Abortion!

Bitter Water that Causes a Curse: Does Numbers 5:11-22 Condone Abortion?

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Numbers 5:11-22 presents a curious and somewhat difficult Bible passage. The text says:

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure—then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing. The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you.But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”—here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 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”’” (NIV).

Skeptics claim that these verses prove that the God of the Old Testament condones abortion. As Atheist John Hamill wrote: “The verses appear to describe explicit divine support for abortion. In fact, the context in which it seems that Yahweh approves of abortion, is when a husband wishes to force his wife to terminate a pregnancy (even against her will) if he suspects he may not be the biological father.”¹ Do these verses condone abortion?²

First, it is important to ask why the skeptic believes this passage discusses abortion. The bulk of the passage has to do with adultery and nowhere even mentions pregnancy. The accusation of condoning abortion is based primarily, if not entirely, on the final verses that say of the woman “your womb miscarry” and “may this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your womb miscarries.” In truth, the NIV in this case provides an unfortunate and inaccurate translation of the terms in the passage. Compare how these terms from verses 21 and 22 are translated in other versions.

NKJV: “when the Lord makes your thigh rot and your belly swell…and make your belly swell and your thigh rot.”

KJV: “when the Lord doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell…to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot.”

ESV: “when the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your body swell…and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.”

ASV: “doth make thy thigh fall away, and thy body to swell…and make thy body to swell, and thy thigh fall away.”

Notice that other translations say nothing about a miscarriage or miscarrying. The term that the NIV translates “womb” is yarek. This word actually means “thigh, loin, side, or base.”³ It can be used to describe both males and females. It is used in Genesis 32:25 to describe the area that God wounded on Jacob when they wrestled, described as “the socket of his hip” (NKJV). It obviously could not have been Jacob’s “womb.” Judges 3:16 contains the word, describing Ehud’s dagger that he fastened “on his right thigh.” Furthermore, the term translated “miscarry” is the Hebrew word naphal, which means, “to fall, waste away, rot.”⁴ It can be used as broadly as an animal falling into a pit (as in Exodus 21:33), a sword falling from one’s hand (Ezekiel 30:22), or a violent or untimely death (Judges 5:27). The word could possibly be used to describe the death of an unborn infant, but is not in any way confined to the idea of a miscarriage and should only be translated as such when there is a very clear connection to a baby. When the word describes what happens to “the thigh” (yarek), there is no verbal connection to any type of pregnancy or child and should not be translated as miscarriage, which is why the other major translations say, “thigh fall away,” “thigh rot,” etc. Furthermore, it should be noted that the curse is directed at the woman. It is her thigh that shall rot off if she is found guilty of adultery. It is her belly, abdomen, or middle section that will swell. In order to accuse God or the Israelites of condoning abortion, there must be a clear statement or connection to an unborn baby in the text. Needless to say, that connection does not exist. Thus, we can dismiss the accusation that this passage proves that God was instructing the Israelites to perform abortion.

Let us then move on to what the passage actually discusses. In the context, if a man believes his wife has committed adultery, he takes her to the Tabernacle where she is instructed to drink “holy water” that has some dust from the tabernacle floor and some type of parchment or paper fragments that are scraped into the water (Numbers 5:23). If the woman is innocent, then nothing adverse happens to her (Numbers 5:28). If she committed adultery, then her thigh would rot, her belly would swell, and she would “become a curse among her people.” Notice that this entire procedure implies the fact that divine judgment is directly at work in this case. There is no secret formula in the water that somehow is able to detect whether or not the woman has committed adultery. No special chemicals are concocted to cause sickness if adultery has occurred, but that are harmless if she has been faithful. The entire ordeal is designed to make a public example to show that God was working personally in the lives of the Israelites.

When we look more closely, we notice that the text mentions that there were no witnesses to the supposed adultery and the woman was not caught (Numbers 5:13). Some have argued that the Bible writers are showing favoritism here because no man is accused with the woman. The point is, however, that the husband suspects the wife of adultery, but has no physical evidence of her suspected accomplice. There is no favoritism toward the man in this instance, since the Old Testament clearly states that if a man and woman are caught in adultery, and there are witnesses, then both of them were to be punished equally (Deuteronomy 22:22). In this case, the woman is suspected of adultery and only God knows (besides the potentially guilty parties) whether or not she is guilty. If she is guilty, then it is God who sees and knows and will punish her. There is nothing inherent in the water that makes her sick in the case of adultery, but does nothing in the case of innocence. [As an aside, when God did act in such cases, and the woman fell ill and was cursed, there is no reason to think that God would let the guilty man go unpunished. Moses’ admonition to the men of the tribes of Reuben and Gad, when he stated, “be sure your sin will find you out” (Numbers 32:23), would surely apply in this case. The stories of David’s adultery and the sin of Achan illustrate God’s ability and willingness to be directly involved in the reparation of sin.]

