Well, I’m glad you finally found the correct reference. In the context of making vows as in offering your service to the Lord, Leviticus 27:1-8 states: “Again the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When a man makes a difficult vow, he shall be valued according to your valuation of persons belong to the LORD. ‘If your valuation is of the male from twenty years even to sixty years old, then your valuation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. ‘Or if it is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels. ‘If it be from five years even to twenty years old then your valuation for the male shall be twenty shekels and for the female ten shekels. ‘But if they are from a month even up to five years old, then your valuation shall be five shekels of silver for the male, and for the female your valuation shall be three shekels of silver. ‘If they are from sixty years old and upward, if it is a male, then your valuation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels. ‘But if he is poorer than your valuation, then he shall be placed before the priest and the priest shall value him.”

The difficult vow is the key phrase. Making a vow to the LORD is to offer service to the LORD. A good example is Hannah dedicated Samuel to the LORD. If the vow was difficult, the person was to make an offering in lieu of service. The valuation was given not based on a person’s worth but the means by which they could pay instead of giving their time to service. Take note that the poor person was to be presented to the priest. The rest of the chapter deals with clean animals offered to the LORD and unclean animals which were redeemed. It also talks about consecrating one’s house to the LORD and so on.

This chapter has nothing to do with the worth of a human being. Let’s see how valuable we are to God. In Genesis 9:6 after Noah came out of the ark, it states “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. God made us in his image. Also in Romans 8:31-32 it states, “What shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Jesus Christ, God’s Son, God the Son took on humanity so that He could die and pay the penalty for our sins so that we could have eternal life and dwell with God.
Ephesians 2:4-6 “But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. Looks like he values human beings very highly to me.

Unfortunately, you use eisegesis when you interpret the Bible. Eisegesis - It is an interpretation of Scripture that expresses the intepreter’s OWN (emphasis mine) ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text - from The Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. In other words you are taking your own predetermined beliefs and biases and making the Bible fit what you believe. For example, a speed limit sign would read SPEED LIMIT 25. I could impose a predetermined belief that even though it says 25 I can really go 30 or 35. Say I do 35 and Office D. is at the corner waiting to give me a ticket - I got the ticket because the sign says SPEED LIMIT 25. A good Biblical example of eisegesis is King Saul. Saul was commanded by God to “destroy Amalek and all that he has.” Saul didn’t do that but insisted that he did obey God (I Samuel 15:20). Samuel rebuked Saul and God rejected Saul as king over Israel. Read the entire chapter. So, when you use eisegesis you will not agree with anyone who interprets the Bible based on exegesis. In fact, you will not agree with anyone who uses eisgesis because they will have a different belief system than you.

Exegesis - critical explanation or interpretation of a text, esp. of the Bible - from The Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. Interpretation is based on the context and the type of literature. When using exegesis a person reads out of Scripture what the writer clearly intends to express or say. This is the type of interpretation we use as human beings to communicate with each other everyday, through speaking and writing. If I’m your boss and write you and e-mail requesting a certain financial report by 3:00 pm, then you know you will have to give me that financial report by 3:00 pm. It is that simple. In fact you used exegesis to read and interpret my postings to that you could respond to me. Why can’t you do that with the Bible?

I feel sorry for you. You are missing out on what God says. He has a lot for you if you will put down your biases.

But this is my last word on this topic. I do not come from an evangelical background that believes that every word written was place on the page by God. My Bible isn’t a red-letter edition. We will never see eye-to-eye, Patty, as you do not believe it is possible for two people to read the same passage of scripture and come away with different ideas as to meaning. Clearly, it is blasphemy in your eyes to read the Bible in any way other than what you believe or have been taught. In the face of such dogmatic determination, I will endeavor to focus my attention to more important matters.

You proved my point about how you do not have the gift of exegesis. Your comment “The Bible can be read and interpreted in many ways” betrays your commentary. You can take anything out of context and twist it to your own desire and that doesn’t make it right. You take your own biases and then interpret what the Bible says based on your own self centered desires and beliefs. That is what is called twisting the truth and that is what Satan is a master of.

In the context of personal injury, Exodus 21:22-23 states: “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, 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 further injury then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,”

I think the above is pretty clear. How you can justify abortion based on this text is beyond belief.

In the context of the requirements and regulations for the priests, Leviticus 21:1-7 states: Then the LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: ‘No one shall defile himself for a dead person among his people, except for his relatives who are nearest to him, his mother and his father and his son and his daughter and his brother, also for his virgin sister, who is near to him because she has had no husband; for her he may defile himself. ‘He shall not defile himself as a relative by marriage among his people, and so profane himself. ‘They shall not make any baldness on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuts in their flesh. ‘They shall be holy to their God and not profane the name of their God, for they present the offerings by fire to the LORD, the food of their God; so they shall be holy. ‘They shall not take a woman who is profaned by harlotry, nor shall they take a woman divorced from her husband; for he is holy to his God.’

