Great question. Yarek (thigh) appears 32 times in the Old Testament. More than half refer to a man's body (like Abraham, Jacob, and Ehud), almost all others refer to the "side" of a building or the Tabernacle itself (also why some translations say Jacob was wounded in his *side* , while they translate it *thigh* in regards to Abraham and Ehud). The only times it refers to a woman is in this passage and in Song of Solomon 7:1, where it refers to the exterior curve of a woman's hip. It wasn't translated anywhere else as female reproductive organs, or anything to do with pregnancy or children. It always seems to mean the hip, side, or pelvic area in general. I'm now realizing I missed an excellent opportunity for an "Upper Thigh!" clip from Everybody Loves Raymond. (sigh)

@@thinkingtoinfinity hmm.. sounds like there's a number of different meanings to the word. Pelvic area certainly could relate to pregnancy, for example. And that certainly makes more sense than arbitrarily taking a leg. I can see how that translator would have thought it must be something related to reproduction if the word can also mean pelvic area or side.

@@mitchmonin2238 - I didn't mean to imply one couldn't make a case for why it was translated that way for the NIV, but they haven't offered any reasoning for it that I could find, and it has never been translated that way for hundreds of years in other translations. As I mentioned with Rabbinical scholar John Lightfoot's commentary from the 1600's, Jewish tradition was that the "secret parts" (i.e. reproductive organs) would swell and rot, including the male party to the adultery. But even in that, there was no mention of pregnancy whatsoever.

@@thinkingtoinfinity so I checked some sources just now. NIV says womb, KJV says thigh, and new KJV says thigh but with commentary that thigh is a euphemism for womb. I guess the real question is who's version is more true, or who's doing the better translation.

@@mitchmonin2238 - That's a worthwhile question to ask. A search on the reliability of translations will show NIV, especially the most recent update, has quite a few strikes against it.

They were no NirvanaMissionFromGod or SoundGardenofEden, but they were a'ight.

Hi there! You're not alone -- I think almost every thinking Christian wrestles with this at some point. It's not a quick and easy answer, though I think the disconnect between the suffering we see in the world and a "God of love and mercy" is usually a result of our skewed expectations. If we're using a worldly, secular perspective, then yes, it can seem like God is not as loving and merciful as we'd like Him to be, and possibly even uninterested in our pains and hardships; content to leave us struggling. However, if we base our understanding of His character on the entire Bible (i.e. that He's not just a God of Love and Mercy, but also of Justice, allowing humanity to experience the consequences of all our bad decisions, and He also allows trials to come our way to discipline and perfect us [Hebrews 12:6, II Cor. 4:17-18, 1 Peter 5:10, Romans 8:18]), we see exactly what the Bible says we should see; the results of a fallen world that bears the scars of our sinful behaviors and a God who is able to help us through them (even though we don't always notice His presence). God gives us the choice to choose Him; the source of all that is Good, or reject Him -- which leaves only "natural evil" in place of His Goodness. He also informed us in Scripture, that *most* of humanity will reject Him (checks out!). We need to continually pray, asking for His help, comfort, and guidance, being patient through hard times. He respects our choices enough that if we don't ask for His love and mercy to reign in our lives, He'll often let us continue on our own path without Him.

@@thinkingtoinfinity Not sure what to think just yet, but I should continue reading the Bible. So far, I have found fairly good answers from people when it comes to messy issues in the Bible. Not perfect, but usually at least they make sense. I don't know, maybe it's just be me looking around at the world and people, including myself, and creating an image of a truly all-powerful God who cares in my mind. My old agnostic/atheist perspective keeps cropping up, so there is this internal conflict. Although I think atheism is ultimately pointless and leads to nihilism in the end, or it did for me. Still, it's hard for me to let go of that view whenever I step out of my comfort zone or just turn on the news. However, thank you for replying. I will think about what you said.

