to extend them would have meant a tax increase." Even tax-cutting advocates who cheered McCain's reversal could not help but call it what it was: "It's a big flip-flop," said conservative moveme

  • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/30/2008 10:52:45 AM

    Comment: Hmmm seems like these liberals on this board are blocking me from posting comments..... once again afraid of a debate with substance.....

    • Posted By: Cloudosmoke @ 07/30/2008 3:12:40 PM

      Comment: Hmmm, sounds like you just don't know how to post.

      • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/30/2008 4:48:01 PM

        Comment: Check the board ..... I think I have posted on here way more than you...... The site keeps kicking me out for some reason..... but continues to let you in .... imagine that....

        • Posted By: Cloudosmoke @ 07/31/2008 9:39:34 AM

          Comment: I didn't say anything about who has posted more glory seeker. I just said it sounds like you don't know how to post... Kinda like McCain doesn't know how to campaign.

          • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/31/2008 12:18:36 PM

            Comment: You assume to much.... even when I gave an explanation to why I posted the comment.... as for McCain not know ing how to campaign.... it is funny that the polls show a different point of view than yours.....

  • Posted By: Cloudosmoke @ 07/30/2008 10:08:23 AM

    Comment: McCain has had since February to hone his campaign skills. McCain has had since February to form his committees and since then has been throwing people under the bus. McCain has had since February to develop his platform which he has not.

    He doesn't want to be president. If he really wanted to be president he would have made a better name for himself while he had the opportunity to do so while Obama was battling Hillary (you all remember the one that was supposed to win). McCain would have righted the wrongs on his VA stances, he would have had a chance to address voting for a war that was wrong and will go down in history in infamy.

    McCain doesn't want to be president. He just wants the title. He wants the perks that come along with it. He just wants power.

    He doesn't want to be president. If he wanted to be president, he would be giving speeches on the socioeconomic issues the country and world faces which is what the leader of the free world is supposed to do; not stand in front of a crowd of people that already has money looking for a photo op.

    If he wanted to be president he would be describing his policy on energy instead of throwing out a gas tax holiday or say he'd throw money at someone to come up with a battery idea that is already here. If he wanted to be president he would be stating his case to be president instead of attacking the person that wants to be president and perform the duties of that office.

    Obama wants the job, not the title. He has already made the case to the people. He has already formed allegiances with other countries to deter and suppress terroristic activities and extremism. Obama has put his policies on the table and has let the people see them. He listens to those around him and is willing to work across the aisle to come to agreements on issues that affect us. Just ask Senators Hagel and Bachus.

    Vote Obama for President.

    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/30/2008 11:26:02 AM

      Comment: Cloudosmoke..... what have you been smoking?.... If McCain didn't want to be president I don't think he would be wasting his time campaigning as the Republican nominee....

      as far as you comments about his speeches..... one could say that if Obama wanted to be President of theUNITED STATES.... he wouldn't be pandering to European audiences for the presidency.... they share the same do nothing politics about fighting terrorism that he does.... and that is to appease and release murderers ..... Germany just released a known terrorist and as Obama has said those who plotted 911 plotted the attacks from Germany.......

      What did Obama do for the lowering of gas prices during the summer..... even Hilliary said she was in support of suspending the gas tax for the summer in order to help the american people.... only thing Obama said about it ....was that it was a washington gimmick....... this without offering any solution for the immediate help of the american people..... His energy policy is a joke.... and is funded by lobbyist who own the alternative fuels he champions.....

      Obama doesn't want to be president.... he wants to be world leader..... his own words.... "I'm a world citizen..... people of Germany and people of the world" ..... sound much like pandering to me.... and very presumtous on his part since he is not even the president......

      Obama needs to listen to the american people instead of the rhetoric spread abroad in foreign land of those coutries who cave to terrorist organizations.... such as Germany and Spain....

      Vote McCain for President..... who is more concern about the affairs of the american people and isn't out to try to become Leader of the World.... as Barrack Hussein Obama.......

      • Posted By: Cloudosmoke @ 07/30/2008 2:10:05 PM

        Comment: The man was at the bottom of the list in the air force. He was given a political position, never worked to get it. He has all kinds of money to spend on anything he wants and what he wants is more power and no responsibility. If he were a responsible steward of authority, he would have been campaigning non stop since he secured the nomination, but what's he been doing? Nothing. Wait, he's been doing something... he's been cheesing and smiling thinking he was a shoo in for the POTUS. Man you are crazy to want to vote for McCain. He doesn't have any military experience other than being shot down but a pop gun. And if you think that America is the only place on the planet then you are surely mistaken coming up in here citing the Bible. Just because a person preaches the word doesn't mean he follows it. The olive branch has been extended as a coalition of nations wish to become one. Segregational mindsets are the problem of this world which you obviously have. This election is over your head, stay on the porch.

        • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/30/2008 5:02:35 PM

          Comment: You know your comments show your lack of knowledge on John McCain ..... especially about having no military experience!!!! I suppose Obama has spent one day in Iraq and you call that military experience..... notice I didn't bring up his lack of military experience (which is none) .... and as for McCain was given a political position and never worked to get it read below...

          He retired from the Navy as a captain in 1981 and, moving to Arizona, entered politics. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982. After serving two terms, he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1986, winning re-election easily in 1992, 1998, and 2004. While generally adhering to conservative principles, McCain has gained a media reputation as a "maverick" for disagreeing with his party on several key issues. After being investigated in a political influence scandal of the 1980s, as a member of the "Keating Five", he made campaign finance reform one of his signature concerns, which eventually led to the passage of the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002. He is also known for his work towards restoring diplomatic relations with Vietnam in the 1990s, and for his belief that the war in Iraq should be fought to a successful conclusion in the 2000s. McCain has chaired the powerful Senate Commerce Committee, and has been a leader in seeking to rein in both pork barrel spending as well as Senate filibusters of judicial nominations.