 The skeptic’s accusation that Numbers 5:21-22 shows that God or the Israelites condoned abortion is groundless. The text never mentions a pregnancy, and the NIV translation of the terms “miscarry” or “miscarries” is unfounded. The punishment for any adultery that took place is directed at the woman. And God’s involvement in the ceremony is necessary for it to have any significance. There was nothing in the water that would or could cause an abortion, cause sickness, or differentiate between a guilty or innocent person. Only the all-knowing God could manifest the woman’s guilt or innocence. 

Endnotes

¹ John Hamill (2018),  “What Does the Bible Say About Abortion?” Atheist Ireland, https://atheist.ie/2018/04/what-does-the-bible-say-about-abortion/.

² For an in-depth look at the biblical position on abortion, see Eric Lyons (2010), “Abortion and the Ungodly Irrationality Surrounding Unwanted Infants,” Reason & Revelation, 30[6]:41-47. Also Dave Miller (2003), “Abortion & the Bible,” http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=445&topic=25.

³ “Yarek,” Strong’s Concordance, https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3409.htm.

⁴ “Naphal,” https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/5307.html.

---

Copyright © 2019 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Genesis

Genesis 5: A Timeline

by

AP Staff

<>

Did you realize...

...that Adam was still alive when Lamech, his great, great, great, great, great, great grandson was born?!
...that when Noah was born, Seth was still Alive?!
...that Methuselah died in the Year of the Flood?!
...that these are among the oldest people to ever live?!

	ADAM - Age of the Earth when Adam was created = 5 days - lived 130 years & had Seth - Lived 800 more years - Died at 930 yr. old (vss. 3-5) - Age of the Earth at death = 930 yr. old
	SETH - Age of the Earth at birth = 130 yr. old - lived 105 years & had Enosh - Lived 807 more years - Died at 912 yr. old (vss. 6-7) - Age of the Earth at death = 1,042 yr. old
	ENOSH - Age of the Earth at birth = 235 yr. old - lived 90 years & had Cainan - Lived 815 more years - Died at 905 yr. old (vss. 9-11) - Age of the Earth at death = 1,140yr.old
	CAINAN - Age of the Earth at birth = 325 yr. old - lived 70 years & had Mahalalel - Lived 840 more years - Died at 910 yr. old (vss. 12-14) - Age of the Earth at death = 1,235 yr.old
	MAHALALEL - Age of the Earth at birth = 395 yr. old - lived 65 years & had Jared - Lived 830 more years - Died at 895 yr. old (vss. 15-17) - Age of the Earth at death = 1,290 yr.old
	JARED - Age of the Earth at birth = 460 yr. old - lived 162 years & had Enoch - Lived 800 more years - Died at 962 yr. old (vss. 18-20) - Age of the Earth at death = 1,422 yr.old
	ENOCH - Age of the Earth at birth = 622 yr. old & never died - Enoch lived 65 years & had Methuselah - Lived 300 more years, and was taken by God at 365 yr. old (vss. 21-24) - Age of the Earth when Enoch was taken = 987 yr.old
	METHUSELAH - Age of the Earth at birth = 687 yr. old - lived 187 years & had Lamech - Lived 782 more years - Died at 969 yr. old (vss. 25-27) - Age of the Earth at death = 1,656 yr.old
	LAMECH - Age of the Earth at birth = 874 yr. old - lived 182 years & had Noah - Lived 595 more years - Died at 777 yr. old (vss. 28-31) - Age of the Earth at death = 1,651 yr.old
	NOAH - Age of the Earth at birth = 1,056 yr. old - Lived 600 years before the Flood came - Died at 950 yr. old (Gen. 5:32; 7:6; 9:29)

NOTE: Although we do not know what these men looked like, we know that many different races of people would have come from this lineage, and we have made an effort to represent as many of those races as possible!

