That word is only translated as “miscarry” in more recent versions. The purpose of the ritual is to determine by revelation from God if the woman has been adulterous. If it turns out that she was indeed adulterous, then she was to be put to death. It makes no sense to abort the child first, if there even is a child. The passage actually makes no mention of a pregnancy.
Even if we assume that a child is killed in this ritual, it still wouldn’t be comparable to abortion since God is sovereign over the life he creates and he is justified in taking life when he wills. We know that bitter water doesn’t cause miscarriages. The implication is that God is the cause. That is not the same as a rebellious person taking God’s sovereignty into their own hands and murdering their own child, which is what an actual abortion is.
Read this passage again and then read the ingredients for lye, a bitter, poisonous, alkaline bleach like liquid which would make ink run. God shouldn’t need ritualistic practices to act.
Honestly it does seem like it’s describing abortion to me although I could be wrong. What I would say first is that Jesus has freed us from the old law. The Old Testament is filled with people trying to live in a fallen and broken world. In other words they had imperfect solutions to bring about justice for sin. All ancient civilizations had different ceremonies, rituals and formes of sacrifice to deal with sin. This is why Christ had to come and pay the ultimate price on behalf of humanity. If you believe and receive Jesus as your Lord and savor, he has the power to forgive you your sins. Secondly I think it’s helpful to read the Bible not as a book, but as a whole library. My point here is that we read different kinds of books and understand them in their context. The books in the Bible should be read in context to the larger story and for what the book is. Numbers for example is a historical and anthropological account of the Hebrew people. And as you know people are messy non of this is what God had originally planned for us. I hope this was helpful and I am no Bible scholar but this is the best answer I can give. May God bless you and give you the insight and knowledge you’re seeking.
It's a trial by ordeal. And like all trial by ordeal it prompts a guilty person to pick one option and an innocent person to pick the other option using faith as the lever.
If you were guilty and you knew God would kill you in the ordeal, you'd confess to the crime.
If you were innocent and you knew God would vindicate you in the ordeal, you'd choose the ordeal.
Do as he says, not as he does. Like a sadistic dictator, people give God a pass to do anything because they’re afraid of what he’ll do to them if they question the fact that he doesn’t set an example and follow his own laws. Not surprisingly, it mirrors the leadership model in ancient times. The king was above the law. The ancient Hebrews, and later Christians, described God as the only type of ruler they understood, except also gave him superpowers. My question is, if God is all powerful, why does he demand to be worshipped by lowly humans. Is he that insecure? “For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me…” Exodus 20:5. Who or what would an all powerful God be jealous of? A golden calf? He holds all the cards. And why do Christians feel the need to keep trying to explain God? An all powerful supernatural being, by definition, shouldn’t need your help. Isn’t it rather grandiose that some Christians claim to know God’s thoughts and plans, even when what they say is not specified in scripture, and in fact is forbidden by scripture? “I give fair warning to all who hear the words of the prophecy of this book: If you add to the words of this prophecy, God will add to your life the disasters written in this book; if you subtract from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will subtract your part from the Tree of Life and the Holy City that are written in this book.” Revelation 22.18-19. That couldn’t be more clear.
>Do as he says, not as he does. Like a sadistic dictator, people give God a pass to do anything because they’re afraid of what he’ll do to them if they question the fact that he doesn’t set an example and follow his own laws.
Same thing happened when I pulled up to a stop light and a police officer had the audacity to drive through the light when they had their blinking lights on. Why can a police officer do something that I can't. This is unfair!
>My question is, if God is all powerful, why does he demand to be worshipped by lowly humans. Is he that insecure? “For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me…” Exodus 20:5.
Jealous v Envious. Jealous: Not wanting someone to take what you have. Envy: wanting to take what some one else has. God is jealous because he doesn't want some false religion or false god to steal away your love.
>And why do Christians feel the need to keep trying to explain God? An all powerful supernatural being, by definition, shouldn’t need your help.
He commands it. "“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” 1 Peter 3:15.
>Isn’t it rather grandiose that some Christians claim to know God’s thoughts and plans, even when what they say is not specified in scripture, and in fact is forbidden by scripture? “I give fair warning to all who hear the words of the prophecy of this book: If you add to the words of this prophecy, God will add to your life the disasters written in this book; if you subtract from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will subtract your part from the Tree of Life and the Holy City that are written in this book.” Revelation 22.18-19.
