Christian apologist Ken Ham responded to the un-Biblical arguments made by a Washington Post columnist who was misusing Bible verses to attack Christians who oppose abortion.
"It's amazing the way that those who want to justify immorality will use the Bible to do so!" wrote the Answers In Genesis (AiG) founder on Nov. 8, 2021.
Specifically, this was in relation to a recent article in the Washington Post that demonstrates this kind of misinterpretation of Scripture.
According to the Washington Post author, Christians are opposed to "abortion rights" because of two phrases from the Law (Exodus 21:22-23), which they say are often mistranslated.
Ham commented that "such people will take a passage that teaches one thing and twist it to "mean" the opposite of what the text clearly teaches."
"Christians who believe the Bible are against abortion because of the totality of Scripture, which teaches that (1) humans are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14) in God's image (Genesis 1:27); (2) murder is wrong (Genesis 9:6); (3) we're to speak up for those who have no voice (Proverbs 31:8); (4) God hates those who shed innocent blood (Proverbs 6:16-17); (5) human life in the womb is described with the same terminology as children already born (Luke 1:41, 18:15); and (6) a human life has so much value that the Creator of the world stepped into history to pay the price for our sin so we might be saved from its consequences! "
Rather than sacrificing a child's life to satisfy the aspirations of the parents, or others, Ham said that the gospel calls for self-sacrifice.
"That's just the short version of why so many Christians are (or should be!) vehemently opposed to the slaughter of unborn children in their mother's wombs!"
AiG's Tim Chaffey response
In addition to Ham's view on the matter, Tim Chaffey, the media manager for AiG's theme parks, released his rebuttal in which he completely debunked The Washington Post's assertions.
Chaffey said that since the article appeared in The Washington Post, Christians may be certain that they will not treat Scripture with reverence and respect. In fact, he said that this newspaper would not print a column that was pro-life or that ethically used Scripture to back it up.
Chaffey's rebuttal began with Exodus 21:22-23, which the column cited as a basis for Christians' opposition to abortion.
"So, the argument in the article is that Christians cite only these two verses in Exodus to make a case against abortion:
When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life.
Apparently, they've never heard of Genesis 1:27, Psalm 139, Luke 1, etc. Never mind the biological fact that the baby is a living human being from fertilization!"
According to the columnists, the Hebrew word 'ason is translated as "serious injury" (NET), "harm" (NKJV, ESV), and "injury" (NASB), among other translations.
However, Chaffey argues that Christians must consider the context in order to make sense of this literal interpretation. "Not fully formed" and "imperfectly formed" are two of his LXX (Greek Old Testament) translations in the English language.
"There really is no difference in meaning between the Hebrew and Greek," he elaborated. "The Hebrew says that if the mother gives birth and the child has been seriously harmed, then the man who hit her shall pay eye for an eye, limb for limb, etc. The LXX says that if the mother gives birth and the child is deformed (meaning not fully formed), then the man who hit her will pay eye for an eye, limb for limb."
Chaffey then went on to explain where the true mis-translation is. He has an in-depth explanation on the subject in a 2011 article.
Returning to the ludicrous arguments of the columnists, Chaffey pointed out that if the infant is already dead, it makes no difference whether or not the infant is malformed or not. Without a doubt, he said that the Scripture is not speaking about a deceased kid. Rather, it is referring to a child who has been born early and may or may not have been harmed or completely developed as a consequence of the preterm birth.
This indicates that Scripture does not support abortion. He argued, "this passage teaches that the unborn has identical value to the one already born."
He also debunked other glaring inaccuracies such as their assertion that Augustine worked out of the Septuagint. This merely exposed the authors' lack of knowledge about the history of the church to be called experts in the field. Details of his response may be seen on Ham's blog.
Regardless of the specifics of disputing secular society's anti-Biblical assertions by distorting or twisting Scripture, Ham was clear in his conclusion.
"God's Word is clear-unborn persons are persons, made in God's image, with equal value to persons who are further along in their development," he said.