          So I guess people gave him his position for 27 years....... and Obama was given his for what 4 years?.... I cited the bible to those who was debating the validity of abortion.... if you have a problem with that then don't read it.... Universalism is the mindset of a Communist, Marxist, Muslim extremist.... ... Olive branch !!! More like a Branch of Appeasement to those who are so un-grateful for the United states bailing them out of their misery.....

          Get real..... go back in the closet .......

          • Posted By: Cloudosmoke @ 07/31/2008 10:06:53 AM

            Comment: You're shouting. Not very becoming of you. McCain was given his leadership role... The GOP have always had a way of manipulating elections, remember Tom DeLay and his redistricting? Or how about the Presidential Contest of 2000 and the Fla recount or the 2004 Presidential Contest and the Oh recount. McCain had his grandfather and father to thank as well as they had prominent positions in the Navy which are suspect since his great grandfather owned slaves. That set him up on the grounds of saying, "look here, I am a descendent of power." Not to mention Reagan was an influential factor in the races of the Republican sided state of Arizona. And back to your "appeaser"... he... he's an "appeaser." you sound dopey for such a tired attitude. And like I said, you have the mindset of, "If it ain't American, then I don't want it." That's just sad.

            And Obama has visited Iraq twice and been in the war zone and visited troops in the hospital and flew over the war zone assessing with Gen Petreus all the while defending himself against slanderous "campaign" attacks. He has stood up against the powers that be and knocked them down with his faith in One God, One Faith and One Baptism. And what was the closet statement supposed to mean?

            • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/31/2008 12:16:25 PM

              Comment: Shouting is when you post in all caps.... another unfounded rant by you..... as for the GOP manipulating the elections??? You sound like a sore loser or a Gore loser to me.... it is funny since 2000 the Demo(n)crats have been crying the loudest about election results that happen within their own districts..... They even fight amongst themselves (Hilliary and Obama supporters) about which votes can count and which ones should not count..... if your party can't get it right among yourselves then how can you blame the GOP for your own failed policy of policing up your own districts.....

              As for McCain's ancestors owning slaves.... don't you know that Barrack Obama's ancestors owned slaves as well??? ... So are you saying that Barrack Obama is suspect as well...... unbelievable!!!! here is the website I got my information from.... http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/04/barack-obamas-family-owned-slaves.html

              Ronald Reagan has now influence the races in Arizona..... here is a little history of the past presidential elections and who carried the most votes in Arizona....

              Past Presedential Elections
              Percentage of Votes for Jimmy Carter in 1976: 39.8%
              Percentage of Votes for Gerald Ford in 1976: 56.4%
              Percentage of Votes for Jimmy Carter in 1980: 28.2%
              Percentage of Votes for Ronald Reagan in 1980: 60.6%
              Percentage of Votes for Walter Mondale in 1984: 32.5%
              Percentage of Votes for Ronald Reagan in 1984: 66.4%
              Percentage of Votes for Michael Dukakis in 1988: 38.7%
              Percentage of Votes for George Bush in 1988: 60.0%
              Percentage of Votes for Bill Clinton in 1992: 36.5%
              Percentage of Votes for George Bush in 1992: %
              Percentage of Votes for Bill Clinton in 1996: 46.5%
              Percentage of Votes for Bob Dole in 1996: 44.3%
              Percentage of Votes for Al Gore in 2000: 44.7%
              Percentage of Votes for George W. Bush in 2000: 51.0%
              Percentage of Votes for John Kerry in 2004: 44.5%
              Percentage of Votes for George W. Bush in 2004: 55.0%

              Twice in what over 900 days??? He visited Iraq with his mind made up on the policy of withdrawal before even talking with Gen Petreus and even admitted that he and the General didn't see eye to eye on the withdrawal..... so that was nothing more than a photo op PR campaign stop for Barrack....

              As for that One God, One Faith and One Baptism...... I agree with this accept Obama doen't agree with it or supports the sayings of his so called faith...... as for the closet statement .... it is the same assumption that you made upon me to "stay on the porch".... meaning to stay out of something that you haven't got a clue of what you are talking about....

              • Posted By: Cloudosmoke @ 07/31/2008 1:27:07 PM

                Comment: Actually shouting is asscoiated with !!!!! It didn't look like excitement was in your tone. So calm down and relax. As for the Gore loser statement, I moved on as you will have to do come November. I didn't say Gore lost or won, I said it was manipulated.

                The only argument over the primary was the Clinton camp because the nomination was locked in as far as the Obama camp was concerned. So that's you arguing over nothing.

                As for a history lesson on slavery and its influences on generational ties to gain positions (which if you read my position you would have saw) McCain has made gains from his family history.

                And for your Presidential lesson of elections in Arizona, I wasn't referring to President so sorry you went to all that trouble of looking that info up... I was referring to House of Rep which McCain garnered his votes from Republican leaning support. It was pretty much given to him.

                Obama supported the War on Terrorism, not Bush's War on Hussein which was supported by McCain. So yeah, he and I and the majority of the nation had our minds made up on this war of profit. The drawdown would not be needed if the war wasn't a lie. The war will go down in history in infamy and Obama will be the only figure standing in its wake.

                • Posted By: bojack27 @ 08/01/2008 11:22:18 AM

                  Comment: I don't associate !!! as shouting ... I use it as emphasising a point.... as far as the manipulation statement ... it still sound like you haven't let it go.... the Supreme Court decide and that should be the final decision....

