Does the NIV Promote Abortion? No. Just-No.

When I heard that WORLD Magazine was critiquing an obscure rendering in Numbers 5 for appearing to allow for abortion, I rolled my eyes. But I listened and, honestly, it wasn't bad. They were more careful than the summary a friend gave me. But that's often the problem: summaries easily turn into cavils. And cavils, if they do not find a hole, will make one.
Let's get some nuance going on here.
🎁 Help me end Bible translation tribalism, one plow boy at a time:
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.com/mlward
📖 Check out my book, Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible:
amzn.to/2r27Boz
🎥 Watch my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series:
• 50 False Friends in th...
👏 Many, many thanks to the Patreon supporters who make my work possible!
Name, James Duly, Robert Gifford, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Eric Couture, Martyn Chamberlin, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Ron Arduser, Caleb Farris, Dale Buchanan, Jess English, Aaron Spence, Orlando Vergel Jr., John Day, Joshua Bennett, K.Q.E.D., Brent Karding, Kofi Adu-Boahen, Steve McDowell, Kimberly Miller, A.A., James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, Wade Huber, M.L., Brittany Fisher, Tim Gresham, Lucas Shannon, Easy_Peasy , Caleb Richardson, Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, jac, Todd Bryant, Corey Henley, Jason Sykes, Larry Castle, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Kevin Moses, Tyler Harrison, Bryon Self, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Gen_Lee_Accepted , Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, DavidJamie Saxon, Omar Schrock, Philip Morgan, Brad Dixon, James D Leeper, M.A., Nate Patterson, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Reid Ferguson, Josiah R. Dennis, Miguel Lopez, CRB, D.R., Dean C Brown, Kalah Gonzalez, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jonathon Clemens, Travis Manhart, Jess Mainous, Brownfell, Leah Uerkwitz, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph, Andrew Engelhart, Mark Sarhan, Rachel Schoenberger

[@joseenriqueagutaya131]

Great video Pastor Mark on discussing Numbers 5:22.After watching this video I look up our Tagalog dialect translation Ang Salita ng Dios of this verse which i understand is a near the NIV and to paraphrase it in English it would mean the curse water will cause her body to deteriorate and she will become barren for life something like that.

[@markwardonwords]

Thank you! Interesting!

[@miketisdell5138]

In passages where a possible interpretation is generally accepted as uncertain, I wish the translators would avoid inserting their speculative choices directly into the text itself; I think we would all be better served if they instead provided that possible interpretation of the text in a footnote. And yes I am aware that there are some places where every English rendering is speculative but even in these instances a footnote can (and should) be added to alert the reader to the speculation. One of my biggest complaints about the NIV (both old and new versions) has been the willingness of the translators to incorporate speculative (sometimes very speculative) interpretations directly into the text of Scripture. And before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I am "bashing" the NIV, it may be helpful to note that my primary English reading bible is a 1984 NIV. In regards to the comment that “other scholars note that Hebrew has two other terms for the word miscarry and neither of them are used here” made by the World magazine interviewer, I would note that this isn’t quite true i.e. the root נפל (to fall) is used to describe both birthing and miscarriages elsewhere; generally the noun form describes the miscarried baby. However, the expression "לַנְפִּ֣ל יָרֵ֑ךְ" is nowhere else used of a miscarriage. ======================= "נֵ֫פֶל 3 n.m. miscarriage-‏נָֽפֶל‎; cstr. ‏נֵ֫פֶל‎- ‏חזה see Ps 589, טמן pass. be concealed Jb 316 (+ עוֹלָל child), תעב ni. be abhorred Is 1419 (if em.; see Prep.). טוֹב מִמֶּנּוּ הַנָּֽפֶל a miscarriage is better off than he Ec 63. נֵפֶל אֵשֶׁת appar. miscarriage of a woman Ps 589 (or em. ‏אֵשֶׁת‎ to ‏אִשָּׁה‎, or ‏נֵפֶל אֵשֶׁת בַּל־חָזוּ שָֽׁמֶשׁ⁠‎ [as] the miscarriage of a woman, they have not seen [the] sun to ‏וֶאֱשֻׁת בַּל־חָזָה שָֽׁמֶשׁ and [as] a mole [that] has not seen [the] sun). כְּ as Ps 589 (if ins. כְּ), + היה be Jb 316, שׁלך ho. be cast out Is 1419 (if em. כְּנֵצֶר as a branch); כְּמוֹ as Ps 589 (unless em. נֵפֶל to כְּנֵפֶל‎).✱ → נפל fall." (DCH, s.v. “נֵ֫פֶל,” 5:723.)

