Having problems with message search?
Because Of The Following Articles All Over The Internet, I Thought That It Was High Time For A Refutation Of This Nonsense. 
Christians Need To Stand Against This Junk On The Internet.
'Why Abortion Is Biblical'; By Brian Elroy McKinley.
http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html
A Nicer Looking Refutation Of 'Why Abortion Is Biblical' By B.J. Maxwell
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/body_of_christ/message/8978
I Fully Intended On Continuing With Part Two Of My Refutation Of The Same Authors Failed Logic For Abortion
But When I Read His So Called Biblical Arguments For Abortion, I Had To Deal With It First.
Here Is Part One Of My Refutation Of His 'Logic' For Abortion Here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/body_of_christ/message/881
Now Back To The Alleged 'Biblical Arguments':
First, The Author/McKinley Claims Abortion Is Biblical.
He Rightly Claims That Many Christians Do Not Read The Bible For Themselves And Instead Take The Word Of Their Pastors And Such.
I Touch On This Here:
http://maxwellshouse1.tripod.com/id34.html
Then He Claims That The Verses Christians Use To Support Life Are Out Of Context And Don't Say That These Are Persons In The Womb. (Psalm 139:13-16; Luke 1:39-41; Jeremiah 1:1)
But If You Look Closely At These Verses, You Will Plainly See The Use Of Such PERSONal Pronouns As: 'You', 'I', 'Me'
Personal Pronouns Speak Of Persons.
This Is Also How We See And Demonstrate The Trinity Of God In The Bible As Well. (Genesis 1:26,27; Isaiah 48:12-16; Psalm 45; Hebrews 1 etc.), Through The Use Of Personal Pronouns.
And It Is Only Our 'Frames' That Are In The Development Stage Not The Creation Stage.
McKinley Refers To 'The Creation Stage' But This Shows His Confusion Between Creation And Development.
If He's Not Going To Believe The Bible, How About The Dictionary?
After Conception Is Development Not Creation.
"Dr. Norman Geisler, Christian theologian:
Actually, we do know when human life begins. It begins at conception. A sperm, with just its 23 chromosomes, is not a human being; nor is an ovum, with its 23 chromosomes. But when they unite into one entity with 46 chromosomes, the result is a human being. This is a medical fact. Genetically, the fertilized ovum is a human being, with its own
lifelong, characteristic code and identity. From this point on, it is simply a matter of its growth, not of its kind."
More Here:
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/social-issues/SI1006W3.htm
McKinley Also Uses Examples Of King David 'Wanting' His Enemies And Their Children To Suffer.
He Fails To Point Out The Differences Between 'Wanting' And 'Getting'.
Maybe If I Supply Him With A Dictionary He Will Come: http://Dictionary.com
He Then Strikes Down His Own Use Of Scripture Out Of Context When He Says:
"What we cannot do is take one song, or one stanza of a song, and proclaim that it is indeed to be taken literally while taking other stanzas from David's songs and claim they should not be taken literally."
A Reasonable Rule I Use Is 'If The Plain Sense Makes Sense, Seek No Other Sense To Replace It, Lest You End Up With Nonsense.' This Is Called Faith.
Note: It Doesn't Say If You Won't Believe The Plain Sense.
Note: I Also Said: 'Reasonable Rule' So Unreasonable People Need Not Apply.
For More From Me On That:
This Abortionist Enabler Then Finds An Old Testament Story That He Cannot Swallow:
"Did God kill those forty-two kids for making fun of a bald prophet? We can certainly make an argument for that if we use the anti-abortionists' kind of thinking."
In The Old Testament God Showed His Intensity And His Judgment On Those That Make Fun Of God And His Anointed And In The New Testament It Says That We Have God's Anointing.
So Beware Ye, Who Would Think Of Making Fun Of My Receding Hairline.
God Loves Non Profits As Well. 
So It Is In Everyones Best Interest To Not Ridicule God's People.