---

Copyright © 2019 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Who Did Cain Marry?

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Skeptics argue that the Bible is a book of mythology, filled with inconsistencies and impossibilities. Clarence Darrow, the agnostic defense attorney in the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, scoffed at the Bible’s account of Cain finding a wife, asking William Jennings Bryan, “Did you ever discover where Cain got his wife?”¹ Writing in Biblical Archaeology Review, Marry Leith argued that the text implies there must have been “other people ‘out there’ when God created Adam and Eve” from whom Cain picked a wife.² Genesis 3:20, however, indicates that “all living” descended from Eve. If God created only Adam and Eve, and all other humans came from them, and Eve had only birthed Cain and Abel by the time Abel was murdered, who was Cain’s wife (Genesis 4:17)?

First, as discussed elsewhere,³ Genesis 4 gives several indications that a significant amount of time likely passed between the birth of Cain and Abel and the murder of Abel. If humanity was being fruitful and multiplying as God commanded (Genesis 1:28), it is reasonable to assume that Adam and Eve were not waiting many years before conceiving their next child. Genesis 5:4 indicates that Adam and Eve did, in fact, have “other sons and daughters” which are not listed in the text. If they had a single child every two years (i.e., no twins), and their children began marrying at the age of 19 and immediately began having children as well, there would have been roughly 300 people on the Earth by the time Cain was 100⁴—a plausible age as to when Cain may have killed his brother.⁵ Cain likely married either a sister or niece.

Some see a problem with that explanation, as it implies that Cain (and many others) were forced to commit incest—an illicit union in God’s sight. God’s law concerning incest, however, was not instituted until the Law of Moses came into effect (Leviticus 18), likely at least 2,500 years after Creation. It is generally assumed that the reason God outlawed incest at that point was due to the state of the human genome by the time of Moses. Incestuous relations significantly increase the likelihood of birth defects, as well as deleterious psychological problems.⁶ A child inherits 23 chromosomes from each of his parents. By having children with close relatives, many of those chromosomes are duplicated in the offspring—including those genes that are deleterious, rapidly increasing the odds of major physical problems.

When God created Adam and Eve, however, their genomes were pristine—without defect. Duplicate chromosomes would not have caused the defects observed today. After Adam and Eve were evicted from the Garden, denied the “healing effects” of the Tree of Life, and were subjected to the cursed Earth (Genesis 3:14-19), their bodies and genomes would have begun to suffer the effects of entropy in earnest. The Universe, and everything in it, is growing “old like a garment”—gradually decaying (Psalm 102:25-26). Ultraviolet and other forms of radiation (especially radiation from the Flood), as well as other mutagens and DNA replication errors have increased the accumulation of mutations in the genome. After over two millennia of genetic entropy, by the time of Moses the number of mutations within the human genome would have begun to make incest a dangerous practice.

Cain would have married a close relative. However, as would be predicted if the Bible is inspired by the God Who created the genome, and therefore knew of the growing dangers of incest long before humans had discovered the genome, God asserted Himself at the right time and prohibited the dangerous practice that He had previously sanctioned.

Endnotes

¹ “Scopes Trial: Excerpts from the Court Transcripts,” Day 7, http://faculty.smu.edu/jclam/science_religion/trial_transcripts.html.

² Mary Joan Winn Leith (2013), “Who Did Cain Marry?” Biblical Archaeology Review, 39[6]:22, November/December.

³ Eric Lyons (2013), “Does Genesis 4 Indicate that God Specifically Created Others Besides Adam and Eve?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=4585.

⁴ NOTE: If the lifespans of the 300 were roughly that of the patriarchs of Genesis 5, death from old age would not have occurred by that point. It is possible that some of the 300 died from other causes, but it is also likely that children were being born sooner than every two years and that twins were common since God wished for the Earth to be filled (Genesis 1:28; 9:1). Regardless, even if half of the 300 had died, Cain still would have had dozens of possible marriage candidates.

⁵ Lyons.

⁶ J. Henderson (1983), “Is Incest Harmful?” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 28[1]:34-40; Hal Herzog (2012), “The Problem With Incest,” Psychology Today On-line, October 11, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animals-and-us/201210/the-problem-incest.

Firmament

What is the "Firmament" of Genesis 1:6?

