Hambone v3.0

Jessica’s Middle Finger to Jesus

David Jennings (via Texpat) posted a thread last week on the ghoulish “Holiday Celebration” being sponsored by Democrat state representatives Jessica Farrar and Carol Alvarado. Both are Catholic. Farrar, at least during election season, is supposedly a practicing Catholic. I know this because she is a member of my parish.
To hold a political celebration at the country’s largest abortatorium during a season when we celebrate the birth of our Savior is beyond cynical. For a Catholic, and anyone else who believes in the sanctity of life, it is sacrilegious.
Here’s the flyer posted on David’s site:

I discussed this with our parish priest this morning. He was also very troubled and pointed out something I hadn’t realized. In addition to Sundays, Catholics have a set of Holy Days of Obligation. These are days when the faithful are obligated to participate in the Mass.
Representatives Farrar and Alvarado, both Catholic, have chosen one of these Holy Days to hold their “Holiday” celebration. And not just any Holy Day. They have chosen December 8, the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception.
I have long ago given up trying to make sense of the thought processes that lead people to support the bloody practice of abortion. I just take it to the Lord in prayer. But this Democrat celebration…all I can do is echo David’s question – How sick can Houston Democrats get? Don’t tell me the Devil isn’t real.

The angel Gabriel was sent from God
to a town of Galilee called Nazareth,
to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph,
of the house of David,
and the virgin’s name was Mary.
And coming to her, he said,
“Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with you.”
But she was greatly troubled at what was said
and pondered what sort of greeting this might be.
Then the angel said to her,
“Do not be afraid, Mary,
for you have found favor with God.
Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son,
and you shall name him Jesus.
He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High,
and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father,
and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever,
and of his Kingdom there will be no end.”
But Mary said to the angel,
“How can this be,
since I have no relations with a man?”
And the angel said to her in reply,
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
Therefore the child to be born
will be called holy, the Son of God.
And behold, Elizabeth, your relative,
has also conceived a son in her old age,
and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren;
for nothing will be impossible for God.”
Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord.
May it be done to me according to your word.”
Then the angel departed from her.
— Luke 1:26-38

Posted

in

by

Hamous

Tags:

Comments

50 responses to “Jessica’s Middle Finger to Jesus”

  1. mharper42 Avatar
    mharper42

    Hamous, please keep us posted if there is any fallout that comes to your attention.

  2. mharper42 Avatar
    mharper42

    Hamous, please keep us posted if there is any fallout that comes to your attention.

  3. Katfish Avatar
    Katfish

    It’s unlikely that there will be any temporal fallout accruing to Farrar. She does need to be concerned about the state of her immortal soul.

    n.b. – the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s conception in St Anne’s womb.

  4. wagonburner Avatar
    wagonburner

    It’s unlikely that there will be any temporal fallout accruing to Farrar. She does need to be concerned about the state of her immortal soul.
    n.b. – the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s conception in St Anne’s womb.

  5. wagonburner Avatar
    wagonburner

    n.b. – the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s conception in St Anne’s womb.

    Yes, that’s a distinction most do not know.

  6. Hamous Avatar
    Hamous

    n.b. – the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s conception in St Anne’s womb.

    Yes, that’s a distinction most do not know.

  7. mharper42 Avatar
    mharper42

    #2, #3
    Explain, please, although I guess I could try to look it up.

  8. mharper42 Avatar
    mharper42

    #2, #3
    Explain, please, although I guess I could try to look it up.

  9. Tedtam Avatar
    Tedtam

    I guess since Democrats are not lauded for their fidelity to moral causes, nor are they confused by hypocrisy, I’m not surprised. If the Kennedy and the Pelosi families can get away with this, we wouldn’t want to be discriminatory against any of our Southern Democrats. Especially if they are of a protected minority group. Right?

  10. Tedtam Avatar
    Tedtam

    I guess since Democrats are not lauded for their fidelity to moral causes, nor are they confused by hypocrisy, I’m not surprised. If the Kennedy and the Pelosi families can get away with this, we wouldn’t want to be discriminatory against any of our Southern Democrats. Especially if they are of a protected minority group. Right?

  11. Tedtam Avatar
    Tedtam

    Mharper

    A lot of people confuse the Immaculate Conception. Most non-Catholics, and even some Catholics, think it refers to the conception of Jesus. That is false. Mary was considered to have been conceived without the stain of original sin, as every other human being. Therefore, her conception was immaculate, without stain. This made her a fit vessel to carry the Son of God within her womb.