Yes, I Do Take The OT Story Literally.
"As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him." (1 John 2:27)
McKinley Then Quotes The Song Of Solomon And Ridiculously Argues That This Should Mean Pornography Is Acceptable.
He Fails To Mention That No Modern Pornography Would Describe Their Spouses This Way.
'His Countenance Like The Cedars Of Lebanon.'? (Song 5:15)
Ooh, That's Really Getting Steamy.
This Sounds More Like Love/Agape To Me, Not Eros.
Maybe This Abortionist Enabler Is Acquainted With Modern Pornographers That Speak Of Their Spouses As Sturdy As Trees But I'm Not.
These Are Silly Arguments This Author Makes For Not Taking The Bible Literally, When It Conflicts With His Preconceived Unbelief.
If You Didn't Pick Up On It, McKinley First Says 'Abortion Is Biblical' And Then You Shouldn't Take Numerous Passages Literally, Then Later He Says, Just Kiddin, The Bible Doesn't Prove Either Point, And I Don't Believe The Bible Anyhow.
He Can't Have It All These Different Ways.
The Link To His Bio Down Below Will Clearly Reveal His Motives.
McKinley Also Talks Of The 'full human person.' But In This Article And His Other One He Never Pinpoints The Time They Become A Complete Person.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/achristianvsatheistclub/message/203475
It Takes More Faith To Believe What He Believes Than What The Scripture Says.
He Then Claims That God's Foreknowledge And Predestination Of Jeremiah And Other Prophets (Jeremiah 1; ) Aren't The Way God Looks At Us Lower Life Forms, In The Womb.
Speaking Of John The Baptist This Abortionist Enabler Says, 'only divinely-inspired babies understand the spoken words of the mother of Jesus and can leap in recognition.'
Hmm, Where Is His Logical Or Scriptural Support For This Statement?
Where In Scripture Does It Say That 'Only Divinely Inspired Babies Understand' These Things?
McKinley:
"God saw Jeremiah in that way, but to claim it applies to all of us is akin to saying that we were all prepared as children to speak for God, and that God has placed all of us 'over the nations and over the kingdoms' of the world. In essence, to claim this verse applies to anyone other than Jeremiah is to claim that we are all God's divine prophets. We are not; therefore, we cannot apply these verses to our own lives."
I Don't See Any Reference To God Only Seeing 'Prophets' That Way.
And If Jeremiah Was Only A 'Potential Person' As McElroy Claims Then Shouldn't It Say, 'The Potential You' Not 'You'.
This Abortionist First Claims That Only Prophets Are Viewed This Way And Then He Claims That Even These Prophets Weren't Considered Persons In The Womb.
He Wants It Both Ways.
He's Uses Every Argument, (Even When They Conflict With Each Other), In Hopes That One Of Them Will Stick.
As Christians We Are All Messengers, And God Doesn't Wish 'That Any Should Perish But That All Should Come To Repentance And The Knowledge Of God.' (2 Peter 3:9)
His Command To Go And Preach The Gospel Is For All Those That Believe His Words. (Matt. 28:19)
We Are All Special:
"Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful." (1 Corinthians 4:1,2)
And By The Way How Would A Mother Or An Abortionist Or His Enabler Know Ahead Of Time Whether They Are Murdering A Prophet Or Just A Lowly Non Profit?
McKinley:
"But here we see God stating that he knew Jeremiah 'before' he was formed in the womb. By anti-abortionist logic, we would have to conclude that we are a human person even before conception.
This Verse Might Simply Mean At Conception Before The Baby Starts Forming/Developing.
So This Supports The Pro Life Position.
"and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it." (Ecclesiastes 12)
Now I Don't Think This Is An Argument For Eternal Preexistence But For The Possible Preexistence Of The spirit Before God Gives It.
Brian Also Repeatedly Confuses 'Miscarriage' With Abortion.