@@SquekretGenius420 - Bet. (I somehow feel both old-lame and cool for typing that) I think you're on the right track -- it's better to be honest with our questions and concerns rather than ignore them or pretend we're all good. If our pursuit of Truth is genuine, we won't ignore doubts and hard topics, but will explore them deeper. High five! ✋🏻 Like you, my old perspective creeps up from time to time. Several apologists I highly respect can admit the same (Greg Koukl being one). Studying philosophy along with Scripture is helpful because, like you, I always ask: What IS true if this isn't? I agree. Atheism absolutely leads to nihilism, which is what brought C.S. Lewis out if it, even before he'd considered Christianity to be true. Every time I reexamine it during a moment of questioning, it feels like Jim Carrey revisiting the set of The Truman Show after being freed. This was obviously a sham the whole time... with *way* more unanswered questions and conundrums than Christianity. It would be pointless to go back. Studying scripture, apologetics, science, and philosophy isn't just good to help us convince other people of the truth of the Gospel, it's good to help convince ourselves. Because we're being bombarded with a secular, worldly perspective all the time. If we aren't giving at least a portion of our time to Biblical study, well... if someone is shouting 2+2=5 in our ears all day every day, we might start to wonder, even against obvious logic, if that's correct too. Praying for peace, wisdom, and comfort for you as our world moves further away from the Light.

Why, thank you.

A false dichotomy regarding the universe would be: either the Judeo/Christian God created it or the universe is an illusion. That leaves out many gods other cultures attribute creation to, natural processes as an explanation, etc. That's not what I'm saying at all. We agree that reliable science shows the universe has a beginning point, based on cosmic background radiation and other visible evidence of the universe's movement. Physics also holds that all things that come into being or change states must have a cause. Our "universe / the cosmos / everything that is" are interchangeable terms (Carl Sagan and many other famous astrophysicists thought so) unless you can show, to support your definitions, *why* we should believe there are aspects of our universe we're unable to detect (science, by definition, can't prove that) and show how we can clearly separate one from the other. So either 1) the universe had NO cause (in which case physics says it couldn't exist) and erupted into existence out of NO THING for NO reason, or 2) the universe was caused by *something* that isn't beholden to our universe's known laws of space/time physics. That isn't "begging the question" by assuming something before we start -- it's basing the premise on the most widely accepted, evidentially supported information available by the best minds in their fields of study. Option 2 is obviously the best bet, and it INCLUDES the possibility that there's an as-yet-unknown factor of physics that would allow the creation of the universe without an external factor (again, not a false dichotomy). However, claiming, with zero *evidence* of spontaneous matter erupting into existence in all of history, that the universe could create itself is as illogical as saying, "Maybe my car made itself out of its own parts by creating its own parts." My starting point is not a false dichotomy in the same way that "our galaxy is geocentric or it's not" isn't a false dichotomy. "Or it's not" contains many possibilities, just like Option 2 above. Either nothing created our universe, or something did. And it's obvious that an a priori bias is at work when scientists will entertain the "nothing" option, panspermia (aliens seeding life on Earth), and logically absurd theories (the multiverse, the cosmos making itself), which just kick the "So where'd that come from?" can down the road, instead of even acknowledging the possibility of a Creator that transcends the laws of physics we're limited to. When popular science says we 100% KNOW the universe had a beginning, but then refuses to consider a particular option for that beginning, while entertaining options that refute scientific laws, we should ask why (the answer is obvious when it's the only one with moral requirements on our behavior).

​@@thinkingtoinfinity "Scientific Laws" isn't a thing if you meant the Laws of Nature that is a different thing. Mathematics has laws. Science doesn't, it only has theories. Theories that derive useful models that help us understand the world around us. To make things like computers and the internet that allow us to have spirited (no pun intended) conversations like this one. The scientific method doesn't ascribe or look for truth. I can safely and confidently make those assertions. I recently watched a debate between Dr. Sean Carroll and William Lane Craig and it didn't seem like Dr. Carroll agrees with your claim that "popular science says we 100% KNOW the universe had a beginning." This is simple, if you are claiming that the universe was created by a capital "C" Creator, you need to demonstrate that such a thing exists. The same is true if I were claiming that the universe was created by universe-creating Pixies, I would be responsible for demonstrating they exist. Let's start there. Peace out.