                  And for the Clinton comment.... I wasn't arguing on her behalf... just stating a fact that the DNC and demo(n)crats have had self-inflicted problems in the last 3-4 elections held primarily in their demo(n)cratic districts.... so they should look to fix their own problems before they start blowing snot bubbles on national television...

                  You are missing the point with the reference to slavery influence and power.... since both candidates have had ancestors who have own slaves both have found themselves in prestigous postions, concerning opportunities and power.... Obama is considered an Elitist in some circles....

                  Show proof of the accusations on McCain receiving or being handed positions... if there was any I'm sure that the demo(n)crats would have been all on this ....

                  Obama wasn't even in government office to voice his opposition to the War on Terrorism when 9/11 occured..... so witht he flip flpping that he does it is no telling what he supported and didn't support.... all wars are based on lies and if one thinks that the past presidents were telling the truth about Vietnam (democratic president), WWI and WWII (democratic presidents) then you are gullible to say the least

  • Posted By: Braes @ 07/28/2008 2:30:44 PM

    Comment: Dobson is just another Heretic, with his own ego and marketing out front. His type have cheapened faith by mingling in the world of politics, and becoming as filthy. One might suppose that to remain politically relevant He is quite willing to abandon principles, and endorse McCain. While I might be suprised at this man throwing overbaord his convictions, I am completely baffled that McCain who survived years of horrible indignity and kept his convictions, would accept this "agent of intolerance" within his fold.

    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/28/2008 5:33:37 PM

      Comment: I like people who come on these boards and just spout off at the mouth claiming that Dr. Dobson is a Heretic...... but they provide no evidence of their claims..... most likely you want people to take you at your word!!!....... To speak out against sin is not intolerence it is "love"..... when society moves towards wanting others to accept their immoral behavior as being normal .... then we have a problem....

      Your just another one endorsing sin as being good.....

      Isaiah 5:[19] That say, Let him make speed, and hasten his work, that we may see it: and let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw nigh and come, that we may know it!
      [20] Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

  • Posted By: Press Release @ 07/27/2008 3:05:38 AM

    Comment: McCain doesn't even have the decency to show proper behavior for a measly two weeks. What great disrespect McCain showed towards Obama and the rest of the world in his childish attempt to discredit Senator Obama. That was quite embarrassing and the whole world saw how distasteful McCain is. McCain brought shame to the U.S. , it would have been better if he had just shut his mouth about Obama for the time Obama was gone. But McCain is a CRYBABY and a LIAR, sturring up hate and misleading the american people. Shame on you McCain. Shame on you McCain, Shame on you. You are Scumm. McCain maybe you don't know because you forget so much , but we will always remember your lies and your crying like a baby. You are now known as Scummy McCain Crybaby Insane.

  • Posted By: notroubleatall1963 @ 07/24/2008 11:21:22 PM

    Comment: The US is the ONLY country in the developed world who still questions Darwin's theory, which is pretty much proven as fact, barring some ongoing refinements.

    I'm embarrassed to be part of a country that has become so stupid. Is it something in the food (mostly garbage) we eat? Is it the reason we've all got weight problems? What the hell is in the water that is making everyone so incredibly ignorant?

    Who the H--- is Dobson, and who cares about the Evangelicals? Let them carry on with their beliefs and stay out of the political arena. They couldn't possibly be religious if they're so secular as to get muddied up in politics, especially GOP politics, which involves a culture of death, destruction, cheating, mediocrity and lying.

    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/25/2008 11:41:28 AM

      Comment: Click on the Link below and read the article...... then answer the questions that are posted

      http://www.biggerview.org/DARWINrefutedBrief.htm

      • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 07/25/2008 1:54:59 PM

        Comment: natural selection is likely to be unbiased, since their views are predetermined by a slavish adherence to religious dogmas."

        In the 1987 United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised that, "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."

        Crick was also an advocate for the establishment of Darwin Day as a British national holiday.




        Last but not least for a ver well-written rebuttal of the site bojack listed go to:
        http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/the-evolution-conflict-877-10.html

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 07/25/2008 2:23:21 PM

          Comment: Wow, that post really got screwed up.

          OK..take two.

          As usual the evangelical sites misquite people to support thier views.

          For a very good example go to this site to see what Colin Patterson, who was quoted more than once on bojack's reference site, really believes :

          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

          As for Crick, although I am loathe to use Wikipedia as a refernce source, I was able to confirm what they said about his views on evoliution, Darwin and Intelligent design from other reliable sources. It is just easier to cut and paste one concise section than to have to reference multiple sites. Therefore from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick

          "in this context in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial over the teaching of intelligent design. However, Crick wrote:

          The age of the earth is now established beyond any reasonable doubt as very great, yet in the United States millions of Fundamentalists still stoutly defend the naive view that it is relatively short, an opinion deduced from reading the Christian Bible too literally. They also usually deny that animals and plants have evolved and changed radically over such long periods, although this is equally well established. This gives one little confidence that what they have to say about the process of natural selection is likely to be unbiased, since their views are predetermined by a slavish adherence to religious dogmas.

          In the 1987 United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised that, "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom." Crick was also an advocate for the establishment of Darwin Day as a British national holiday.


          Last but not least for a very well-written rebuttal of the site bojack listed go to:
          http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/the-evolution-conflict-877-10.html

  • Posted By: LaDonnarenee @ 07/24/2008 10:28:37 PM

    Comment: Who cares what James Dobson thinks? I am a born again Christian and Dr. Dobson has embarrassed me with what he has said during this campaign. Why does he think that HIS opinion carries so much weight? Your view of our God is not the only one. So all of the Republicans that you supported and endorsed in the past, their views lined up with the Word of God? James Dobson- full of hot santimonious air.

