craigernaught said:

---

The Wikipedia article here is actually pretty helpful in explaining some background and multiple interpretations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water

The text can be translated in multiple ways. It literally says "thigh" here and not womb or uterus (anyone please correct me if I'm wrong). But some translations attempt to translate what is literally said as best as possible and some try to translate what is meant as best as possible. You're seeing that play out here. You're right to use multiple versions to try to figure out what's happening. That's always a good practice.

The assumption made by the NIV and other texts like the NRSV is that Numbers is using "thigh" as a euphemism for reproductive organs which happens elsewhere and "the uterus falling away" or whatever would naturally be a termination of the pregnancy and/or becoming infertile.

It's important to note here that the potion is described in the NRSV as "the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water." The potion is an abortifacient only by an act of God unless there is some specific property of the water and the dust that we don't know about or if there's an additional ingredient not listed. Holy water from the temple and dust from the temple isn't going to terminate a pregnancy on its own.

My guess is that any woman here accused of adultery but without evidence by the husband can be brought before the Sanhedrin, drink some dusty water, doesn't miscarry or have her thigh literally fall away (which I'm guessing has the same end result for any baby anyway), and when nothing happens, the husband is forced to drop the accusations against his wife without evidence.

Certainly a strange and interesting passage.

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

Agreed. Anyone using this verse to support abortion is really grasping. However, I do think this shows why attempting to proof-text your way through the Bible is very problematic. We simply cannot use our modern, 2,000-3,500 years removed lens (different languages, traditions, experiences, etc.) and think we can make sense of exactly what this verse was speaking about.

In no way is God accepting or advocating abortion here.

---

M1Buckeye said:

---

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205%3A11-31&version=NIV

21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse"may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries." "'Then the woman is to say, "Amen. So be it."

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205%3A11-31&version=ESV

21 then' (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman) 'the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your body swell. 22 May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.' And the woman shall say, 'Amen, Amen.'

---

craigernaught said:

---

My guess is that any woman here accused of adultery but without evidence by the husband can be brought before the Sanhedrin, drink some dusty water, doesn't miscarry or have her thigh literally fall away (which I'm guessing has the same end result for any baby anyway), and when nothing happens, the husband is forced to drop the accusations against his wife without evidence.

---

Rocag said:

---

These verses don't get brought up because it shows some pro-choice situation in the ancient world, very far from it in fact. In this case the woman is being made to perform an action that could terminate her pregnancy, that's not a knowing choice on her part.

What it does though is show that the ancient world might have looked at pregnancy and the question on when life begins in a different way than the modern pro-life movement does. This is seen as a punishment for the woman and the idea that a separate, innocent life is being taken never even enters into the discussion. For those that do believe life begins at conception this passage does raise some interesting questions but is a bit more morally ambiguous otherwise.

---