That’s your interpretation.
The unborn dies if she is pregnant. The bitter water causes a miscarriage. Also, knowing how these things work, I’m sure for the right price, a woman could get the priest to give her an ineffective potion.
No, that’s what it says, I am far from alone in understanding it that way.
So, in rereading Numbers 5:23-31 just now, no mention is made whatsoever about her being pregnant at the time of going to the priest or drinking the bitter drink. The curse would be surrounding her ability to conceive in the future - of critical importance to most women of the time. Either way, it is being left up to God to judge the situation and execute judgement. The drink does not in and of itself accomplish anything.
I’m aware it is a potion. IIRC, just dust and water, with a curse on it.
Why are you so obsessed with this one issue? I suggest you seek counselling.
It doesn’t actually say that. But I suppose you think that Solomon actually meant for the baby to be cut in two as well?
It was to be used if the man was away and came back, and suspected unfaithfulness, among other situations. Seems like quite the leap to say the women were not pregnant in many of these procedures. Just by chance some of them would be.
I agree with the rest of your comment but this part here is debatable. What Jesus said:
[Luke 16:17] 17It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.
Sure, they could be, but that isn’t the point of that law. It’s a “Jealousy” statute. You don’t trust your wife but she says she didn’t do anything. No witnesses one way or the other, take it to God to judge. It doesn’t allow for killing her or divorcing her just because you’re jealous.
The cool thing (being sarcastic) about all these religious threads through the year is when you quote something word for word awful from the Bible and then everyone jumps on here and says “well yeah that sounds bad but it’s not what it means!” Or “well that book isn’t one we actually believe is accurate. It’s the other parts!”
Then you google that shit to them and realize people disagree on what that means and have for centuries and that’s assuming the verse is even accurate in the first place. That would be enough for me to think “you know I’m not relying on this for everything” but here we are.
1 Like
It didn’t. That was a covenant with Israel, it was replaced with a different covenant by Jesus and put us under different restrictions than the Mosaic covenant.
2 Likes
Holy water mixed with dust from the tabernacle floor is effective at inducing abortions in your professional opinion, doctor?
I agree with your assessment here.
I do however come to the conclusion that either God was lying about killing unfaithful women’s babies, or he was in fact killing the unborn due to the sins of the mother. This being for the women who were indeed unfaithful, got pregnant, and were taken to the priest. Is that a fair assessment?
By this logic, we could conclude that God was lying to ignorant people. If he is lying about this, why believe any thing else from his book?
You think that’s what they used? We have to assume that some women had miscarriages as a result. Water and dust won’t do that. It’s priestly trickery. Don’t tell me you think God actually cursed the potion.
What is the use of this debate?
Go and re-read that section from Numbers.
That’s what they were supposed to use.
I’ve read it several times. I was only taking about the conclusion to your logic. More than one possibility exists in how we interpret the book. None of them are tenable IMO.
Sure, it is possible that that may have occurred. How often did this situation arise? I don’t know. Either way, the other side of this is that the woman would in fact be at fault, knowing the Law and knowing her husband, it would be the result of her willful law breaking. Not that I want to appear in any way misogynist, it is certainly not meant that way. We each are liable for our choices.
Meh, if there is no God there is no independent right or wrong way to live. We needn’t even survive as a species. Just whatever preferences we can enforce or get enforced in the small timeframe humanity will even exist. Including a theocracy. I prefer a more orthodox traditionally moral society, so that’s what I support. And I will vote for whoever will best deliver.