"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, `Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.' Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 "
Notice That This Scripture Says, 'Miscarriage' Not Aborted By An Abortionist And 'Better' Doesn't Mean Good.
McKinley Continues With Ecclesiastes:
"Then I looked again at all the acts of oppression which were being done under the sun. And behold I saw the tears of the oppressed and that they had no one to comfort them; and on the side of their oppressors was power, but they had no one to comfort them. So I congratulated the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still living. But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun." Ecclesiastes 4:1-3
I Don't See Anywhere In These Verses Where Abortion Or Murder Is Encouraged, Only A Comparison Of Lives.
I Also See The Words, 'So I Congratulated The Dead Who Are Already Dead.'
So He Didn't Participate In Their Death, They Were Already Dead, And He Says, "Better Off Than The Both Of Them Is The One Who Has Never Existed."
Never Existed Doesn't Equal Abortion, It Means Not Conceived.
Maybe This Guy Is Using The Duh Vinci Code To Read His Bible.
In Fact Moses Prescribes Punishment For Those That Even Unintentionally Cause A Premature Birth. (Exodus 21:22-25)
If A Life Is To Be Taken, It Will Be God That Has The Right To Take It Or God That Gives Us Permission To Take It, And In Regards To The Unborn, He Doesn't Give Us Permission.
Solomon Says In The End Of Ecclesiastes, 'Meaningless! Meaningless!' says the Teacher. 'Everything is meaningless!' 9 Not only was the Teacher wise, but also he imparted knowledge to the people. He pondered and searched out and set in order many proverbs....Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil."
Wouldn't Keeping The Commandments Of God Include, 'Thou Shalt Not Murder'?
It Seems That Solomon's Wisdom Was Similar To Socrates Who Wasn't Nearly As Wise As Solomon But Who Said, This One Thing I Know Is That I Don't Know.
True Wisdom Comes From Fearing And Obeying God.
'The Fear Of The Lord Is The Beginning Of Wisdom....' (Proverbs 9:10)
I Think The Book Of Ecclesiastes Was The Beginning Of Solomons Wisdom.
The Imparting Of 'Proverbs' Came At The End Of Ecclesiastes.
McKinley:
"We're reading the words of the man to whom God gave the world's greatest wisdom."
But McKinley, Claims That Murdering The Unborn Isn't Murder.
"One, quite obviously, is the Commandment against murder. But that begs the question of whether or not abortion is murder, which begs the question of whether or not a fetus is the same as a full-term human person."
But Yet The Burden Is Still His To Show Personhood Is More Biblical And Logical At Another Time Than Conception.
Take A Poll Here On When You Believe It Begins:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/body_of_christ/surveys?id=12859563
Since Elroy Cannot Pinpoint The Time Of Full Personhood, Wouldn't It Make Sense To Err On The Side Of Caution?
McKinley Attempts To Support Abortion With Scripture:
"And Job said, 'Let the day perish on which I was to be born, and the night which said, 'a boy is conceived.' May that day be darkness; let not God above care for it, nor light shine on it.'
'Why did I not die at birth, come forth from my womb and expire?'
This Is Not Abortion, It Is Death At Birth And No Mention Of Someone Other Than God Taking His Life.
He Is Also Saying This In The Depth Of Distress.
I Am Glad No One Murdered Me When I Said Things Like This In My Low Times.
Do You Remember The Hee Haw Song?
"... Despair And Agony On Me, Ohhh!, Deep Dark Depression, Excessive Misery, If It Weren't For Bad Luck I'd Have No Luck At All...Ohhhh!, Blue Despair And Agony On Me."
Aren't We Thankful That These Times Pass And God Doesn't Take Us Seriously When We Act Or Speak Like A Jackass.