This passage talks about how a priest is not to defile himself for a dead person and the priest is not to defile himself through marraige of a woman who is a harlot or divorced. The rest of the chapter continues with regulations for priests. How you can justify abortion through this passage is utter nonsense.

In the context of a husband bringing his wife to the priest when the husband suspects the wife of adultery. Numbers 5:27-28 states: ‘When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will waste away, and the woman will become a curse among her people. ‘But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive children.’

This passage speaks of God’s judgement on the woman. It speaks of sterilization as an act from God. God will keep her from conceiving. This passage does NOT legitimize the practice of abortion.

I will remind you of a warning from Jesus found in Matthew 12:36 it states: “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgement.”

Please enlighten me as to where I twisted and turned. Simply stating something does not make it true (regardless of how many times you say it). Do you not believe that Exodus 21:22-23 outlines the penalties and compensation a man can receive if his wife is struck and miscarries? Do you not believe that Leviticus 21:1-7 puts value (in schekels) on different “classes of people” (and puts no value on children under 1 month old)? Do you not believe that Numbers 5:27 talks of the Lord punishing the adulterous wife saying “her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop…:? Do you not believe that the original Hebrew of the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” as a much more precise meaning? I didn’t for one moment say I was comfortable with these ideas. There, you have done the twisting.

Please, enlighten me as to what I twisted. The only point I’m trying to make is that the Bible (which I hold dear and read daily) can be (and is) read and interpreted in many ways. The Bible is only clear on one thing–we are all sinners redeemed through the ultimate sacrifice of God’s son. Everything else? Not so cut and dry.

Slavery is no more germane to this conversation than the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church members are.

It is not my “misguided beliefs” that I’m writing about. It is what the Bible clearly teaches. If you have a problem with the Bible, don’t waste your time trying to argue with me. Argue with God, because the Bible is His Word not mine.

Your logic is empty. You’ve twisted the Biblical text. I’m sure you know how to read. Why don’t you just sit down and read the text? It is that simple.

As for my skills in exegesis, I was given thw verses I quoted in the handiur from a panel discussion on abortion that I attended at a religious school outside Phileadelphia several years ago. The panel had a rabbi, a Catholic priest, a Lutheran minister, and an Episcople priest. The point of the panel was precisely that the religious response to abortion is some times as confused as the worldly response. Most fascinating was the rabbi who was very clear about Judaic law on the subject.

Also fascinating was the discussion on the pregnancy of Mary, a single Divine event unlike any other in the world (unless you’re saying Jesus was just another man, Patty). Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary– not your typical conception and thus not germane. There was no meeting of egg and sperm, so under HB2797 would our Lord have been considered a person?

I assume, Patty, that you have a degree in theology upon which you are basing your critique. If not, you have just as much or as little authority to provide the “correct” interpretation of scripture as I do.

I also do not speak for Chuck Colgan. Reproductive rights are a place where my views differ from his, but as I base my voting decisions on more than one issue, I am still a Colgan supporter. I’m not quite sure how you made the logical leap from my views to somehow ascribing a position to Colgan.
On a final note, while fetus does translate as “little one,” it was the term used to describe the being formed in the earth and mysteriously placed in the woman’s womb–a common belief in how babies were made in times before the modern era. So I don’t think the literal interpretaion of a word used when people thought the Earth was flat really means much of anything in this discussion.

I’m sure you learned in school that slavery was abolished by Christians who, based on what God said in his Word, rose up against slavery. Read Philemon in the Bible. It is in the New Testament just before Hebrews.

To My baby was a person,

Yes, indeed your baby is a person. Your child is with Jesus. I hope you can take comfort in that. I lost my son and I take comfort in knowing he is with Jesus. I also know that spending eternity with my son will be a lot more time than I could have spent with him here. I know you are hurting and words sometimes don’t comfort. Also, people will say things that will hurt you even though their intentions are to comfort you. I pray that God will comfort you as only He can. I know because He comforts me. Please accept my sympathy for your loss. I will pray for you. If you would like to talk with me I’m sure Greg could get us together. There is a support group for parents who have lost babies through miscarraige.

That is not what the Bible says. That is the worst butchering of the Biblical text I’ve ever seen in my life. Exegesis is not your gift. What is sad is that you have twisted the truth so that people who don’t read the Bible will think what you have said is true. Matthew 12:36 Jesus says “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it on the day of judgement.” Twisting truth comes from the father of lies-from Satan himself.