[@markwardonwords]

In general, I'm with you. =) I'd rather see footnotes (and aren't there often footnotes? I guess I haven't used a printed NIV in a long time). But among those places where what you're describing occurs, I think most are not doctrinally or practically important. They're often obscure already, not weightier matters of the law. I think I would feel more like complaining about the NIV if I felt that my own tribe weren't so dismissive of it. I have felt like my fellow conservatives often consider it a badge of honor to use formal renderings even when they make no sense, or poor sense.

[@miketisdell5138]

@@markwardonwords In general I think we agree on this and most related topics. However, I would note that even the most formal translations still render well understood idioms with functional equivalent renderings. For example, no formal equivalent translation of Ge. 13:6 would render "‏וְלֹא־נָשָׂא אֹתָם הָאָרֶץ לָשֶׁבֶת יַחְדָּו" as "The land could not carry them to sit together." Most of the formal renderings that make no sense or poor sense are in places where there is significant debate about the idiom and I personally would like to see people recognize that there is something to struggle with at these places. And while I would agree that most are not doctrinally or practically important, there are a few that are both. Yes, I agree that many newer versions, especially the NIV, have been unwarrantedly attacked but not every concern that has been raised is unwarranted. Some of the concerns raised about the translation practices of the NIV translators are still valid and worth considering even if you generally like the translation. Additionally, the ethical failures of Biblica related to the release of the NIV 2011 are also something that warrants concern even if we don't believe those failures led to a compromised text i.e. the CSB and NASB make some of the same translation decisions as the NIV 2011 did but they did so without the same ethical failures exhibited by Biblica. Question: should the Christian community ignore Biblica's ethical failures and reward Biblica and Zondervan with sales (and profits) solely because their versions was produced by top scholars? At what point should the ethics of their business practices play a part in our decision to support or not support their translation?

[@apokalupsis27]

a small but very important comment you made..! after listening to rendering such as the one you listened to its much safer to stick with Word for word translations....i think that for me has answered something that I have struggled with for months on deciding what Bible translation I will stick with through and through....for devotions, public reading, counseling, sermon prep, preaching, teaching.....thanks once again Mr Ward....i sincerely appreciate every video you put out...and I listen to you multiple times....gracias..!

[@markwardonwords]

Safer for certain people in certain circumstances! But if your goal is understanding, or quick reading, or evangelism, then less literal translations may be safer!

[@roonbare2769]

I doubt the liberals would condone slavery simply because the old testament law seems to allow for it. It seems odd to condone any other amoral practice (however popular ) simply because the old testament law might "seem" to allow for it in a certain translation (maybe ) . Seems a bit like grasping at straws. With a fair amount if cherry pickin thrown in for good measure .

[@jakesarms8996]

The old testament absolutely condones slavery. It wasn't chattel slavery , it was a fair type of slavery. Some people needed to get out of debt or just couldn't take care of themselves or their family. Like today, some people won't work and it would take a rod across the back to get them to work.

[@roonbare2769]

@@jakesarms8996 Thank you for clarifying for those who might not understand the nuances of slavery in ancient times. Though the old Testament certainly tells of Slave who were won as spoils of war. One could split hairs on "types" of slavery ...at the end of the day, its a barbaric practice regardless of how "fair" it was ( calling any type of slavery fair seems dubious at best ) . But we digress...the point is: using obscure passages from mosaic law out of context and out of timeline is not the best practice to determine the morality of an act. Many people today would even consider animal sacrifice amoral, even if they were being eaten afterwards , for example . Also, I'd disagree that the mosaic law "condones " slavery ...rather it applies rules to a practice that was already occurring . Hence , why I used the word "allow" . It is unfortunate that on the internet many often assume the ignorance of one party in a conversation prior to engaging in a discourse .