@@danielmurtin2911 - You can play with words and shift definitions like a shell game, but I'm obviously referring to the laws of physics (as they are referred to and accepted by practically all of academia with the exception of fringe crackpots). Science and mathematics both pursue truth above all else. To suggest otherwise is to not understand the purpose of the scientific method at all. Proposing the POSSIBILITY of a Creator (my initial question) is different than asserting one exists, which would *then* require backing up the claim, which doesn't require a "demonstration that such a thing exists." There are no such demonstrations that black holes or dark matter exist, yet most people are just fine believing in them apart from them being (though widely accepted) theoretical. But we haven't even gotten that far yet because you won't concede basic scientific knowledge about the universe... because, I suspect, you don't want this going to where you know it logically leads.

@@thinkingtoinfinity "Science and mathematics both pursue truth above all else. To suggest otherwise is to not understand the purpose of the scientific method at all." Nope, you are mistaken. But, you need this to be true to validate your arguments. "Proposing the POSSIBILITY of a Creator (my initial question) is different than asserting one exists, which would then require backing up the claim, which doesn't require a "demonstration that such a thing exists." " This looks like word games. What is the point of even bringing it up? "There are no such demonstrations that black holes or dark matter exist, yet most people are just fine believing in them apart from them being (though widely accepted) theoretical." We have pictures of black holes. Dark matter is still conjecture. And finally. I understand the points you are making. I made those same points many times myself. It is not for the lack of understanding. We are all seeking the truth. But truth requires two components to be valid. To make something true, it must be refutable, and demonstrable. Thank you for the discourse.

@@danielmurtin2911 - Likewise, I appreciate your time and attempt at a conversation. I think there's so much warping of words and definitions here though that we're not even started on the core question, much less addressing possible answers. I apologize for not communicating better to avoid that. Similar to Richard Lewontin's famous statement, this seems to me another instance of: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes... no matter how counter-intuitive... for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Thanks!

My pleasure ​@@thinkingtoinfinity

Thanks!!

Thank you!!! 😁👍🏻

Thanks for watching.

Thanks for watching! Regardless of what it *feels* like, I clearly address several issues with the text, which is supported by the fact that you continue to respond to them in your comment. 😁 I agree, it is a minority position, but it's gaining in popularity (for obvious reasons) with critics of Christianity and the Pro-Life stance and my viewers requested that I address it. So it's clearly of interest to someone... and it can confuse people on the issue if they trust a popular Bible translation to be accurate. There may be an "argument for this translation." I didn't say there isn't, but what I stated is true: The people responsible for the NIV haven't given any reason (that I could find) for why they translated it that way despite ALL other accepted translations, as well as Hebrew scholars, disagreeing with their translation. I would've gladly presented the NIV publisher's argument for translating it that way if they had made one. If you're able to find a solid source for that from them, I'll gladly revisit it in a follow-up video.

@@thinkingtoinfinity where did you look? Looking in a journal search or easier still reading the Wikipedia article will give you an abundance of references. I'm not sure, but I think that the opinion that there word יָרֵך is being used to refer literally to the thigh is also a minority. It seems to be being used as a euphemism for something.

@@maninalift - There is zero mention on Wikipedia (or other sites I searched) for *why* the NIV publishers translated *this passage* the way they did. You seem to be implying I didn't do my due diligence, but my statement stands, and again - if you're able to find a citation for that, please let me know. I'd genuinely love to see it and will admit I didn't search well enough. As mentioned in the video, "yarek" is used as a reference for male body parts as well. My later citation of John Lightfoot's quote refers to it as "secret parts." I agree, it likely referred to the groin area, but clearly wasn't a word for womb/ovaries/cervix.

It does seem pretty fantastical. Yet all sources of ancient Jewish tradition support that it actually worked. And it seems fantastical because that method can't/won't work in our time. Similarly though, Earth's magnetism changes over time and its a possibility that compasses might eventually become unreliable. A few generations past that point, some might doubt that compasses ever worked... is it untrue simply because we haven't experienced something similar?

@@thinkingtoinfinity I don't believe you.