    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/25/2008 11:39:41 AM

      Comment: The Bible's view of God is what you should be concerned about..... since you claim to be a born-again Christian ..... which is total redundancy ....you need only to say "Christian" So what points or views about God are you refuting that Dr. Dobson is wrong on?

      • Posted By: Dorothy Loretz @ 10/01/2008 7:49:47 PM

        Comment: The man of one wife. What God has joined, let no man put asunder. Adultry, Lying, and the list goes on-and-on for McCain. Now, what doe you respect in a preacher who apparently disagrees with God's ordinance and support all those things which God said Thou Shall Not.

      • Posted By: Dorothy Loretz @ 10/01/2008 7:49:44 PM

        Comment: The man of one wife. What God has joined, let no man put asunder. Adultry, Lying, and the list goes on-and-on for McCain. Now, what doe you respect in a preacher who apparently disagrees with God's ordinance and support all those things which God said Thou Shall Not.

  • Posted By: Nar27 @ 07/24/2008 9:17:35 PM

    Comment: As the human race, we are an embarassment!

  • Posted By: Nar27 @ 07/24/2008 9:12:57 PM

    Comment: More comfortable with McCain?

    We all know that politicians deceive and lie very creatively. But, visit Arizona......

  • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/24/2008 3:31:26 PM

    Comment: Last part was cut off

    Ecclesiastes 11
    [5] As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all

  • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/24/2008 3:28:30 PM

    Comment: Posted By: ghostmasseur
    And Judaism does not have a problme with governmetn provided health care (whihc is what abortions are). If they know anythign about thier religion they know that the Torah is NOt anti-abortion and does agree with the garabge that abortion is murder or that a fetus is an existant life or entitled to the same rights as a living human being.

    Here is the definition of Torah--- The term "Torah" (Hebrew: ????????, "teaching" or "instruction," sometimes translated as "Law,"[1]) most commonly refers to the text of the Five Books of Moses or Pentateuch. It may also refer to the entirety of Judaism's founding legal and ethical religious texts.

    So being that the book of Exodus is in the Torah which speaks out against the killing of the unborn child (Exodus 21:22-25)
    [22] 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.
    [23] And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
    [24] Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
    [25] Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

    or the fact that their own prophet Elisha responded to Hazel about the act of ripping the unborn from women with child as an evil act!

    2Kgs.8 [12] And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? And he answered, Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child.

    Or what about the prohet Isaiah?

    Isa.49 [5] And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.

    Or what about Jeremiah the prophet?
    Jer.1
    4] Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
    [5] Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

    Pss.106
    [38] And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

    Prov.6
    16] These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
    [17] A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
    [18] An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
    [19] A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.


    I could go on and on but what is the point..... since you spoke out of your lack of knowledge..

    Ecclesiastes 11
    [5] As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the wor

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 07/24/2008 5:04:50 PM

      Comment: bojack,

      As ususal you know very little about what Judiasm has to say on teh subject. You are misquoting the very flawed Christian versions of TaNaKH.

      First off Torah is ONLY the first five books. HaLakah is the rest of teh law. And ONLY Torah is considered God given. There rest is man-made. I have taught this stuff for many many years so my knowledge of it most likely far greater than yours.

      The exodus section that you quoted actually supports the idea that a fetus is NOT the same as human being. If you knew what was written in the Hebrew (which is the ONLY valid source), it says that IF only the fetus is harmed, that those that damage it are liable for PROPERTY damages. The words used are the same ones that are used when an ox or cattle is damaged. The life-for life words refer ONLY to if the woman (the living human being) is killed. And the words harm refer ONLY the WOMAN since she is the ONLY human being in the equation.

      That is how Judaism has interpetted it since these words were written. A fetus CANNOT be killed. It iss not a living humanbieng. Judaism has always belived that life begin at birth. Pre-life is not that same thing and a fetus (whcih is why it is often referred to as fruit of the womb) is not a life.

      And Maimonides, one of the greatest Jewish Legal schlars in all of history stated that if carrying a fetus to term put the woman's health or life at risk that the fetus MUST be aborted. It was not a choice.


      The non-Torah stuff in no way deals with abortion or the status of a fetus as a equal living thing. IT deals with the idea that EVENTUALLY what is in the womb will be a human being, but it does nto have that status in the womb.

      Jeremiah and Isaiah are specifically dealing ONLY with the prophets themsleves as they are special entities.

      Proverbs deals not at all with the issue.

      • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/25/2008 11:10:42 AM

        Comment: Yeled and Yasa

        A word???s meaning in any language is determined in two steps. We learn a word???s range of meaning--its possible definitions--inductively by examining its general usage. We learn its specific meaning within that range by the immediate context.

        The relevant phrase in the passage, ???...she has a miscarriage...,??? reads w??yase û ye ladêhâ in the Hebrew. It???s a combination of a Hebrew noun--yeled--and a verb--yasa--and literally means ???the child comes forth.??? The NASB makes note of this literal rendering in the margin.

        The Hebrew noun translated ???child??? in this passage is yeled[4] (yeladim in the plural), and means ???child, son, boy, or youth.???[5] It comes from the primary root word yalad,[6] meaning ???to bear, bring forth, or beget.??? In the NASB yalad is translated ???childbirth??? 10 times, some form of ???gave birth??? over 50 times, and either ???bore,??? ???born,??? or ???borne??? 180 times.