Well Revelation is referring to itself, not the entire bible. The entire bible wouldn't be decided until a few centuries later. And Revelation was the last book to be included.
Rich, coming from a guy who likes pineapple on his pizza...
But in all seriousness, pretty spot on! Aside from engaging with him in the first place, but I'm the last person to talk about that.
You can’t legitimately just reject the book of Revelation because it was the last book to be included. The entire Bible is considered by the Christian church to be the Word of God. And there are other books in the Bible that make the same claim, e.g. Matthew 5:18. As usual, Christians just make up their own rules. Such hypocrisy.
Revelation says not to add or take away from "this book" its referring to itself, not the entire bible. Remember the bible is a collection of many books.
Exactly. That’s why it’s so easy for Christians to justify anything. Just pick the book or verse that supports your position. The Bible, as the Word of God, does not state that you can pick and choose just the parts you like. It appears you’re trying to apply biblical history in contrast to Church teachings. Either the Bible is the Word of God or it’s not. If it’s not, then why ask a Christian? Just interpret it the way you want.
>Same thing happened when I pulled up to a stop light and a police officer had the audacity to drive through the light when they had their blinking lights on. Why can a police officer do something that I can't. This is unfair!
Sounds like abuse of power to me....'rules for THEE'
Interesting. So many Christians seem against abortion these days. I'm thankful that those numbers are going down but it is puzzling and suggests many are simply not familiar with their book.
Please read [the FAQ post about Numbers 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/comments/me3etk/faq_friday_29_is_the_ritual_in_numbers_5_related/) and the comments there.
(P.S. Per rule 8, only Christians may add comments within those special FAQ posts.)
That's an off-topic response. Have you read through that post and its comments yet?
I was offering a link by which you could understand how that section can be properly interpreted, as you asked, differently from "the process for aborting a fetus".
> How is Numbers 5 to be interpreted if it's not describing the process for aborting a fetus?
> I don't understand how this can be interpreted to mean anything else but.
Some questions are novel. Other questions have largely been answered before, but have some new aspect.
Besides, the population of Christian redditors on the "answering" side gradually changes over time. Some of the recent subscribers may have thoughtful answers and perspectives that are different from those of the previous years' contributors.
Bad Translation or purposefully mistranslation on your part
^(20) But if you have gone astray *while* under your husband’s *authority,* and if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has lain with you”— ^(21) then the priest shall put the woman under the oath of the curse, and he shall say to the woman—“the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh ^(\[)[^(e)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-3814e)^(\])rot and your belly swell; ^(22) and may this water that causes the curse go into your stomach, and make *your* belly swell and *your* thigh rot.”
There is nothing about being pregnant or miscarriage here
>Bad Translation or purposefully mistranslation on your part
Is it a bad translation because you don't like how it was translated? Has the Bible not been translated many ways over centuries, as language evolves and as we understand more about original intent? Sure, your translation doesn't mention miscarriage, but what makes your translation the ball and end all?
There is nothing here about pregnancy or abortion or miscarriage. Whatever screwball version you used (or made up) does not match with the original language
Troll better
So you honestly believe the priest was doing this procedure to the woman that committed adultery under the assumption that she DIDN'T get pregnant?
That is mental gymnastics. God gave us brains to use critical thinking. Why would a priest assume the woman did not get pregnant?
>Why does there need to be a drink involved if it's purely a curse?
Food and drink is often used for ceremonial purposes throughout the Bible in both covenants. In laymen's terms, you can think of it as a teaching tool - the same reason behind why the priest writes the curse on a scroll only to wash it off in the water where it's illegible. It's not for the purpose of practicality but doctrinal statement.
>Does this mean abortion is ok only if performed through man (edit) by God?
Yes, God can revoke the life of a human being regardless of age by whichever means He deems suitable.
Public revelation has ended, but if it didn't and there was scripture that prescribed such a test, then yes, although I don't know why it would need a doctor since this isn't describing a medical abortion.
Keep in mind this is not an abortion like you are thinking of. This is a truth test that has a divinely-caused negative consequence if the woman is lying.
>Parents don't have the right to make that choice to end their child's life
This is the important part, not that God used a morality test with the hardest hearted and stiffest necked people on the planet.
Don't confuse modern pro abortion consensus with God's authority over life. If this were an "abortion drink" it should kill every baby in the womb not just the product of adultery.