  12. Tedtam Avatar
    Tedtam

    Mharper
    A lot of people confuse the Immaculate Conception. Most non-Catholics, and even some Catholics, think it refers to the conception of Jesus. That is false. Mary was considered to have been conceived without the stain of original sin, as every other human being. Therefore, her conception was immaculate, without stain. This made her a fit vessel to carry the Son of God within her womb.

  13. Adee Avatar
    Adee

    The passage from St. Luke, above, is the scripture of the Feast of the Annunciation (March 25th I believe).

    IMHO, the insult given by the Democrat hypocrites in their choice of date and place could possibly only be made worse by scheduling a party on the Feast of the Annunciation. Or December 25th. Shudder

    Seems to me this is a matter for the Archbishop’s attention. 🙁

  14. Adee Avatar
    Adee

    The passage from St. Luke, above, is the scripture of the Feast of the Annunciation (March 25th I believe).
    IMHO, the insult given by the Democrat hypocrites in their choice of date and place could possibly only be made worse by scheduling a party on the Feast of the Annunciation. Or December 25th. Shudder
    Seems to me this is a matter for the Archbishop’s attention. 🙁

  15. fat albert Avatar
    fat albert

    I unfortunately will not be able to attend. I did, however, leave a detailed message (as requested) at the listed number. . . . . . . . . .

  16. fat albert Avatar
    fat albert

    I unfortunately will not be able to attend. I did, however, leave a detailed message (as requested) at the listed number. . . . . . . . . .

  17. Super Dave Avatar
    Super Dave

    Here’s the deal in a nutshell. How better to signify their belief in the superiority of man over the superiority of a supreme deity. Why if there were a God, how could he let such horrendous things happen, the argument must go. If human life is not sacrosanct, then what else is? Answer, nothing. Therefore, carving up these babies in the womb and flushing their parts down the toilet or delivering them to the trash man in a plastic bag is no different than cleaning up any other of life’s little difficulties – whether it be telling a lie or paying a bribe or incriminating your brother for a crime of your own. That’s what allows Democrats to govern without shame for anything and to allow personal ambition to trump truth. And since it does appear to outsiders to be the easier softer way, why not? So if our godless nation fails, well, that’s just bad luck. Too bad, so sad….While this may appear to many to be a tasteless affair, what better way could they find to demonstrate their true calling. I say to them, go for it. I mean it’s not like the Chronicle or local TV press is going to run a story about it or anything, so what’s the downside.

  18. El Gordo Avatar
    El Gordo

    Here’s the deal in a nutshell. How better to signify their belief in the superiority of man over the superiority of a supreme deity. Why if there were a God, how could he let such horrendous things happen, the argument must go. If human life is not sacrosanct, then what else is? Answer, nothing. Therefore, carving up these babies in the womb and flushing their parts down the toilet or delivering them to the trash man in a plastic bag is no different than cleaning up any other of life’s little difficulties – whether it be telling a lie or paying a bribe or incriminating your brother for a crime of your own. That’s what allows Democrats to govern without shame for anything and to allow personal ambition to trump truth. And since it does appear to outsiders to be the easier softer way, why not? So if our godless nation fails, well, that’s just bad luck. Too bad, so sad….While this may appear to many to be a tasteless affair, what better way could they find to demonstrate their true calling. I say to them, go for it. I mean it’s not like the Chronicle or local TV press is going to run a story about it or anything, so what’s the downside.

  19. Hamous Avatar
    Hamous

    #9 EG: I agree sir. The description of the Ds is spot on accurate, anything to win is acceptable because whatever advances the cause of the Ds is the truth and good regardless of what the facts or reality may reveal. The commies, by the way, follow the same MO.
    There really is no greater surface indicator of a person’s spiritual position (for the Elohim of the Bible or the evil one) than the letter behind their name. With the Ds the best you can hope for is that they are agnostic, and most are prolly athiest or pretenders like Ms Farrar; with the Rs, there is a far greater chance of belief in a Supreme Being and the need for a basic moral code of behavior. This is not at all to claim that all Rs are lilly white or Ds evil incarnate but the letter behind their name gives you a better than even shot at determining on which side of the spiritual divide they stand.

    M42, please understand that this discussion does not pertain to you as I perceive you to be in the “unusual” category; ie a moral, responsible, reasonable and prolly delightful-in-person, conservative who happens to be atheist.

