prove it
Calling the passage in Numbers “instructions for how to perform an abortion” is quite a stretch.
First, there is no indication that there exists a pregnancy in the first place.
Second, there are no instructions on how to concoct the “water of bitterness” that the suspected adulteress must drink.
Third, the passage indicates that if the woman has not been unfaithful to her husband the water will have no effect. This is, quite simply, not how abortifacients work. They don’t discriminate based on the fetus’s paternal parentage.
The consequence here seems to be infertility (a huge deal in a culture where women’s primary worth was their ability to bear sons), not abortion. And the process appears to involve divine intervention, not practical instructions.
The rest of the alleged pastor’s response has nothing to do with the intentional killing of one’s own unborn baby, so is kind of irrelevant. Except to say that there is some disturbing weird stuff in the Old Testament. Regardless, killing your enemy’s babies is certainly not abortion.
Second, there are no instructions on how to concoct the “water of bitterness” that the suspected adulteress must drink.
" Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water".
Seems pretty clear how to concoct the drink,
Sounds like an even better example of divine approval then.
holy water + tabernacle dust = actual functional abortifacient?
Is there any science backing up that this actually works?
Assuming not, I reiterate, this is not instructions on performing an abortion.
Divine approval for not being an adulteress, yes. Not instructions on how to perform an abortion.
I know there are multiple translations, one is something about her thigh shall rot, but I think it’s generally accepted that this is a miscarriage. This is from the NIV translation. Yes, it’s not a recipe for an abortifacient, but I don’t see a way around this being exactly how it reads. Presumably the clergy would have oral tradition for the correct method. (Silphium, perhaps? Not sure if that was used at the time of Numbers being written.) It would be in the clergy’s best interest to not disseminate that information, otherwise people could do it themselves.
Thanks @Snikelfritz , I only knew of Numbers 5 and Exodus 21:22-23 as the explicit mentions of induced miscarriage (Numbers) and the lesser value of a fetus compared to a human (Exodus). Hosea was new to me, praying for miscarriages of enemies.
I’ve yet to see a mention that abortion is Biblically bad. The closest I recall is the “I knew you from the womb.”
I don’t know that NIV is the most accurate translation. I know my pastor has told me to go with NASB as a more accurate one. But ok, NIV does say miscarry; I’ll give you that.
Kind of weird though, since most infidelity does not result in pregnancy. So the adulterous woman is only punished if she happens to be carrying her lover’s child? What if she was unfaithful to her husband and didn’t get pregnant as a result of her affair?
It doesn’t even make logical sense to translate it that way, even if we assume that God will intervene and not cause a baby to be aborted if it is her husband’s or the product of rape rather than adultery.
What? Something in the bible doesn’t make sense? Holy shit we should inform the media!
Depends on how you want to define “accurate translation.”
There are many phrases in other languages that don’t translate well into a language of another culture. You can try to do a literal word-for-word translation changing word order to match grammar rules–which NASB focuses on. You can also to a “thought-for-thought” translation to communicate an idea expressed by one culture to what would be comparable in the other culture–which the NIV focuses on.