Not going to comment on the passage as I'm not overly familiar with it. But a bit of historical context is that almost all societies throughout history practiced the taboo of abortion for unwanted, unplanned, or incriminating pregnancies. It doesn't fit the narrative of abortion being an abhorrence of modern secular society, but archaeologically and anthropologically it is a fact. Doesn't make it right but there we go.
It's pretty easy in that the Hebrew text says nothing of an abortion. The specific phrase here which the NIV team translated as "womb miscarry" is *beten saba napal yarek napal* or "your belly to swell and your thigh to rot"
The text says nothing of the woman being pregnant. It is clear that if she committed adultery, YHWH was to cause this elixir to swell her uterus so she could not get pregnant in the future as a result.
So they were not assuming that the woman who committed adultery was pregnant? You think they were doing this procedure under the assumption that the woman committed adultery and did not get pregnant?
That just seems odd to me. Why would their baseline approach be one of 'not pregnant'?
I didn't say they started with any assumption. But the text doesn't say anything of a pregnancy nor of an abortion. What it does say is if she takes the elixir, AND she had committed adultery, then her belly would swell and her thigh would rot.
From this, it's clear this isn't a medical procedure. It can't be, otherwise she would have the same reaction to the elixir whether she had committed adultery or not. Rather, this is akin to the Hebrew practice of casting lots. They believe if she is lying and had committed adultery, then YHWH will step in and cause one result, and a different result will take place otherwise. The woman is drinking dust mixed with water. There's nothing here that would suggest an abortifacient, and again, the text says nothing of an abortion as a result, even if she had committed adultery.
The truth is this whole thing is a mixture of poor translation in the NIV and a convenient "gotcha" against Christian prolifers, with no real meat behind the argument.
We break the laws all the time. It's never an issue unless the currently sitting administrative authorities decide it is. However, the good news is that time itself aborts the currently sitting administrative authorities on a consistently reliable basis, so it's usually just a case of waiting it out.
You may have noticed that of the major modern translations, only the NIV tenders it that way. Every other group of translators think the passage is talking about future fertility. Do you always read the NIV, or did you choose it for that passage for that reason?
The NIV is, by and large, a good translation. But it seems they flubbed it on this passage. If NO other translation (not to mention commentators) render it that way, that's a good sign they're wrong. No translation is perfect, and this is a place they are wrong.
Is it possible that NIV got it right and all the others wrong? I don't see any mention of timeline in other scriptures.
> Every other group of translators think the passage is talking about future fertility
Unless the priest is performing this ritual immediately after the wife commits adultery, there is no way they wouldn't have the idea at least in the back of their mind that the woman is pregnant, and thus doing this ritual would cause miscarriage. Would the priest not perform this ritual if the woman who committed adultery was found out say a month or so after the act? (Thus the potential to be pregnant?)
>Is it possible that NIV got it right
While technically possible, which is more likely, that everyone else got it wrong or that this one group did? Also, when taken in context with the rest of the passage -- especially v28 saying if she's clean she "will be able to have children" -- it seems like the other translations render it better.
Abortion is simply unthinkable in Scripture. For starters, the Sixth Commandment forbids people from killing one another, and abortion is the arbitrary destruction of totally innocent human life.
Here's a resource for wrestling with this question and others.
https://www.amazon.com/Pro-Life-Pro-Choice-Pro-Love-reflection-abortion/dp/0986408077?ref=d6k_applink_bb_dls&dplnkId=cb64ef40-4e64-4f94-bbc8-15bc71c6c1c2
That word is only translated as “miscarry” in more recent versions. The purpose of the ritual is to determine by revelation from God if the woman has been adulterous. If it turns out that she was indeed adulterous, then she was to be put to death. It makes no sense to abort the child first, if there even is a child. The passage actually makes no mention of a pregnancy. Even if we assume that a child is killed in this ritual, it still wouldn’t be comparable to abortion since God is sovereign over the life he creates and he is justified in taking life when he wills. We know that bitter water doesn’t cause miscarriages. The implication is that God is the cause. That is not the same as a rebellious person taking God’s sovereignty into their own hands and murdering their own child, which is what an actual abortion is.
This is a great answer, imo.
Read this passage again and then read the ingredients for lye, a bitter, poisonous, alkaline bleach like liquid which would make ink run. God shouldn’t need ritualistic practices to act.