        The verb yasa[7] is a primary, primitive root that means ???to go or come out.??? It is used over a thousand times in the Hebrew Scriptures and has been translated 165 different ways in the NASB--escape, exported, go forth, proceed, take out, to name a few. This gives us a rich source for exegetical comparison. It???s translated with some form of ???coming out??? (e.g., ???comes out,??? ???came out,??? etc.) 103 times, and some form of ???going??? 445 times.

        What???s most interesting is to see how frequently yasa refers to the emergence of a living thing:

        Genesis 1:24 ???Then God said, ???Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind???; and it was so.???
        Genesis 8:17 [to Noah] ???Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you, birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth....???

        Genesis 15:4 ???This man will not be your heir; but one who shall come forth from your own body....???

        Genesis 25:25-26 ???Now the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau. And afterward his brother came forth with his hand holding on to Esau???s heel, so his name was called Jacob.???

        1 Kings 8:19 ???Nevertheless you shall not build the house, but your son who shall be born to you, he shall build the house for My name.???

        Jeremiah 1:5 ???Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.???

        2 Kings 20:18 ???And some of your sons who shall issue from you, whom you shall beget, shall be taken away; and they shall become officials in the palace of the king of Babylon.???

        As you can see, it???s common for yasa to describe the ???coming forth??? of something living, frequently a child. There is only one time yasa is clearly used for a dead child. Numbers 12:12 says, ???Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother???s womb

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 07/25/2008 11:34:22 AM

          Comment: Jewish scholars have disagreed with your group's interpretation throughout history. Their opinion will always hold more validity in what the TaNaKH says.

          • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/25/2008 3:19:40 PM

            Comment: Good Refute..... NOT..... that is a childhood tactic of saying my dad is better than your dad .... it lack substances.... and goes into relatism realm of thinking and debating.......

            • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 07/25/2008 4:13:57 PM

              Comment: Not at all.

              As long as Christians insist on mistranslating or misinterpretting the TaNaKH by stating that Jesus is anywhere in it, any other interpretation by a believer in those lies is irrelevant.

              Nothing in the TaNaKH can be construed to say that it opposes abortion in all circumstances.

              And since abortion is dealing with a fetus that has NOT BEEN BORN and Judaism and Torah has always said that life begins at BIRTH, abortion is not killing a living human being. Agani what is outside of Torah is not relevant to Jewish law.

              The simple fact is that no Christian interpretation of TaNakh supercedes the classic Jewish interpretations. TaNaKH is first and foremost a Jewish theological text. It was written by them for them. Therefore the Jewish interpretation has higher standing.

              It is not my dad is better than your dad, It is your dad does not have legal or educational standing to even voice an opinion.

              • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/26/2008 5:42:10 PM

                Comment: The simple fact is that no Christian interpretation of TaNakh supercedes the classic Jewish interpretations. TaNaKH is first and foremost a Jewish theological text. It was written by them for them. Therefore the Jewish interpretation has higher standing.

                It is not my dad is better than your dad, It is your dad does not have legal or educational standing to even voice an opinion.

                The classic Jewish interpretation!!!!! Does one have to be Jewish now to interpret the TaNakH? Think before you answer this being that you told me one doesn't have to believe in God in order to teach the TaNakh!!!! So how is it that you can say that your interpretation is valid being that you don't believe in God? Or that you are not a Jew?

                Being a Jew requires one who believes in God ..... not being born in a certain family .... since Jew is not a race .... but a religion.... Judaism..... and many people plus those born of the Hebrew race have come to the understanding of the Torah and have accpted that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament and are no longer required to keep the Torah laws of sacrifice.......

                The simple fact that your lack of scriptures or writings outlining why Jesus is not in the Torah ..... is just an overactive imagination of disbelief ....... if not then provide scriptures from the Torah or Oral writings suggesting that the Jewish people were not to look for a redeemer, prophet, shepherd, king, leader, the day of the Lord, and a nation where all eyes would be upon them.....

                It is what it is .... my dad not only has legal educational standing to voice an opinion but He is the written Word of God

                John.1
                [1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
                [2] The same was in the beginning with God.
                [3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
                [4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
                [5] And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
                [6] There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
                [7] The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
                [8] He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
                [9] That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
                [10] He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
                [11] He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
                [12] But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
                [13] Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
                [14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

                • Posted By: davidchai @ 07/27/2008 1:04:47 PM

                  Comment: Actually, ghostmasseur is correct. The Jewish interpretation is ALWAYS the most valid one. I am a Rabbi and a professor of Jewish studies. I believe in HaShem (G-d). I keep Kosher and am Shomer Shabbat.

                  Although I am saddened that ghostmasseur has come to the mistaken idea that there is no G-d, I still recognize that he has a very firm and accurate grasp of what Jewish tradition says.

                  Since we place no value in the Christian holy texts (they cannot be a New Testament since there is not an "Old" Testament, there is simply TaNaKH, as well as Talmud, Gemara and Mishna, which include the Oral Laws and commentary) to reference or answer anything in the Christian texts is absurd. I say we to mean Jews, but ghostmasseur, since his background is in the Jewish religion and knowledge base would also have not reason to address those works of fiction.

                  Jews were and still are looking for a Moshiach. But anyone that claims that Moshiaach is part of HaShem (is divine), that belief in him is required to enter "Heaven", or that he is to be worshipped, is lying. THAT is not part of Moshiach and Jesus (assuming that he even existed) was no Moshiach. There is no "Second Coming". And all of the sections of TaNaKH that Christians use to claim Jesus in TaNaKH either refer to someone else (not Moshiach and definitely not Jesus) or are being misquoted and taken out of context. There are far too many to address, and GM is correct in that it is not important enough to waste time on.

