A child will not be safe in the womb...

[Crackrzz]

Does anyone know if there's a passage in Revelations that says a sign of the end times is "A child will not be safe in the womb?" I can't find it on Bible Gateway.

[Dropbear]

A quick search of the text of Revelations (King James Version) showed no results for 'womb' or 'safe'.

Dropbear

[Nonny Mouse]

Was there ever a time when a child was safe in the womb? Not only has abortion always existed, but so have conditions like German measles and lead poisoning, that can have profound negative effects on a fetus if its mother contracts them.

If anything I'd say that a lot of fetuses are safer now than they would have been in the past, what with rubella vaccinations and prenatal vitamin supplements and mothers-to-be who know to quit drinking and all.

Nonny

I have a feeling that it might be part of the book of isaiah?

something about children being taken from the womb IIRC

I seem to remember there's a bit in revelation that says something about "no more will a child live but a few days" or something

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Perhaps a misreading of Chpt: 12?

Revelation, Chapter 12
Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
Revelation 12:2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
Revelation 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
Revelation 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
Revelation 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
Revelation 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Perhaps you are thinking of Luke 23: 28-30. A prophecy which would have seemed stunning and utterly incredible to people at that time (and almost any other time and place) but has come to pass in the last few decades in Western countries.

But of course one thing we do know for sure about the end times is that trying to predict when they will come is pointless, for "you know neither the day nor the hour".

[Tantei Kid]

Originally Posted by PeterK

Perhaps you are thinking of Luke 23: 28-30. A prophecy which would have seemed stunning and utterly incredible to people at that time (and almost any other time and place) but has come to pass in the last few decades in Western countries.

But of course one thing we do know for sure about the end times is that trying to predict when they will come is pointless, for "you know neither the day nor the hour".

Luke 23: 29 "for indeed, the days are coming when people will say, 'Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed.'"

Wasn't Paul kind of advocating not getting married (and thus not reproducing) because of the expected coming? That's a lot nearer to home (for Luke) than the Western countries of today.



As for Isaiah, there's a ton of mentions of wombs the most relevant seeming I found was:

"23:049:015 Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have
compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet
will I not forget thee."

ETA: There's also this one
"23:013:018 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they
shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall
not spare children."

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by PeterK

A prophecy which would have seemed stunning and utterly incredible to people at that time (and almost any other time and place) but has come to pass in the last few decades in Western countries.

I think the avalibility of clean water and tomatoes would have seemed stunning and incredible to those folk as well. Progress rocks.

[Richard W]

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

I think the avalibility of clean water and tomatoes would have seemed stunning and incredible to those folk as well. Progress rocks.

I wonder what they'd have thought of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas?

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by Richard W

I wonder what they'd have thought of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas?

Fine. Progress sometimes rocks.

[Chloe]

Originally Posted by PeterK

Perhaps you are thinking of Luke 23: 28-30. A prophecy which would have seemed stunning and utterly incredible to people at that time (and almost any other time and place) but has come to pass in the last few decades in Western countries.

I doubt that. The motif that things will be so bad that people will wish they didn't have children to suffer through it is a fairly common one. Think of the account of Masada, for instance, which is about contemporary with Luke. And there are far worse family-related prophecies in the Hebrew Bible: Leviticus 27:29 forecasts, “You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters.” Deuteronomy 28:53 threatens, “And you shall eat the offspring of your own body, the flesh of your sons and daughters, whom the Lord your God has given you, in the siege and in the distress with which your enemies shall distress you.” Jeremiah 19:9: “And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters and everyone shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege and in the distress with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them.” Lamentations 2:20: “Look, O Lord, and see! / With whom has thou dealt thus? / Should women eat their offspring, the children of their tender care?” Ezekiel 5:10: “Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in the midst of you, and sons shall eat their fathers.” I think it far from "stunning and incredible" that a time when people would wish they hadn't had children at all might come.

ETA: Maybe the OP is a reference to some of the enemies of Israel, whom God orders the Israelites to slaughter even in their mothers' wombs? Just a thought.

Originally Posted by Tantei Kid

Wasn't Paul kind of advocating not getting married (and thus not reproducing) because of the expected coming?

Not really. Some have argued, unconvincingly IMO, that Paul expected the second coming within his lifetime. But even assuming he did, reading 1 Corinthians 7 carefully does not show that he advanced this as a reason not to marry. Rather he is saying that because of "the present distress" the Corinthians should stay in their current marital status, except that those singletons who feel unable to be sexually continent should marry. He clearly states that celibacy is preferable to marriage, but not because of an aversion to reproducing. He says a married person is distracted by having to please his wife /her husband (only - note he doesn't mention children).

There were celibates in Jerusalem in Jesus' time, but a married couple with no children was regarded as cursed.