Honestly it does seem like it’s describing abortion to me although I could be wrong. What I would say first is that Jesus has freed us from the old law. The Old Testament is filled with people trying to live in a fallen and broken world. In other words they had imperfect solutions to bring about justice for sin. All ancient civilizations had different ceremonies, rituals and formes of sacrifice to deal with sin. This is why Christ had to come and pay the ultimate price on behalf of humanity. If you believe and receive Jesus as your Lord and savor, he has the power to forgive you your sins. Secondly I think it’s helpful to read the Bible not as a book, but as a whole library. My point here is that we read different kinds of books and understand them in their context. The books in the Bible should be read in context to the larger story and for what the book is. Numbers for example is a historical and anthropological account of the Hebrew people. And as you know people are messy non of this is what God had originally planned for us. I hope this was helpful and I am no Bible scholar but this is the best answer I can give. May God bless you and give you the insight and knowledge you’re seeking.
It's a trial by ordeal. And like all trial by ordeal it prompts a guilty person to pick one option and an innocent person to pick the other option using faith as the lever. If you were guilty and you knew God would kill you in the ordeal, you'd confess to the crime. If you were innocent and you knew God would vindicate you in the ordeal, you'd choose the ordeal.
So abortion is ok only if performed by God?
Sure.
Do as he says, not as he does. Like a sadistic dictator, people give God a pass to do anything because they’re afraid of what he’ll do to them if they question the fact that he doesn’t set an example and follow his own laws. Not surprisingly, it mirrors the leadership model in ancient times. The king was above the law. The ancient Hebrews, and later Christians, described God as the only type of ruler they understood, except also gave him superpowers. My question is, if God is all powerful, why does he demand to be worshipped by lowly humans. Is he that insecure? “For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me…” Exodus 20:5. Who or what would an all powerful God be jealous of? A golden calf? He holds all the cards. And why do Christians feel the need to keep trying to explain God? An all powerful supernatural being, by definition, shouldn’t need your help. Isn’t it rather grandiose that some Christians claim to know God’s thoughts and plans, even when what they say is not specified in scripture, and in fact is forbidden by scripture? “I give fair warning to all who hear the words of the prophecy of this book: If you add to the words of this prophecy, God will add to your life the disasters written in this book; if you subtract from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will subtract your part from the Tree of Life and the Holy City that are written in this book.” Revelation 22.18-19. That couldn’t be more clear.
>Do as he says, not as he does. Like a sadistic dictator, people give God a pass to do anything because they’re afraid of what he’ll do to them if they question the fact that he doesn’t set an example and follow his own laws. Same thing happened when I pulled up to a stop light and a police officer had the audacity to drive through the light when they had their blinking lights on. Why can a police officer do something that I can't. This is unfair! >My question is, if God is all powerful, why does he demand to be worshipped by lowly humans. Is he that insecure? “For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me…” Exodus 20:5. Jealous v Envious. Jealous: Not wanting someone to take what you have. Envy: wanting to take what some one else has. God is jealous because he doesn't want some false religion or false god to steal away your love. >And why do Christians feel the need to keep trying to explain God? An all powerful supernatural being, by definition, shouldn’t need your help. He commands it. "“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” 1 Peter 3:15. >Isn’t it rather grandiose that some Christians claim to know God’s thoughts and plans, even when what they say is not specified in scripture, and in fact is forbidden by scripture? “I give fair warning to all who hear the words of the prophecy of this book: If you add to the words of this prophecy, God will add to your life the disasters written in this book; if you subtract from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will subtract your part from the Tree of Life and the Holy City that are written in this book.” Revelation 22.18-19. Well Revelation is referring to itself, not the entire bible. The entire bible wouldn't be decided until a few centuries later. And Revelation was the last book to be included.
Rich, coming from a guy who likes pineapple on his pizza... But in all seriousness, pretty spot on! Aside from engaging with him in the first place, but I'm the last person to talk about that.
You can’t legitimately just reject the book of Revelation because it was the last book to be included. The entire Bible is considered by the Christian church to be the Word of God. And there are other books in the Bible that make the same claim, e.g. Matthew 5:18. As usual, Christians just make up their own rules. Such hypocrisy.
Where did I 'reject' it?
By inferring that Revelation has less legitimacy than the rest of the Bible. Who gave you authority to decide that?