  20. Bonecrusher Avatar
    Bonecrusher

    #9 EG: I agree sir. The description of the Ds is spot on accurate, anything to win is acceptable because whatever advances the cause of the Ds is the truth and good regardless of what the facts or reality may reveal. The commies, by the way, follow the same MO.
    There really is no greater surface indicator of a person’s spiritual position (for the Elohim of the Bible or the evil one) than the letter behind their name. With the Ds the best you can hope for is that they are agnostic, and most are prolly athiest or pretenders like Ms Farrar; with the Rs, there is a far greater chance of belief in a Supreme Being and the need for a basic moral code of behavior. This is not at all to claim that all Rs are lilly white or Ds evil incarnate but the letter behind their name gives you a better than even shot at determining on which side of the spiritual divide they stand.
    M42, please understand that this discussion does not pertain to you as I perceive you to be in the “unusual” category; ie a moral, responsible, reasonable and prolly delightful-in-person, conservative who happens to be atheist.

  21. Hamous Avatar
    Hamous

    THEME SONG for the Nanzi Pelousi, Kennedy clan, Jessica Farrar types.

  22. Bonecrusher Avatar
    Bonecrusher

    THEME SONG for the Nanzi Pelousi, Kennedy clan, Jessica Farrar types.

  23. mharper42 Avatar
    mharper42

    #10 Bones
    Don’t worry about me, I want everyone to say exactly what they think about everything. BTW, I daresay most of those influenced by Ayn Rand tend to be conservative atheists. It remains to be seen whether any of you are going to find me “delightful-in-person”!
    😀

  24. mharper42 Avatar
    mharper42

    #10 Bones
    Don’t worry about me, I want everyone to say exactly what they think about everything. BTW, I daresay most of those influenced by Ayn Rand tend to be conservative atheists. It remains to be seen whether any of you are going to find me “delightful-in-person”!
    😀

  25. Darren Avatar
    Darren

    A lot of people confuse the Immaculate Conception. Most non-Catholics, and even some Catholics, think it refers to the conception of Jesus. That is false. Mary was considered to have been conceived without the stain of original sin, as every other human being. Therefore, her conception was immaculate, without stain. This made her a fit vessel to carry the Son of God within her womb.

    Wow, I learned something new.

    I do appreciate that explanation. Who’s St. Anne?

  26. Darren Avatar
    Darren

    A lot of people confuse the Immaculate Conception. Most non-Catholics, and even some Catholics, think it refers to the conception of Jesus. That is false. Mary was considered to have been conceived without the stain of original sin, as every other human being. Therefore, her conception was immaculate, without stain. This made her a fit vessel to carry the Son of God within her womb.

    Wow, I learned something new.
    I do appreciate that explanation. Who’s St. Anne?

  27. Darren Avatar
    Darren

    “Holiday Celebration”

    Exactly. If Christians cannot even say they are celebrating Christ’s birth, then why not further erode their standards to no longer celebrate the renewal of human life?

  28. Darren Avatar
    Darren

    “Holiday Celebration”

    Exactly. If Christians cannot even say they are celebrating Christ’s birth, then why not further erode their standards to no longer celebrate the renewal of human life?

  29. Adee Avatar
    Adee

    #13 Darren,

    St. Anne is Mary’s mother.

  30. Adee Avatar
    Adee

    #13 Darren,
    St. Anne is Mary’s mother.

  31. Katfish Avatar
    Katfish

    There have been only four people who did not suffer being born with the stain of original sin: Adam, Eve, Mary, Jesus. Two of them blew it (and thereby “created” original sin). The other two lived their entire lives free from sin, despite the concupiscence resulting from original sin.

  32. wagonburner Avatar
    wagonburner

    There have been only four people who did not suffer being born with the stain of original sin: Adam, Eve, Mary, Jesus. Two of them blew it (and thereby “created” original sin). The other two lived their entire lives free from sin, despite the concupiscence resulting from original sin.

  33. Tedtam Avatar
    Tedtam

    And, you’ll see that we refer to Mary as “The Immaculate Conception”. Not “the product of an unwed pregnancy, for which we need to make an appointment. Is Thursday at 4:00 pm good?”

  34. Tedtam Avatar
    Tedtam

    And, you’ll see that we refer to Mary as “The Immaculate Conception”. Not “the product of an unwed pregnancy, for which we need to make an appointment. Is Thursday at 4:00 pm good?”