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Much discussion has centered on the meaning of the term “firmament” (Hebrew raqia; “expanse”—ESV, NIV, NASB) in Genesis 1:6,7,8,14,15,17,20. The word “firmament” leaves the impression that Moses was saying a solid dome surrounds the Earth, which Bible skeptics have used to argue that the Bible teaches erroneous beliefs from antiquity.¹

The translation “firmament,” however, is not so much a translation of the original Hebrew term as it is a transliteration of a term used in the Latin Vulgate (i.e., firmamentum) which was translated from the Greek Septuagint term (stereoma) that was used for the Hebrew raqia. The uninspired translators of the Septuagint, who were translating for an Egyptian pharaoh in Egypt,² were apparently influenced by the then conventional belief in Egypt that the heavens are a stone vault.³ The Hebrew term raqia, however, does not suggest such a meaning. Rather, it refers to something that has been stretched, spread, or beaten out—like metal.⁴ The idea is that on day two, God divided the waters of Earth, spreading them out from one another and moving some above the Earth, and creating that which holds those waters apart—much like what a solid would do.

God then defined the raqia as “heaven(s)” (shamayim). Shamayim, however, was used in three distinct ways by the Hebrews (and by God through His inspired spokesmen). It could mean the sky or atmosphere where the birds fly and the clouds gather (Jeremiah 4:25; Matthew 6:26). It could mean outer space where the stars are situated (Genesis 1:14-15; Psalm 19:4,6; Isaiah 13:10), and it could also mean the place where God dwells (Psalm 2:4; Hebrews 9:24). Context must be used to determine which heaven is referenced. In this case, the heaven identified would affect one’s identification of the water that God separated.

The typical interpretation of raqia and “heaven” in Genesis 1:6 is that God created the sky on day two, separating water vapor in the sky (clouds) from liquid water. Most commentators and translators support this interpretation. Various Creation scientists have theorized that the waters above the firmament were not the sky, but rather, formed a water canopy like a bubble that burst at the Flood. The idea is attractive, as the greenhouse effect that would be generated helps theoretically to explain, for example, the long lifespans of the patriarchs of Genesis five. While the theory has strengths, its weaknesses have caused it to fall on hard times—namely, that simulations indicate the greenhouse effect caused by the canopy would be too severe. Unless the solar constant was reduced to 1/4^th of its current value, water on the Earth would boil and life would be exterminated.⁵ Further, although there still may have been a canopy of some sort, the features of the canopy theory that made it attractive have been shown to be explainable in other ways.

Other Creation scientists have suggested that the second meaning of heaven is being referenced, and the raqia refers to outer space, since the stars were placed in the “heaven” that God created (vs. 17) and the birds created on day five are described as flying across the “face” of the heavens, rather than in the heavens (vs. 20). This interpretation would mean that the waters above the raqia would be water on the outskirts of the Universe, helping to explain why the stars appear to be accelerating outward, as though drawn by a distant gravitational source.⁶

Regardless of the meaning of raqia, the Bible does not support or endorse erroneous beliefs of mankind from antiquity. The Bible is accurate with regard to its scientific allusions 100% of the time.

Endnotes

¹ Asimov (1981), In the Beginning (New York: Crown), p. 33; Schadewald, Robert J. (1983), “The Evolution of Bible-science,” Scientists Confront Creationism, ed. Laurie R. Godfrey (New York: W.W. Norton), p. 290.

² The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, with an English Translation (1970) (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), pp. i-ii.

³ J. Barton Payne (1980), “raqia,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason Archer, Jr. and Bruce Waltke (Chicago, IL: Moody), 2:862; James Orr, ed. (1956), “Astronomy,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1:315.

⁴ Orr, p. 315; L. Koehler, et al. (1994-2000), The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, electronic ed.), p. 1290; F. Brown, S. Driver, and C. Briggs (1906), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), p. 956.

⁵ Larry Vardiman (2003), “Temperature Profiles for an Optimized Water Vapor Canopy,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R.L. Ivey (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship), http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Temperature-Profiles-for-an-Optimized-Water-Vapor-Canopy.pdf.

⁶ D. Russell Humphreys (1994), Starlight and Time (Colorado Springs, CO: Master Books); John G. Hartnett (2015), “A Biblical Creationist Cosmogony,” Answers Research Journal, 8:13-20, http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/v8/creationist-cosmogony.pdf