The Bible cleary teaches that life begins at conception. You dishonor Jesus because Jesus was Jesus while in Mary’s womb. Even John the Baptist while in his mother’s womb leapt for joy when Mary came into the house because Jesus was in her womb. Read the book of Luke, if you know how to read.

How dare you celebrate Christmas, you who think it is okay to destroy a baby. Every baby has a right to life. Who made you god over them. You say Chuck Colgan is pro life and then you get on this thread and say it is okay for someone to abort their baby. You have totally convinced me that Chuck Colgan truly is pro-abortion.

By the way the term fetus in Latin means - little one. So that term betrays your cause. The cause of death to babies.

Also, morality comes from the Lord and not from your own self centered desires.

Dolph’s link above to the posting on the California Right to Life site really stresses that the language chosen for HB2797 was not done without thought and reason. The words were very carefully chosen (just as Delegate Bob’s words in his comments on this blog post were carefully chosen–note he addresses none of the concerns raised by many of the opponents of this measure and sweeps them up in a broad statement that a lot of this blog’s posters just don’t think straight).

Roe v. Wade hinged on the interpretation that the 14th Amendment’s recognition of “persons” does not apply to blastocysts, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses–they are not yet “persons” under the law. Measures like HB2797 seek to change the definition of “personhood” in a clear attempt to strike at the heart of the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade.

Greg’s comment in the original blog post that “[r]egardless of your opinion on the abortion issue, this demarcation of the beginning of life should be subject to rational discussion, and this is a demarcation that I would imagine most voters would consider reasonable” just isn’t true. The reason there is so much debate over this issue is centered precisely on where the demarcation should be. And contrary to Greg’s assertion and Mr. Marshall’s carefully chosen words, HB2797 is not a simple, reasonable statement.

The government has already taken on the unborn as dependents - The USDA WIC (Women, Infants and Children) subsidy targets pregnant women.

Back in the day, I had my own private WIC program - my husband. Now we both get to play “daddy” every time we file our taxes.

I bet that would shut the government up IN A HEART BEAT!

So, what purpose does HB2797 serve then? Why go to the effort to codify that life begins at fertilization? Why waste time in a short legislative session on a bill that really is just a simple little statement?

The fact that no woman was prosecuted for abortion under Virginia law prior to Roe v. Wade is misleading. As you are well aware, the pre-Roe v. Wade laws in Virginia punished the doctors and practitioners who performed the banned procedure. However, pre-Roe v. Wade, we didn’t have any law on the books that defined life as beginning with fertilization. The little “wrinkle” in the law would then make abortion murder (under the legal definition). It would make any contraceptive that stops a pregnancy after fertilization a deadly weapon. Do you deny that this is how you innocuous HB2797 could be interpreted by the courts?

I notice that no where in your comment above do you address the actual substance of some of the comments (except with the oblique reference that some of the blog commenters don’t think straight).

You are correct that HB2797 does not in and of itself put women or doctors in jail. But, indirectly HB2797, by defining the beginning of a human person as fertilization, would move the destruction of a zygote into the realm of murder under current Virginia law.

You can try to confuse this issue by talking about pre-Roe v. Wade convictions (irrelevant) and third-grade science curriculum (also not germane unless of course your grasp of biology stopped at third grade). How about addressing the elephant in the room…

If HB2797 were passed and made law in the Commonwealth, would the state now have a tool at its discretion to prosecute those who end a life (as defined by HB2797) under existing Virginia law regarding homicide?

Dude, no woman on earth has ever given birth to a liver or pancreas.

In layman’s terms, fertilization is the union of sperm and egg. Conception is the implantation of said union into the lining of the uterus. Many forms of contraception inhibit implantation.

The ‘harmless little ole bill’ is anything but! Read it again and think about it not only in terms of abortion but also in terms of most modern contraception like the pill, IUD, and the like.

1. § 1. That life begins at the moment of fertilization and the right to enjoyment of life guaranteed by Article 1, § 1 of the Constitution of Virginia is vested in each born and preborn human being from the moment of fertilization.

I am including a link to California Right to Life which explains the grand scheme much better than I can.

http://www.calright2life.org/difference.htm

Rest assured that any bill sponsored by The Right Reverend Bobby Marshall which deals with reproduction has some weasel words in it. I would not vote for any candidate who supports this form of extremism or who voted for the bill last year. Our lawmakers need to make absolutely certain they totally understand the bills which they are voting on.

I am beginning to wonder which candidate for the 50th HD seat is really the extremist.