  35. Darren Avatar
    Darren

    On another blog a poster recently argued that a passage of the Bible demonstrated how God commanded His people to abort babies conceived via adultery inm order to keep the bloodline of the husband pure. While I absolutely, 100% reject this interpretation of scripture, I would like others here to give their tae on it. I will do so only if there’s people here willing to comment. If not, then if anything I’ll present it via the back channels. I’ll check here tomorrow to see if there’s anyone interested in commenting on it via the public forum.

  36. Darren Avatar
    Darren

    On another blog a poster recently argued that a passage of the Bible demonstrated how God commanded His people to abort babies conceived via adultery inm order to keep the bloodline of the husband pure. While I absolutely, 100% reject this interpretation of scripture, I would like others here to give their tae on it. I will do so only if there’s people here willing to comment. If not, then if anything I’ll present it via the back channels. I’ll check here tomorrow to see if there’s anyone interested in commenting on it via the public forum.

  37. Katfish Avatar
    Katfish

    Which passage(s)?

  38. wagonburner Avatar
    wagonburner

    Which passage(s)?

  39. fat albert Avatar
    fat albert

    Darren, I’d be more than willing to comment if I had more details. There are plenty of wacko nut jobs out there who are willing to take the fabric of scripture and warp it to fit their own twisted ideas. I don’t believe that you can stay true to the whole of scripture and see abortion as anything other than an abomination.

    But, like Wagonburner, if you can give some specifics I’ll be happy to comment specifically.

  40. fat albert Avatar
    fat albert

    Darren, I’d be more than willing to comment if I had more details. There are plenty of wacko nut jobs out there who are willing to take the fabric of scripture and warp it to fit their own twisted ideas. I don’t believe that you can stay true to the whole of scripture and see abortion as anything other than an abomination.
    But, like Wagonburner, if you can give some specifics I’ll be happy to comment specifically.

  41. Darren Avatar
    Darren

    I’m glad to see some takers. A big reason I addressed this here is because I highly value the religious insights of folks who post here(and it does relate to the topic at hand).

    A poster on a blogspot site who goes by “Eveningsun” declared God an abortionist. He said that the bbile tells of priests who presided over abortion inthe case of pregnancy due to adultery. VERY confused (and disturbed) I aksed him exactly what passage of scripture says that and why he thinks it is one where God commands His people (the Old Testament Isrealites) to perform an abortion in the case of adultery. The passage is somewhat lengthy for a blog post but I would like to share it in full before showing how I disected the passge in response to Eveningsun.

    This is from Numbers 5. I highlighted the essential part in bold.

    11And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

    12Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man’s wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him,

    13And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner;

    14And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled:

    15Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.

    16And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD:

    17And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:

    18And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman’s head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:

    19And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:

    20But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:

    21Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;

    22And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.

    23And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:

    24And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.

    25Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman’s hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar:

    26And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.

    27And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.

    28And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.

    29This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;

    30Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law.

    31Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.

    When I first read the passage I tried to create a mental image as vivid as possible. I also thought how strange “make thy thigh rot” sounded. But, since nothing there says to abort a baby i asked Eveningsun exactly what part speaks of aborting a baby. He replied that the New International Version translates the following:

    21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the LORD cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

    So, according to that translation, God, if the woman is guilty of conceiving through adultery, will cause the woman’s womb to “miscarry”. The fact that the LORD will cause a miscarriage after a substance is administered by a priest is de facto an abortion commanded by God and carried out through His servant. This is the New International Version’s interpretation of “make thy thigh rot”.

    I was **VERY** distraught by that interpretation. So I looked uptranslations from the Septuagint. I was relieved that its translation is right along the lines ofthe King James Version (the version I use). I then looked up “miscarry” in Latin. I got “abortio” and abortum”. I then went to read the Nunbers 5:27 in the Vulgate. No mention of “abortio” or “abortum” there.

    I then looked into a later New International translation (New International Version 1984) which reads:

    27 If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away,[f] and she will become accursed among her people.

    Phew, back to the thighs. I then asked Eveningsun what “thy thighs shall rot” meant. He said it was a euphamism to a miscarriage ad thus an abortion. My final rply was that to hm is that his interpretation relies on only one translation of Numbers 5 and that translation is not supported by any other translation I could find including from the Septuagint and the Vulgate versions (two of the oldest we have available today). I also said that to me “make thy thigh rot” seems to be a much more broad meaning like saying, “if I’m lying may the Lord strike me down where I stand”.