"Why did the knees receive me, and why the breasts, that I should suck? For now I would have lain down and been quiet; I would have slept then, I would have been at rest, with kings and with counselors of the earth, who rebuilt ruins for themselves; or with princes who had gold, who were filling their houses with silver. Or like the miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, as infants that never saw light. There the wicked cease from raging, and there the weary are at rest. The prisoners are at ease together; they do not hear the voice of the taskmaster. The small and the great are there, and the slave is free from his master." Job 3:2-4,11-19
'And again a few chapters later Job reiterates the greater grace he would have known if his life had been terminated as a fetus:'
It Does't Say Terminated, It Says 'Like The Miscarriage Which Is Discarded.
"Why then hast Thou brought me out of the womb? Would that I had died and no eye had seen me! I should have been as though I had not been, carried from womb to tomb." Job 10:18-19
Here Job Is Asking God, Not The Abortionist, This Question.
McKinley Forgets About The End Of Job Which Says: "The Lord blessed the latter part of Job's life more than the first. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. 13 And he also had seven sons and three daughters. 14 The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch. 15 Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job's daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers. 16 After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation. 17 And so he died, old and full of years." (Job 42)
I Wonder If Job Wants To Be Terminated At This Point?
Did You Catch That?
God Blessed The Latter Part Of Job's Life More Than The First.
You've Heard Folks Say 'I Wish I Were Dead' During Great Suffering, But Elroy Wants To Make It Into A Doctrine.
McKinley Brings Up The Bad Part And Neglects The Rrrrrrrrrest Of The Story.
But The Author Of The Article 'Abortion Is Biblical', Instead Quotes Job In The Midst Of His Intense Suffering.
Talk About Taking Things Out Of Context.
And What Babe In The Womb Has The Foresight To See What His Or Her Life Is Going To Be Like.
What McKinley Is Trying To Do Is Argue For Retroactive Miscarriage.
There's That Duh Vinci Code Again.
Truth Is God Has A Plan For Everyone Of Us And It Is A Travesty To See Millions That Will Never Be Able To Realize It Due To The Rejection Of God's Word.
McKinley Continues:
"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall 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, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21:22-25
This is a very illuminating passage. In it we find a woman losing her child by being stuck by men who are fighting. Rather than it being a capital offense, however, it is relegated to a civil matter, with the father-to-be taking the participants to court for a settlement. But, as we read on, if the woman is killed, a "life for a life," then the men who killed her shall be killed. Some have claimed that the life for a life part is talking about the baby. But from reading the context we can see this is not true. It also states a tooth for a tooth and a burn for a burn. Babies don't have teeth when they are born, and it is highly unlikely a baby will be burned during birth. It is pretty clear that this part refers to the mother. Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence -- it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death."
WhatMcKinley Seems To Miss Entirely Is That The Sin Here Is Unintentional And It Is Not A Miscarriage.
The NIV Renders It More Accurately When It Says:
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." (NIV)
So This Is Not A Miscarriage At All But A Premature Birth, But The Scripture Goes On To Say That If There Was Further Serious Injury The Punishment Should Be Exactly As The Offence Was.
So Rather Than Supporting The Abortionist Position It Supports Life.
It Also Doesn't Say "if the woman is killed, a 'life for a life'" As McKinley Claims But To Any Life.
He Needs To Read The Scriptures Again.
He Thinks This Translation Is Only Supported By The NIV.
I Found The Same 'Premature Birth' In N.A.S.B.; NKJV; HCSB And Other Translations.
'Fruit Depart' Which Can Also Mean 'Premature Birth' In A.S.B; KJV; Third Millenium Bible.
'Children Have Come Out' (YLT...)
This Author Has The Audacity To Say That The NIV Rendering 'Premature Birth' Is The More 'Politically Correct' But Wrong Translation.
I Have News For Him, The Ones Interested In Political Correctness Are Pro Choice.
McKinley Then Points Out That If The Argument Is 'Premature Birth' That Preemies Only Survive 60 Percent Of The Time And So Therefore We Should Believe That A Premature Birth Automatically Means Sure Death, Especially In Those Days.