                  • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/27/2008 5:17:37 PM

                    Comment: You have almost convinced me that you are right!!! Not! So what that you are a Rabbi and a professor of Jewish studies. You have invalidated yourself of common sense when you said, "Assuming that Jesus ever existed..... need I point out that many scholars and Jewish writers have validated the existence of Jesus ....

                    Now tell me that you don't have this written in your Torah, TaNaKH

                    Exod.34
                    [27] And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
                    [28] And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

                    So you are saying that Moses and Israel didn't make a covenant with G-d?

                    • Posted By: yossibenreuven @ 07/28/2008 1:48:09 PM

                      Comment: Bojack,

                      Just so you know, I have taken comparative religion classes during undergrad and my Methodist minister professor started the discussion of Christainity with the line "We will will start our study of Christaintiy in a general sense asumming that Jesus existed. Now of course I am sure that he did, and that is our savior, but I do not want his genral existance to be part f this class. We can argue whether he was G-d's son, and what Christainity says it he is, but let's leave the 'did he even exist' discussion for another class." During lunch, I asked some friends of mine at work (Jews, Mulsims, and Christains...we work at an intefaith charitable foundation) ) whether they had a ever heard that phrase used in their classes and only one had not. Of course he is a Catholic priest and he went to a Jesuit university in the their theology program (what they take whenthey are studying for the priesthood) so that was not a valid commetn for the class.

                      And on another point, the non-Jews at lunch all asked why we (GM, Rabbi Davichai, and I) were wasting our time on this board and why would we waste time discussing Jesus's status in Judaism. They all said that it was a non-topic for this type of board.

                      • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/29/2008 10:29:47 AM

                        Comment: Defending one's faith can be done at any place and anytime..... the correct forum is what one makes of the others argument...........

                    • Posted By: davidchai @ 07/28/2008 8:02:16 AM

                      Comment: I always use the phrase "assuming he existed because that is still a point of argument aamong scholars. I happen to believe that a human being named Jesus son of Joseph did exist and was an itinerant Rabbi, but, given that much of what is said about him is in a very suspect set of books that your religion has picked and chosen from to justify your religious beliefs, I will always have doubts and that phrase expresses those doubts. You will find that many academics (not jsut Jewish ones) will use that phrase at some time in their classes. My only error was in not adding the words ("Which I do") to my post.

                      I never said that HaShem did nto make a covenant with Moses and Israel. I said that the TaNaKH cannot be called the "OLD" testament because there is no "NEW" testament. At this time there is only TaNaKH. And we reject the use of the term "testament" although froma purely lingusitic view, it could be referred to as such.

                      I teach two complete courses (not every term or year but in rotation) about Moshiach and those contain multi-day sections that succintly refute the claims about Jesus. I am not going to waste my time on that here. Yo want to read a good refutation, go to http://www.messiahtruth.com/. They are a good resource.

                      The simple fact is that this board is not a worthy forum for this and I have better things to do than waste my valuable time. I have to start prepping next semesters classes and also take my family on its annaul vacation Wednesday. I posted yesterday because a student of mine emailed me and asked me to look as wht GM had written. He thinks that he knows who GM (having been a student of his and having been drawn closer to Judaism because of his class) is and was not aware that he had left the religion. He hoped that I might talk to him. Unfortunately, after I told the student last night that GM has said he was not going to waste any more time on this, my student said that GM had always been a man of his word, and was likely no longer even reading this board. So I missed my chance to talk to him. That is my only regret on coming here.

                      Have a good summer.

                      • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/28/2008 12:00:46 PM

                        Comment: Covenant and Testament is interchangeable..... to me..... I see you are like your former colleague.... you state something that you yourself cannot defend and then tell me to go to another board to look how they defend it..... I could easily post websites that counter everything they say as well.....

                        I'm concern for GM as well .... it seems that he has taken the path of the infidel and that is not good....

                        You have a great summer as well.....

                        • Posted By: yossibenreuven @ 07/28/2008 1:10:45 PM

                          Comment: Bojack,

                          Rabbi davidchai is correct. Covenant and Testament are NOT interchangable. Of course they would be to you because without that interpretation Christianity cannot survive. He is also correct in that there is no reason for himn to waste time on Jesus. With the exception that his followers ahve been nothing but a royal pain and murders to the Jews, he is not that important. It would take thousands of posts (since there is 3000 letter limit on Newsweek) to completely debunk the idea that Jesus is in the TaNaKH. It is jut not that important and is a waste of bandwidth.

                          • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/29/2008 9:47:41 AM

                            Comment: The New Testament (Greek: ??????????? ??????????????, Kain?? Diath??k??) is the name given to the second half of the Christian Bible, the first half being the Hebrew Bible (also called by Jews Tanakh), known to Christians as the Old Testament. It is sometimes called the Greek Testament or Greek Scriptures, or the New Covenant ??? which is the literal translation of the original Greek. The original texts were written in Koine Greek by various authors after c. AD 45 and before c. AD 140.

                            • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/29/2008 9:49:18 AM

                              Comment: The term New Covenant (Hebrew: ???????? ????????, berit hadashah ; Greek: ?????????????? ??????????, diath??k?? kain??) is used in the Bible (both in the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament) to refer to an epochal relationship of restoration and peace following a period of trial and judgment. As are all covenants between God and man described in the Bible, it is "a bond in blood sovereignly administered by God." [1]

                              • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/29/2008 9:52:57 AM

                                Comment: The only reference in the Hebrew Bible that uses the wording "new covenant" is Jeremiah 31:31-34, but there are many other passages that speak about the same epochal relationship, without using this exact wording. Some passages speak of a "covenant of peace;" others use other constructions; some simply say "covenant," but in context it is clearly the New Covenant at issue; and some use metaphorical descriptions, like "Mount Zion," referring to the New Covenant. The key text at issue here is quoted in full in Hebrews 8:8-12 in the New Testament, with an interpretation in the surrounding text. That full quotation, with partial quotations of the same text in other New Testament passages, reflects that the authors of the New Testament and Christian leaders generally, consider Jeremiah 31:31-34 to be a central Old Testament prophecy of the New Covenant.