    So, I’d love to hear some feedback on Numbers 5. Any other insights will be most welcome.

  42. Darren Avatar
    Darren

    I’m glad to see some takers. A big reason I addressed this here is because I highly value the religious insights of folks who post here(and it does relate to the topic at hand).
    A poster on a blogspot site who goes by “Eveningsun” declared God an abortionist. He said that the bbile tells of priests who presided over abortion inthe case of pregnancy due to adultery. VERY confused (and disturbed) I aksed him exactly what passage of scripture says that and why he thinks it is one where God commands His people (the Old Testament Isrealites) to perform an abortion in the case of adultery. The passage is somewhat lengthy for a blog post but I would like to share it in full before showing how I disected the passge in response to Eveningsun.
    This is from Numbers 5. I highlighted the essential part in bold.

    11And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
    12Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man’s wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him,
    13And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner;
    14And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled:
    15Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.
    16And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD:
    17And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:
    18And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman’s head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:
    19And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:
    20But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:
    21Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;
    22And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.
    23And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:
    24And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.
    25Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman’s hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar:
    26And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.
    27And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
    28And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
    29This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;
    30Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law.
    31Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.

    When I first read the passage I tried to create a mental image as vivid as possible. I also thought how strange “make thy thigh rot” sounded. But, since nothing there says to abort a baby i asked Eveningsun exactly what part speaks of aborting a baby. He replied that the New International Version translates the following:

    21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the LORD cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

    So, according to that translation, God, if the woman is guilty of conceiving through adultery, will cause the woman’s womb to “miscarry”. The fact that the LORD will cause a miscarriage after a substance is administered by a priest is de facto an abortion commanded by God and carried out through His servant. This is the New International Version’s interpretation of “make thy thigh rot”.
    I was **VERY** distraught by that interpretation. So I looked uptranslations from the Septuagint. I was relieved that its translation is right along the lines ofthe King James Version (the version I use). I then looked up “miscarry” in Latin. I got “abortio” and abortum”. I then went to read the Nunbers 5:27 in the Vulgate. No mention of “abortio” or “abortum” there.
    I then looked into a later New International translation (New International Version 1984) which reads:

    27 If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away,[f] and she will become accursed among her people.

    Phew, back to the thighs. I then asked Eveningsun what “thy thighs shall rot” meant. He said it was a euphamism to a miscarriage ad thus an abortion. My final rply was that to hm is that his interpretation relies on only one translation of Numbers 5 and that translation is not supported by any other translation I could find including from the Septuagint and the Vulgate versions (two of the oldest we have available today). I also said that to me “make thy thigh rot” seems to be a much more broad meaning like saying, “if I’m lying may the Lord strike me down where I stand”.
    So, I’d love to hear some feedback on Numbers 5. Any other insights will be most welcome.

  43. Tedtam Avatar
    Tedtam

    #21 Darren

    I agree. “Thigh to rot” to me sounds pretty much like cursing the woman with a disease that wastes away flesh. Rotting thighs would make her pretty much undesirable to a man. I mean, a woman without a foot or a hand could still be attractive enough to have sex with, but rubbing your personal parts up against a piece of diseased flesh would be a huge turnoff, especially to OT men. OT people were very fearful of contagious diseases. Leprosy near the genitals would be rather off-putting. Unless you were a pervert.

    It sounds like the NIV went pretty loose with the interpretation. There was enough discussion of sex and fooling around in the Old Testament that I don’t see how being so obtuse about an abortion would be necessary. They were pretty up front with their rules and regs.

  44. Tedtam Avatar
    Tedtam

    #21 Darren
    I agree. “Thigh to rot” to me sounds pretty much like cursing the woman with a disease that wastes away flesh. Rotting thighs would make her pretty much undesirable to a man. I mean, a woman without a foot or a hand could still be attractive enough to have sex with, but rubbing your personal parts up against a piece of diseased flesh would be a huge turnoff, especially to OT men. OT people were very fearful of contagious diseases. Leprosy near the genitals would be rather off-putting. Unless you were a pervert.
    It sounds like the NIV went pretty loose with the interpretation. There was enough discussion of sex and fooling around in the Old Testament that I don’t see how being so obtuse about an abortion would be necessary. They were pretty up front with their rules and regs.