@@danielmurtin2911 - What don't you believe... or is it just my existence in general? 🤨

@@thinkingtoinfinity I don't believe that your claims are true.

@@danielmurtin2911 - Fair enough. I'm glad to address that, if you'd like. Which claims in particular? Could you provide some details?

Obviously this is not the form of abortion that modern feminists and liberals support, Biblically an abortion is only allowed if your women (not necessarily just wife, daughters are likely included too) commits sexual immorality and it is the male guardian's decision.

Based on what? I'd say that has been completely refuted with this passage.

​​@@thinkingtoinfinityGod caused the child of David's adultery to die in the womb, for example, and the earliest extent interpretation of Numbers 5 that I am aware of (a passage in Josephus) pretty clearly treats it as a euphemism for abortion.

​@@Wully02 - First, David and Bathsheba's child did not die in the womb. When God takes someone's life out of judgment, as He is the one who gave it, that isn't considered murder or abortion or anything of the sort, nor does it give us a free pass to do the same. In that passage in particular, it says, "And Nathan said to David... because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child who is born to you shall die.” It doesn't say God caused the death. It *could* merely mean that God would not rescue his son from an illness God knew would afflict Him... David's actions had removed him from God's protection. I'm not saying that's conclusive, but it's plausible. Second, I've spent a little while searching and concerning Josephus commenting on abortion only found this: Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, commented on abortion in his work “Against Apion” (2.202). He stated that “the law orders all the offspring to be brought up, and forbids women either to cause abortion or to make away with the fetus.” Josephus considered women who abort as murderers, indicating a strong disapproval of abortion in Jewish law during his time.

​@@Wully02David's child was born, then got sick and was sick for 7 days before he died. See 2 Samuel 12 for reference.

What convinced you of that?

Thanks for your comment! Noted about using Lightfoot -- I probably should've cite an earlier Jewish source, even though the information was still confirmed as being accurate. Exodus 21:22-23 doesn't say that. The text literally says "יְלָדֶ֔יהָ (yə·lā·ḏe·hā) וְיָצְא֣וּ (wə·yā·ṣə·’ū), which means "her child to come out" and there is no harm, which is almost 100% translated (by Jewish and Christian scholars) as a premature birth where the child survives in good health. In that case, a fine is imposed. If the child is harmed or killed, it prescribes "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth", meaning if the child has a deformity, that deformity is repaid to the man who struck her, but if the child dies, the man is put to death. There would be no need to include that if this was only discussing when an unborn child dies. It would just say to kill him. Again, not an abortion passage. Most other early Jewish traditions and texts vilify abortion as murder, though the Talmud does have a few exceptions listed, but only for dire circumstances, never for the reasons of convenience modern people use to support Pro-Abortion arguments.

@@thinkingtoinfinity Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply. I'd like your (Jewish) sources that says the child survives. Because you are correct, it says " וְיָצְא֣וּ", which is one way that we know the child didn't live. Because it didn't use the verb יולד, which would be the case in a live birth. Rashi on the verse specifically says that אסון refers to tragedy to the mother (i.e. death), which in turn he gets from the Talmud in Sanhedrin 79a. (But again, I agree that "abortion on demand" is not a Jewish value (and interestingly, the Talmud's view on abortion amongst *non-Jews* _is_ stricter than its view on abortion amongst Jews). But again, the concept of "life begins at conception" also isn't a Jewish understanding.) (Sorry once again for filling your comment box with Jewish pilpul, which may not interest you at all. Not my intent to dissuade you from your beliefs. Also, as the last days of Passover begin in just a couple of hours for me, I won't see your response (if any) for at 51 hours or so)

You may! May I ask how you're suggesting that applies here?

@@thinkingtoinfinity When you open a statement by degrading one side as crazy and out of touch and just say the other is just a bit misguided. Either he is poisoning the well or he wrote that like shit, you can choose your answer, either means it applies here cause he did not write it correctly if it was the ladder.

@@engibones5948 - Sorry, I'm still missing ya. I sincerely would like to understand you though. Could you please be more specific?

@@thinkingtoinfinity no

@@engibones5948 - Okie dokie.