                                Based on a general, non-denominational, non-interpretive, reading of the text of Jeremiah 31:31-34, the following points are discernible:
                                ??? The New Covenant is established by God himself.[2]
                                ??? The New Covenant is made with the "house of Israel" and the "house of Judah".[3]
                                ??? The New Covenant is not like the broken covenant made with Moses at Mount Sinai.
                                o Unlike the broken covenant (Jer 11), the New Covenant is kept by its members.[4]
                                ??? Characteristics of the members of the New Covenant:[5]
                                o The law of God is written in their thinking and their affections.
                                o The LORD, i.e. YHVH, will be their God, and they will be his people.[6]
                                o Every single member of the New Covenant "knows the LORD" in an intimate way.[7]
                                o The sins of the members of the New Covenant are forgiven by God, and will never be recalled.

                    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/27/2008 5:20:00 PM

                      Comment: Below is what we Christians believe ... pay attention to verse 10

                      Heb.8
                      [1] Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
                      [2] A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
                      [3] For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
                      [4] For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
                      [5] Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
                      [6] But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
                      [7] For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
                      [8] For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
                      [9] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
                      [10] For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
                      [11] And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
                      [12] For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
                      [13] In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

                      • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/27/2008 5:24:15 PM

                        Comment: Now read from your own prophet.... which validates Hebrews 10:8

                        Jer.31
                        [31] Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
                        [32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
                        [33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
                        [34] And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more

                        Now I challenge you to post the prophesies concerning Moshiach.... and we will see who is able to say if Moshiach is still to be looked for as you claim or that he has already come and we are to await his second coming.....

                • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 07/26/2008 5:59:56 PM

                  Comment: AS
                  I said, it is not MY interpretation but theone that Jewish scholars have been making.

                  I personally make no interpretations.
                  But to answer the simple question, when it comes to waht the TaNaKH means, YES the classic Jewish Religious interpretation IS the only valid one. Jesus is not in TaNaKH. There are many quaified Jewish website that have the proof. Search them out. IF you are willing to honestly review them.

                  I am not going to waste more time on this garbage. You and Jesus are not worth it.

                  • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/26/2008 7:51:49 PM

                    Comment: As I said, even the scholars in Jesus time got it wrong and now you are defending thes scholars without debating my points..... yes you are right in not making any interpretations since you cannot effectively defend anything that you have said on these post.....

                    As for restating the same garbage to me ..... why don't you go on sites and post them here.... it is to obvious to me that what you have been vehemently championing you haven't really got a clue of what the jewish are talking about let alone what the Torah has to say on the subjects.....

                  • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 07/26/2008 6:26:34 PM

                    Comment: And the reason that I am not wastingmroe time is that is it fairly obvious that you are the sole evangelical on this board and the probability that not many other people are reading it. (And those that are smart enough not to fall for your evangelicalgarbage.) Therefore I would be spending time on someone who is so blinded by his evanglism that he still belives the earth is a little over 6000 years old. Not worth the time. I do not teach kindergarten.

                    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/26/2008 7:56:25 PM

                      Comment: I wasn't posting for others as you were.... I addressed all of my comments toward you.....if you need an audience for support of your points of view then you are the one who was trying to preach to others not me.....

                      I don't think kindergarten would want you to teach them since children do ask alot of questions ...... we know that you lack of ability to answer would hinder their growth.........

              • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/26/2008 5:27:43 PM

                Comment: What you call irrelevant is just your opinion on the matter in which you haven't back up with scriptures or teachings...... so one should take your opinion over the Word of God???? Read below where Jesus says that the scriptures point to him

                John.5
                37] And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
                [38] And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
                [39] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

                John.8
                [51] Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
                [52] Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.
                [53] Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
                [54] Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
                [55] Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
                [56] Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
                [57] Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
                [58] Jesus said unto them, Verily,verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

                Where did Jesus see Abraham? Read below (a Christopany)
                Gen.22
                [11] And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
                [12] And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
                [13] And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
                [14] And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.
                [15] And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
                [16] And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
                [17] That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
                [18] And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
                [19] So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beer-sheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beer-sheba.

        • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/25/2008 11:12:55 AM

          Comment: Note here, that we don???t infer the child???s death from the word yasa, but from explicit statements in the context. This is a still-birth, not a miscarriage. The child is dead before the birth (???whose flesh is half eaten away???), and doesn???t die as a result of the untimely delivery, as in a miscarriage.

          Yasa is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is never translated ???miscarriage??? in any other case. Why should the Exodus passage be any different?


          Clues from the Context

          This inductive analysis shows us something important: Nothing about the word yasa implies the death of the child. The context may give us this information, as in Numbers 12:12, but the word itself does not.

          This leads us to our next question: What in the context justifies our assumption that the child that ???comes forth??? is dead? The answer is, nothing does. There is no indication anywhere in the verse that a fine is assessed for a miscarriage and a more severe penalty is assessed for harming the mother.

