I would like to reply on these points. Though maybe we can take it to another thread or maybe onto our profiles? Because it has been straying a bit far off topic.
It is straying. We could but do we have too?
It really doesn't take interpretation to reason that there are going to be some pregnant women out of the non virgin women from an entire population of people.
Here is the rest of this passage:
Numbers 31
New International Version
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the armyâ"the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundredsâ"who returned from the battle.
15 âHave you allowed all the women to live?â he asked them. 16 âThey were the ones who followed Balaamâs advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lordâs people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
19 âAnyone who has killed someone or touched someone who was killed must stay outside the camp seven days. On the third and seventh days you must purify yourselves and your captives. 20 Purify every garment as well as everything made of leather, goat hair or wood.â
I suppose it's still a command to kill, but he's talking to soldiers. Don't many countries have laws against murder, but military troops that kill people. The women being killed I suppose were being punished for bringing a plague on their people.
Most of these passage are about murder, with the possibility that a woman might have child. They aren't saying to just kill the child and live the mother to live. In all the cases it's still a form of punishment, which would mean none of these women would seek out such a deed. Also, gathering from the passages, if said people who incurred these punishments did not turn away from the Lord, they would have never incurred them.
Hosea 13:16
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."
Here, the passage is much more direct. But from further reading, this sounds like a prophecy of a war in which this things might happen.
(Apologetic nonsense maybe.)
Do you even know what apologetics means?
Apologetics is the discipline of defending a position (often religious)
through the systematic use of information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ApologeticsThe passage come down to interpretation, we are reading a translation of said passages. How fully can one understand the passage without knowing the context of the passages, customs of those ancient times, and the original language in which they are spoken?
I'll give it to you for the heaven and hell statement about the Old Testament, it's speculation and if you wish "apologetic nonsense". But I could dig deeper a get a source and then possibly a better source.
For Numbers 5, I did look into the passages. I went as far as the Haydock commentary of the Douy Rheims Bible and also read other forums on the passage, which had many people give many different views.
A passage that speaks of the belly swelling and the "thigh" falling away. This was Emp's passage, but it is an interpretation heavy passage. To claim it's definitely speaking about abortion, then no sources,
could be classified as nonsense.
I could still claim all the interpretations you present as abortion as nonsense. The passages are quoted, and then you give us your commentary with no further source. But, I suppose you can find those sources, and I take that you have. I don't believe you are the only person holding that position.
But as I see it most of these passages are up to interpretation. Then it comes down to how reliable of an interpretation and source can be found. But if one party does not agree with a source, anything can be passed off as "apologetic nonsense"
I wouldn't really be any different than if I were to say that I have the right to punch you in the face because I say so.
Rhetorical nonsense?
Do you even know the definition of abortion?
As for the passages (aside from Hosea) none of them are direct comments on abortion, let alone what to do if a woman seeks an abortion. It's all killing as a form of punishment. I see enough of a distinction here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbortionAbortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability.[note 1] An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy.
I still see the passages, at most, as the termination of a woman and indirectly and consequently the fetus. Not the induced abortion of human pregnancy. The passage (aside from Hosea) still don't ask or speak directly for the murder of a child within the womb while leaving the woman intact.
=======
=======
To be more concise. The passage come down to interpretation and I feel there is definite distinction between what the passages state and abortion.
