Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

Exodus 21:22 has been used by many pro-abortion advocates, Christian and non-Christian alike, to prove that the Bible is not opposed to abortion.  The passage reads, “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.” (KJV)

Greg Koukl has written a wonderful article demonstrating not only that this verse does not support such a conclusion, but that the pro-choice interpretation is based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew as found in some English translations (such as the one above). 

A free registration at may be required to view the article.

Unless you have been vacationing in a cave somewhere in the nether regions of the Congo, you’ve probably heard of the brouhaha that has developed over Brit Hume’s advice to Tiger Woods:

Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person I think is a very open question, and it’s a tragic situation with him. I think he’s lost his family. It’s not clear to me that — whether he’ll be able to have a relationship with his children.

But the Tiger Woods that emerges once the news value dies out of this scandal — the extent to which he can recover seems to me depends on his faith. He’s said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith.

So my message to Tiger would be, “Tiger, turn your faith — turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”

Many liberals are furious that Brit Hume would make such comments, for a variety of reasons.  The primary reason appears to be that he is claiming Christianity is true over and against Buddhism.  That is a politically correct no-no, labeled “intolerant.”  We’re supposed to act like our religious beliefs are no more true than the next religion’s.  How tolerant is that requirement?!  The fact of the matter is that religious claims are usually exclusive and contradict competing religious claims.  Given this fact, if one really believes the tenets of their religion, they cannot help but to think their religion is true and others’ false.


Investors Business Daily has an article on California’s Proposition 71 that passed five years ago, which secured $3,000,000,000 dollars for embryonic stem cell research.  They note how the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which was created by the proposition and oversees the distribution of the research money, has shifted its focus to adult stem cell research.  Why?  Because ESCR is not panning out to be the promising research the supporters of prop 71 promised it would be.  While this is good, they note how it appears to be a bait-and-switch: 

To us, this is a classic bait-and-switch, an attempt to snatch success from the jaws of failure and take credit for discoveries and advances achieved by research Prop. 71 supporters once cavalierly dismissed. We have noted how over the years that when funding was needed, the phrase ‘embryonic stem cells’ was used. When actual progress was discussed, the word ‘embryonic’ was dropped because ESCR never got out of the lab.

They conclude by noting that “it is ESCR researchers who have politicized science and stood in the way of real progress. We are pleased to see California researchers beginning to put science in its rightful place.”

HT: Wesley Smith