          This becomes immediately clear when the Hebrew words are translated in their normal, conventional way (the word ???further??? in the NASB is not in the original):

          ???And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that the child comes forth, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman???s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life....???
          The text seems to require a fine for the premature birth, but injury to either of the parties involved incurs a more severe punishment.[8] Millard Erickson notes that ???there is no specification as to who must be harmed for the lex talionis [life for life] to come into effect. Whether the mother or the child, the principle applies.???[9]

          Gleason Archer, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, concludes:

          ???There is no ambiguity here, whatever. What is required is that if there should be an injury either to the mother or to her children, the injury shall be avenged by a like injury to the assailant. If it involves the life (nepes) of the premature baby, then the assailant shall pay for it with his life. There is no second-class status attached to the fetus under this rule; he is avenged just as if he were a normally delivered child or an older person: life for life. Or if the injury is less, but not serious enough to involve inflicting a like injury on the offender, then he may offer compensation in monetary damages...???[10]

          • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/25/2008 11:15:19 AM

            Comment: Two Rejoinders

            Two further objections need to be dealt with. First, if this is a premature birth and not a miscarriage, why the fine?

            Babies born prematurely require special care. Because their prenatal development has been interrupted, they are especially prone to difficulty. Pre-term babies often can???t breast feed, and there can be respiratory problems leading to permanent brain damage. The fine represents reimbursement for the expense of an untimely birth, and punitive damages for the serious trauma.

            Anyway, even if the fine was for the miscarriage, this wouldn???t prove the child was less than human. A few verses later (v. 32), Moses imposes a fine for the death of a slave, but this doesn???t mean the slave is sub-human.

            Second, was this the only word that could be used to indicate a miscarriage? No. Two other words were available to convey this particular meaning, if that???s what the writer had in mind: nepel and sakal. These are used seven times in the Hebrew text.

            The noun nepel[11] means ???miscarriage??? or ???abortion,??? and is used three times:

            Job 3:16 ???Or like a miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, as infants that never saw light.???
            Eccl. 6:3-4 ???If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, ???Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity.??????

            Psalms 58:8 ???Let them be as a snail which melts away as it goes along, like the miscarriages of a woman which never see the sun.???

            The verb sakal[12] means ???to be bereaved??? and is used four times, including one time when it???s actually translated ???abort:???

            Genesis 31:38 ???These twenty years I have been with you; your ewes and your female goats have not miscarried, nor have I eaten the rams of your flocks.???
            Exodus 23:26 ???There shall be no one miscarrying or barren in your land; I will fulfill the number of your days.???

            Hosea 9:14 ???Give them, O Lord-- what wilt Thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.???

            Job 21:10 ???His ox mates without fail; his cow calves and does not abort.

            Moses had words in his vocabulary that literally meant abortion or miscarriage, but he didn???t use them in Exodus 21:22. Instead, he chose the same word he used in many other places to signify a living child being brought forth.

            Yasa doesn???t mean miscarriage in the sense we think of that word. Instead, the combination of yeled with yasa suggests a living child coming forth from the womb. Nowhere else is this word ever translated ???miscarriage.??? Why? Because the word doesn???t mean the baby is still-born. It simply means the child comes out.

            • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/25/2008 11:17:23 AM

              Comment: Three Questions

              When someone raises this issue with you, ask these three questions.

              First, why presume the child is dead? Though the English word ???miscarriage??? entails this notion, nothing in the Hebrew wording suggests it. Yasa doesn???t mean miscarriage; it means ???to come forth.??? The word itself never suggests death.[13] In fact, the word generally implies the opposite: live birth. If it???s never translated elsewhere as miscarriage, why translate it that way here?

              Second, what in the context itself implies the death of the child? There???s nothing that does, nothing at all. The fine does not necessarily mean the child is dead, and even if it did this wouldn???t indicate that the child wasn???t fully human (as in the case of the slave in v. 32).

              Third, ancient Hebrew had a specific word for miscarriage. It was used in other passages. Why not here? Because Moses didn???t mean miscarriage. When his words are simply taken at face value, there is no confusion at all. The verse is clear and straight-forward. Everything falls into place.

              Regardless of the translation, it???s clear that killing the child--and the text does refer to the unborn as a child--is a criminal act. There is no justification for abortion-on-demand from the Torah. Instead, we have a reasonable--even powerful--argument that God views the unborn as valuable as any other human being.

              • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/25/2008 11:19:39 AM

                Comment: Here is the link below

                http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700

                • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 07/25/2008 1:28:17 PM

                  Comment: Of course there is ojne other issue to consider. That is that what is being quoted is just the written word inthe Torah and not the subcontext that is dealt with in the Oral Law (something that Christiainty knows nothing about since they are incapable of even understanding what is written, otherwise they would espouse the falsehoods of Jesus being anywhere in Torah or TaNaKH.) As long as the stuff you quote is coming from someone who insists that Jesus is in TaNaKh, then everything else that person says about what he TaNaKH says can be dismissed if if conflicts with the Jewish interpretation.

                  • Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/25/2008 3:50:12 PM

                    Comment: Once again you ignored the subject , have no rebuttal but to attacked the messenger..... then you contradict yourself by telling me (in another post) that one doesn't need to believe in something they teach about but have a thorough knowledge of the subject..... Are we switching to another subject ? Are you claiming that Jesus is not in the Torah or TaNaKH? ........ Are you saying that Jewish interpretations are Infallible?

                    So with these questions comes many more......
                    Who is the Angel of the Lord? and why did Joshua fall down and worship the captain of the host of the LORD?
                    Josh.5
                    13] And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?
                    [14] And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?
                    [15] And the captain of the LORD's host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.


                    Do you believe in a Messiah?
                    Why is the practice of offering sacrifice for sin to God not being practice today by the Jews?
                    Could it be that they missed the Messiah's coming?

                    http://thriceholy.net/theophanic.html

                    http://www.eadshome.com/mm/Jesus%20in%20the%20OT.doc