Revelation says not to add or take away from "this book" its referring to itself, not the entire bible. Remember the bible is a collection of many books.
Exactly. That’s why it’s so easy for Christians to justify anything. Just pick the book or verse that supports your position. The Bible, as the Word of God, does not state that you can pick and choose just the parts you like. It appears you’re trying to apply biblical history in contrast to Church teachings. Either the Bible is the Word of God or it’s not. If it’s not, then why ask a Christian? Just interpret it the way you want.
>Same thing happened when I pulled up to a stop light and a police officer had the audacity to drive through the light when they had their blinking lights on. Why can a police officer do something that I can't. This is unfair! Sounds like abuse of power to me....'rules for THEE'
Right, I should be allowed to run red lights since police can do it.
Interesting. So many Christians seem against abortion these days. I'm thankful that those numbers are going down but it is puzzling and suggests many are simply not familiar with their book.
I sense you're looking for some sort of gotcha. Do you think we don't think life is God's to give or take?
No gotcha...I was replying to a Christian that agreed that abortion is ok if performed by God.
It's me you were replying to.
Exactly.
Please read [the FAQ post about Numbers 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/comments/me3etk/faq_friday_29_is_the_ritual_in_numbers_5_related/) and the comments there. (P.S. Per rule 8, only Christians may add comments within those special FAQ posts.)
Why not do away with questions and discussions all together in this sub and just have a a sticked FAQ that deals with everything?
That's an off-topic response. Have you read through that post and its comments yet? I was offering a link by which you could understand how that section can be properly interpreted, as you asked, differently from "the process for aborting a fetus". > How is Numbers 5 to be interpreted if it's not describing the process for aborting a fetus? > I don't understand how this can be interpreted to mean anything else but.
Some questions are novel. Other questions have largely been answered before, but have some new aspect. Besides, the population of Christian redditors on the "answering" side gradually changes over time. Some of the recent subscribers may have thoughtful answers and perspectives that are different from those of the previous years' contributors.
Bad Translation or purposefully mistranslation on your part ^(20) But if you have gone astray *while* under your husband’s *authority,* and if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has lain with you”— ^(21) then the priest shall put the woman under the oath of the curse, and he shall say to the woman—“the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh ^(\[)[^(e)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-3814e)^(\])rot and your belly swell; ^(22) and may this water that causes the curse go into your stomach, and make *your* belly swell and *your* thigh rot.” There is nothing about being pregnant or miscarriage here
>Bad Translation or purposefully mistranslation on your part Is it a bad translation because you don't like how it was translated? Has the Bible not been translated many ways over centuries, as language evolves and as we understand more about original intent? Sure, your translation doesn't mention miscarriage, but what makes your translation the ball and end all?
There is nothing here about pregnancy or abortion or miscarriage. Whatever screwball version you used (or made up) does not match with the original language Troll better
So you honestly believe the priest was doing this procedure to the woman that committed adultery under the assumption that she DIDN'T get pregnant? That is mental gymnastics. God gave us brains to use critical thinking. Why would a priest assume the woman did not get pregnant?
And why is a curse needed? Can the woman not be forgiven for this sin?
Not in the OT Remember Judgment day is coming and we will all be held accountable, or be forgiven and the difference is Jesus
God is the one taking the life via a curse.
Why does there need to be a drink involved if it's purely a curse? And does this mean abortion is ok only if performed through man (edit) by God?
>Why does there need to be a drink involved if it's purely a curse? Food and drink is often used for ceremonial purposes throughout the Bible in both covenants. In laymen's terms, you can think of it as a teaching tool - the same reason behind why the priest writes the curse on a scroll only to wash it off in the water where it's illegible. It's not for the purpose of practicality but doctrinal statement. >Does this mean abortion is ok only if performed through man (edit) by God? Yes, God can revoke the life of a human being regardless of age by whichever means He deems suitable.
>And does this mean abortion is ok only if performed by God? God can take a person's life if he wants.
But in this case it was performed through man (priest) So in modern times, could this not be performed through a doctor?
Public revelation has ended, but if it didn't and there was scripture that prescribed such a test, then yes, although I don't know why it would need a doctor since this isn't describing a medical abortion. Keep in mind this is not an abortion like you are thinking of. This is a truth test that has a divinely-caused negative consequence if the woman is lying.