  45. Darren Avatar
    Darren

    but rubbing your personal parts up against a piece of diseased flesh would be a huge turnoff

    That does it, I’m going celebate!!! 😉 (Mrs. Darren said, “I better not!” when I shared this comment to her.)

    OT people were very fearful of contagious diseases. Leprosy near the genitals would be rather off-putting. Unless you were a pervert.

    Excellent point, Tedtam. Mrs. Darren just said that diseases also symbolized sin and so this very well may be a symbolic passage in the Old Testament.

    It sounds like the NIV went pretty loose with the interpretation.

    Yes.

    There was enough discussion of sex and fooling around in the Old Testament that I don’t see how being so obtuse about an abortion would be necessary. They were pretty up front with their rules and regs.

    And yes again.

    Thanks, Tedtam.

  46. Darren Avatar
    Darren

    but rubbing your personal parts up against a piece of diseased flesh would be a huge turnoff

    That does it, I’m going celebate!!! 😉 (Mrs. Darren said, “I better not!” when I shared this comment to her.)

    OT people were very fearful of contagious diseases. Leprosy near the genitals would be rather off-putting. Unless you were a pervert.

    Excellent point, Tedtam. Mrs. Darren just said that diseases also symbolized sin and so this very well may be a symbolic passage in the Old Testament.

    It sounds like the NIV went pretty loose with the interpretation.

    Yes.

    There was enough discussion of sex and fooling around in the Old Testament that I don’t see how being so obtuse about an abortion would be necessary. They were pretty up front with their rules and regs.

    And yes again.
    Thanks, Tedtam.

  47. Hamous Avatar
    Hamous

    Darren – Numbers 5: What a fantastic example of what can happen to meaning when one translates from one language to another. I still have yet to install my Biblesoft PC5 program on my computer at work. When I get home this afternoon, I will look into that passage in greater depth.
    The bitter cup: This concept is used frequently in Scripture. Messiah referred to the cup HE was about to drink from and asked if others could drink from it as well, which they could not. What the lib Jino (Jew in name only) conveniently left out was that if the woman was innocent of adultery, she would suffer no ill effects. The priest would take the water, which if I recall, has some ashes from the burnt red heifer, in it plus some dust from the floor of the temple plus the ink which was washed off of the “complaint” and then she would drink it. I would imagine the water was a bit bitter due to the alkalynity of the ashes and prolly didn’t taste good because it also had ink and dirt in it – hence it was something that no one would want to drink. The operative concept, however, was that if she were innocent, she would suffer no ill effects and would be able to bear children, if not she would likely die a slow, gruesome and painful death.

    To take this passage, The Law of Jealosy, a little deeper, consider that it is a parable and that we are the woman and HE is the Husband. HE uses that analogy frequently; when we worship strange elohim or in a manner that HE does not prescribe – HE likens it to adultery or harlotry. He frequently refers to HIMSELF as our Husband and if HE is the Husband, we can only be considered the wife or the woman. The bitter cup is death or a potential death sentence if guilty.
    We, today, as the woman, are guilty of spiritual adultery. The Torah states that if a man divorces his wife for whatever reason (the man is Elohim and we are the wife and the reason is adultery) and he puts a certificate of divorce in her hand (the complaint form in the Law of Jealousy passage above) she can go and marry someone else. If that new husband should die, she is free from the law concerning her divorce as her husband has died, she can now remarry again anyone whom she wishes EXCEPT HER ORIGINAL HUSBAND. In order for there to be a possibility for her to re-marry her original HUSBAND, one of them must die. Messiah did that for us (Our HUSBAND came down in human form to die) by drinking the bitter cup (figuratively) and nailing the divorce decree to the cross. That freed us from the curse contained in the LAW that we could not remarry our original HUSBAND because HE died and came back to life. HIS death cancelled that curse and put us back into a marriageable state with HIM.
    Messiah’s death was necessary to fulfill the Law of Jealousy and that is why HE came.

    Forgiveness of sins is an Old Testament Concept; all that is required is genuine repentance; if you do not believe that simply read the 18th chapter of Ezekiel.