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

I think the avalibility of clean water and tomatoes would have seemed stunning and incredible to those folk as well. Progress rocks.

I don't think so. It wasn't until the 19th century that it was first realised that water which looks clean and tastes sweet might nevertheless cause disease to those who drink it. And the ancients were much more aware than we are that different countries produce different fruits. They would expect a fruit from a continent on the far side of the world to be very different from any local fruits.

Originally Posted by Chloe

I doubt that. The motif that things will be so bad that people will wish they didn't have children to suffer through it is a fairly common one. Think of the account of Masada, for instance, which is about contemporary with Luke.

i.e. soon after. That's exactly why the Jews found it so shocking when it came. Up until the late 60s AD most Jews lived in relative peace and prosperity and the Romans had been much more tolerant than most of the Jews' previous overlords.

And there are far worse family-related prophecies in the Hebrew Bible: Leviticus 27:29 forecasts, “You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters.” Deuteronomy 28:53 threatens, “And you shall eat the offspring of your own body, the flesh of your sons and daughters, whom the Lord your God has given you, in the siege and in the distress with which your enemies shall distress you.” Jeremiah 19:9: “And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters and everyone shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege and in the distress with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them.” Lamentations 2:20: “Look, O Lord, and see! / With whom has thou dealt thus? / Should women eat their offspring, the children of their tender care?” Ezekiel 5:10: “Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in the midst of you, and sons shall eat their fathers.” I think it far from "stunning and incredible" that a time when people would wish they hadn't had children at all might come.

The Jews knew there had occasionally been terrible famines and slaughters in the past. What they would find stunning and incredible is the novel situation in the contemporary West where in a time of unparallelled prosperity and peace, many regard it as a blessing rather than a curse for a couple to be childless.

[Stoneage Dinosaur]

Originally Posted by PeterK

It wasn't until the 19th century that it was first realised that water which looks clean and tastes sweet might nevertheless cause disease to those who drink it.

Wasn't it known that water caused disease many hundreds of years before then, and that's why people drank beer/ale or beverages which required boiling (such as tea) instead?

[Chloe]

Originally Posted by PeterK

i.e. soon after.

Unproven. If there is a link between Josephus and Luke, the usual suggestion is that Luke used Josephus, rather than the other way round. Luke's prediction of the fall of the temple is widely accepted as a vaticinium ex eventu. If you can show that Masada and the accounts of it post-date Luke, let's see it.

[queen of the caramels]

Originally Posted by PeterK

I don't think so. It wasn't until the 19th century that it was first realised that water which looks clean and tastes sweet might nevertheless cause disease to those who drink it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory_of_disease

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Snow_%28physician%29

Originally Posted by Stoneage Dinosaur

Wasn't it known that water caused disease many hundreds of years before then, and that's why people drank beer/ale or beverages which required boiling (such as tea) instead?

IIRC the Jews had/have a tradion of taking water upstream from thier camps/towns auguing for some form of knowledge .This precaution could lead to persecution in Europe as they were then accused of polluting water supplies.

2.4 Accusations of well poisoning Good ole wiki to the rescuehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitic_canard

Originally Posted by Stoneage Dinosaur

Wasn't it known that water caused disease many hundreds of years before then, and that's why people drank beer/ale or beverages which required boiling (such as tea) instead?

It seems difficult to deny that the main reason people drank beer and tea was for their pharmacological effects. And in any case until about 200 years ago beer was often diluted with fresh water before drinking.

A FEW people may have theorised that apparently-clean water can cause disease, but it was certainly not accepted by the general populace, least of all by most of the "experts". Even in the mid-to late 19th century, Pasteur was openly ridiculed by much of the medical establishment for his theory that living things too small to see cause human diseases.

Originally Posted by Chloe

Unproven. If there is a link between Josephus and Luke, the usual suggestion is that Luke used Josephus, rather than the other way round. Luke's prediction of the fall of the temple is widely accepted as a vaticinium ex eventu. If you can show that Masada and the accounts of it post-date Luke, let's see it.

Actually my point was that the war occurred soon after Jesus' predictions - indeed as he said "this generation will not pass away" before it was to happen. But it is convincingly argued that Luke's gospel reached its final published form before the deaths of Peter and Paul (64 AD). Perhaps I'm grossly misunderstanding you, but your "usual suggestion" and "widely accepted" theory seems to be saying that Luke put words into Jesus' mouth in order to convince people that Jesus prophesied the (then) future, although he had no evidence that Jesus did so! There's nothing either within or outside the gospel to suggest that Luke felt the need to make stuff up to make Jesus look good!

And almost as bizarre is your implication that contemporary Christians had to rely on Josephus to find out about the war.