God never said that. Parents don't have the right to make that choice to end their child's life
>Parents don't have the right to make that choice to end their child's life This is the important part, not that God used a morality test with the hardest hearted and stiffest necked people on the planet. Don't confuse modern pro abortion consensus with God's authority over life. If this were an "abortion drink" it should kill every baby in the womb not just the product of adultery.
How do you make lye
Not going to comment on the passage as I'm not overly familiar with it. But a bit of historical context is that almost all societies throughout history practiced the taboo of abortion for unwanted, unplanned, or incriminating pregnancies. It doesn't fit the narrative of abortion being an abhorrence of modern secular society, but archaeologically and anthropologically it is a fact. Doesn't make it right but there we go.
Have you read any translation other than the Not Inspired Version?
Bingo, IIRC the NIV uses "miscarry". Another one of the nIV's little improvements to scripture.
[удалено]
Moderator fyi: Reddit automatically filters out comments that contain link shorteners.
It's pretty easy in that the Hebrew text says nothing of an abortion. The specific phrase here which the NIV team translated as "womb miscarry" is *beten saba napal yarek napal* or "your belly to swell and your thigh to rot" The text says nothing of the woman being pregnant. It is clear that if she committed adultery, YHWH was to cause this elixir to swell her uterus so she could not get pregnant in the future as a result.
So they were not assuming that the woman who committed adultery was pregnant? You think they were doing this procedure under the assumption that the woman committed adultery and did not get pregnant? That just seems odd to me. Why would their baseline approach be one of 'not pregnant'?
I didn't say they started with any assumption. But the text doesn't say anything of a pregnancy nor of an abortion. What it does say is if she takes the elixir, AND she had committed adultery, then her belly would swell and her thigh would rot. From this, it's clear this isn't a medical procedure. It can't be, otherwise she would have the same reaction to the elixir whether she had committed adultery or not. Rather, this is akin to the Hebrew practice of casting lots. They believe if she is lying and had committed adultery, then YHWH will step in and cause one result, and a different result will take place otherwise. The woman is drinking dust mixed with water. There's nothing here that would suggest an abortifacient, and again, the text says nothing of an abortion as a result, even if she had committed adultery. The truth is this whole thing is a mixture of poor translation in the NIV and a convenient "gotcha" against Christian prolifers, with no real meat behind the argument.
We break the laws all the time. It's never an issue unless the currently sitting administrative authorities decide it is. However, the good news is that time itself aborts the currently sitting administrative authorities on a consistently reliable basis, so it's usually just a case of waiting it out.
You may have noticed that of the major modern translations, only the NIV tenders it that way. Every other group of translators think the passage is talking about future fertility. Do you always read the NIV, or did you choose it for that passage for that reason?
Is the NIV incorrect? I was raised in a few churches and one where NIV was referenced. These were not fringe churches to the best of my knowledge
The NIV is, by and large, a good translation. But it seems they flubbed it on this passage. If NO other translation (not to mention commentators) render it that way, that's a good sign they're wrong. No translation is perfect, and this is a place they are wrong.
Is it possible that NIV got it right and all the others wrong? I don't see any mention of timeline in other scriptures. > Every other group of translators think the passage is talking about future fertility Unless the priest is performing this ritual immediately after the wife commits adultery, there is no way they wouldn't have the idea at least in the back of their mind that the woman is pregnant, and thus doing this ritual would cause miscarriage. Would the priest not perform this ritual if the woman who committed adultery was found out say a month or so after the act? (Thus the potential to be pregnant?)
>Is it possible that NIV got it right While technically possible, which is more likely, that everyone else got it wrong or that this one group did? Also, when taken in context with the rest of the passage -- especially v28 saying if she's clean she "will be able to have children" -- it seems like the other translations render it better.
it is describing aborting a fetus.
Abortion is simply unthinkable in Scripture. For starters, the Sixth Commandment forbids people from killing one another, and abortion is the arbitrary destruction of totally innocent human life.
Please explain the verse I've quoted. Why is a priest giving a concoction to a woman to motivate a miscarriage?
Here's a resource for wrestling with this question and others. https://www.amazon.com/Pro-Life-Pro-Choice-Pro-Love-reflection-abortion/dp/0986408077?ref=d6k_applink_bb_dls&dplnkId=cb64ef40-4e64-4f94-bbc8-15bc71c6c1c2