  48. Bonecrusher Avatar
    Bonecrusher

    Darren – Numbers 5: What a fantastic example of what can happen to meaning when one translates from one language to another. I still have yet to install my Biblesoft PC5 program on my computer at work. When I get home this afternoon, I will look into that passage in greater depth.
    The bitter cup: This concept is used frequently in Scripture. Messiah referred to the cup HE was about to drink from and asked if others could drink from it as well, which they could not. What the lib Jino (Jew in name only) conveniently left out was that if the woman was innocent of adultery, she would suffer no ill effects. The priest would take the water, which if I recall, has some ashes from the burnt red heifer, in it plus some dust from the floor of the temple plus the ink which was washed off of the “complaint” and then she would drink it. I would imagine the water was a bit bitter due to the alkalynity of the ashes and prolly didn’t taste good because it also had ink and dirt in it – hence it was something that no one would want to drink. The operative concept, however, was that if she were innocent, she would suffer no ill effects and would be able to bear children, if not she would likely die a slow, gruesome and painful death.
    To take this passage, The Law of Jealosy, a little deeper, consider that it is a parable and that we are the woman and HE is the Husband. HE uses that analogy frequently; when we worship strange elohim or in a manner that HE does not prescribe – HE likens it to adultery or harlotry. He frequently refers to HIMSELF as our Husband and if HE is the Husband, we can only be considered the wife or the woman. The bitter cup is death or a potential death sentence if guilty.
    We, today, as the woman, are guilty of spiritual adultery. The Torah states that if a man divorces his wife for whatever reason (the man is Elohim and we are the wife and the reason is adultery) and he puts a certificate of divorce in her hand (the complaint form in the Law of Jealousy passage above) she can go and marry someone else. If that new husband should die, she is free from the law concerning her divorce as her husband has died, she can now remarry again anyone whom she wishes EXCEPT HER ORIGINAL HUSBAND. In order for there to be a possibility for her to re-marry her original HUSBAND, one of them must die. Messiah did that for us (Our HUSBAND came down in human form to die) by drinking the bitter cup (figuratively) and nailing the divorce decree to the cross. That freed us from the curse contained in the LAW that we could not remarry our original HUSBAND because HE died and came back to life. HIS death cancelled that curse and put us back into a marriageable state with HIM.
    Messiah’s death was necessary to fulfill the Law of Jealousy and that is why HE came.
    Forgiveness of sins is an Old Testament Concept; all that is required is genuine repentance; if you do not believe that simply read the 18th chapter of Ezekiel.

  49. Darren Avatar
    Darren

    if not she would likely die a slow, gruesome and painful death

    Do you say that knowing what this procedure entails from other sources besides Numbers 5? Because there I do not see where it says that she would die.

    In order for there to be a possibility for her to re-marry her original HUSBAND, one of them must die.

    Huh?

    Messiah referred to the cup HE was about to drink from

    Good point, I didn’t think of that. What’s interesting with that is its aplication with Mormon theology:

    11 And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning.

    3 Nephi 11

    18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

    Doctrine and Covenants 19

    26 But behold, an awful death cometh upon the wicked; for they die as to things pertaining to things of righteousness; for they are unclean, and no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of God; but they are cast out, and consigned to partake of the fruits of their labors or their works, which have been evil; and they drink the dregs of a bitter cup.

    Alma 40

    As you pointed out, mortals cannot drink that “bitter cup” and live. Christ drank that bitter cup on our behalf. And I didn’t even mentally note the parallel between the “bitter water” the woman mentioned in Numbers 5 was to drink and with New Testament doctrines. I’m very glad you pointed that out.

  50. Darren Avatar
    Darren

    if not she would likely die a slow, gruesome and painful death

    Do you say that knowing what this procedure entails from other sources besides Numbers 5? Because there I do not see where it says that she would die.

    In order for there to be a possibility for her to re-marry her original HUSBAND, one of them must die.

    Huh?

    Messiah referred to the cup HE was about to drink from

    Good point, I didn’t think of that. What’s interesting with that is its aplication with Mormon theology:

    11 And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning.

    3 Nephi 11

    18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

    Doctrine and Covenants 19

    26 But behold, an awful death cometh upon the wicked; for they die as to things pertaining to things of righteousness; for they are unclean, and no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of God; but they are cast out, and consigned to partake of the fruits of their labors or their works, which have been evil; and they drink the dregs of a bitter cup.

    Alma 40
    As you pointed out, mortals cannot drink that “bitter cup” and live. Christ drank that bitter cup on our behalf. And I didn’t even mentally note the parallel between the “bitter water” the woman mentioned in Numbers 5 was to drink and with New Testament doctrines. I’m very glad you pointed that out.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.