But Again He Needs To Reread Those Scriptures That Say, 'yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined'
I Think This Might Include Possible Death Of The Woman Or Child After The Premature Birth.
The Hebrew Word For 'Depart' Is Yatsah (3318) And I Saw No Reference To Miscarriage In The Concordance For This Word.
But Just For The Sake Of Argument, Let's Say It Means 'Miscarriage' Then Elroy Is Admitting That It Is Considered Wrong, If Even Simply Civil.
Then Brian Ignorantly Makes An Argument For Infanticide When He Says:
"What has been so clearly demonstrated by the passage in Exodus - the fact that God does not consider a fetus a human person - can also be seen in a variety of other Bible verses. In Leviticus 27:6 a monetary value was placed on children, but not until they reached one month old (any younger had no value). Likewise, in Numbers 3:15 a census was commanded, but the Jews were told only to count those one month old and above - anything less, particularly a fetus, was not counted as a human person."
Oh Really!
So Children Today That Are Adopted For A High Price Are Non Persons As Well?
The Same Chapter Elroy Quotes From Puts A Price On Males And Females From Five To Twenty Years Old. (Leviticus 27:5)
Should We Assume They Are Non Persons As Well?
So He Even Argues That An Infant Under One Month Old Isn't A Person.
If That Is Not Enough Scripture Twisting, Elroy He Goes On:
"In Ezekiel 37:8-10 we watch as God re-animates dead bones into living soldiers, but the passage makes the interesting note that they were not alive as persons until their first breath. Likewise, in Genesis 2:7, Adam had a human form and a vibrant new body but he only becomes a fully-alive human person after God makes him breathe. And in the same book, in Genesis 38:24, we read about a pregnant woman condemned to death by burning. Though the leaders of Israel knew the woman was carrying a fetus, this was not taken into consideration."
Ezekiel 37 Is Referring To The Nation Of Israel Not An Unborn Baby.
In Genesis Two, Adam Doesn't Become A 'Living Soul' Until God Breathes Into Him.
In The OT Hebrew 'Soul' Refers To All Of A Man.', Not A Part As The NT Does. (1 Thess. 5:23)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChristianityUnderFire/message/4574
McKinley Conveniently Left Out That Tamar Mentioned In Genesis 38 Actually Had Twins And Wasn't Burned To Death, Though Part Of It Was Because Her Accuser Misread The Matter.
Read It For Yourself. McKinley Hopes You Are One Of Those Lazy Undercover Christians That Will Take His Word For It. This Laziness Is Something He Actually Condemned At The First Of His Message.
McKinley Finally Admits That He Cannot Prove His Premise That 'Abortion Is Biblical' When He Says:
"In fact, I will stop short of making the claim that the Bible condemns or supports abortion at all. It does neither."
In Another Message Elroy Says That He Doesn't Believe The Bible:
"Today I continue to believe in a loving God, but I can no longer claim the Bible to be his Word, nor can I claim myself to be a follower of the Christ most Christians follow."
http://elroy.net/ehr/aboutelroy.html
And If That Isn't Revealing Enough He Writes A Satire Which Concludes:
"Move over Terminator and Natural Born Killers. You're nothing compared to the amount of destruction in the Bible. In this verse God kills just about every living thing, going so far as to describe the outright murder of those in 'whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life."
http://elroy.net/ehr/vchip.html
So If You Were Looking For The Justification Of Abortion In Elroy's Writings, You Will Be Disappointed.
In Fact He Claims The Bible Supports Abortion At The Beginning Of His Message 'Abortion Is Biblical' Then He Condemns God For Killing 'Just About Every Living Thing'.
Hmm, God Is Worse Than 'Natural Born Killers' And The 'Terminator' But It's All Right For Him To Promote Abortion?
I Think This Guy Is Just Really Confused And Wants Everyone Else To Be.
Bj Maxwell
01/12/2009
Copyright ©
Offline 
Send Email