[@markwardonwords]

My standard recommendation on this topic: kzbin.info?search_query=peter+williams+slavery

[@fr.johnwhiteford6194]

It seems the most likely meaning here is that the woman's womb would rot / wither away, which would mean that she would be barren.

[@markwardonwords]

I agree.

[@ginamiller6754]

that’s how I read it as well.

[@garythomas3150]

Great video, Mark! I am a little confused though. Somewhere around the middle of the video, you reference people misreading and misunderstanding this passage in the NIV (as people can misunderstand passages in other translations). Makes sense, but.... If the passage plainly and clearly states that there is an instruction for a purposefully induced miscarriage, and someone reads it, and then thinks there is an instruction for a purposefully induced miscarriage...is that misunderstanding or misinterpreting the passage? While one could easily say they would be misunderstanding the larger message of the Bible, I don’t think we could really argue that they are misinterpreting that particular passage. If they think there was instruction for a purposefully induced miscarriage, they would be in belief of exactly what was intended, because that is what it clearly says, right? I very seriously doubt it was the intention of the NIV translators to put ammunition in the guns of the pro-abortion camp, but on purpose or not, that is what has happened. It’s not an opinion; it’s a fact, unfortunately. Intention, here, is not relevant on outcome. This passage is being used to “prove” that God is OK with abortion. I 110% agree with you that this being thrown in the face of a learned Christian will not convert them. Just like you, I think there is little danger there. However what about the thousands of Luke-warm uneducated semi-Christians that have never read the Bible, but celebrate Christmas and Easter? What about the legions of people that believe in God, but have never read the Bible (like I was for over 30 years)? What about the young girl considering abortion that has never read the Bible, and never been in Church other than a handful of times? She feels in her heart it is wrong, but is on the fence and doesn’t know what to do, and someone puts the Word of God in front of her and she reads that God prescribes abortions? This is what is being done by people, and this is what is so terrible 😞. The damage from this misuse does not hurt those strong Christians that read and compare multiple Bible translations. It influences the person that doesn’t even read one of them. I think something that further compounds the misuse of this passage in the NIV is that EVEN IF God is giving prescription for an abortion here (which I don’t personally believe), it is being prescribed in a very specific circumstance-when a husband’s wife is pregnant with another man’s baby that he would be forced to raise and that would compete for limited resources with his own children. It’s not just for an “inconvenient pregnancy.” If someone were to use this to argue for abortion, they could only legitimately use it to argue for abortion in that particular circumstance in which it was used. Of course, I don’t even really think that situation really applies to us the same today as it did many thousands of years ago. Kind of a moot point. God bless. I look forward to the next video. I appreciate your work.

[@markwardonwords]

This is very thoughtful, and precisely because it is I never got around to responding until today! I do think that this passage should be updated/fixed in the next NIV. Anything that can be misused to this degree on a matter of this seriousness should be updated/fixed. But, of course, no amount of good translation will keep people from twisting the Bible and ignoring the portions of it that might adjust their take on an apparent prooftext for their view, whatever it might be. God help us all to read Scripture faithfully! I do believe Jesus will say to us, "Have you not read?"

[@garythomas3150]

@@markwardonwords agreed. I appreciate your teaching.

[@MM-jf1me]

I hadn't considered this verse being taken out of context, which was naïve of me. Though I disagree with the translation of "miscarriage" or "abortion" in this verse, it was clear either way that this was a curse from God and so not something desirable or good in any way. Thank you for giving me food for thought, Gary.

[@storyofscripture]

Sound was rough Mark

[@markwardonwords]

I know! An experiment that I probably won't repeat.

[@jc40cal]

Did you record this on your way to do the RFP? :)

[@markwardonwords]

Ha! No, driving through the beautiful mountains between my home and my office. i5.

[@BloodBoughtMinistries]

What is a good modern translation to use other than the ESV, my main translation is the NKJV. Im not English but 99% of the time only use English translations. Would anyone recommended the nasb and if so which one? I use the 95 now and then on my phone. But I want to buy another physical bible, but I have to make sure I make the right choice as I will have to import form amazon to South Africa. So it must also be available on amazon, and it must be a decent genuine leather premium bible.

[@markwardonwords]

All those options are good!

[@brendaboykin3281]

Thanx, Pastor 🌹🌹🌹

[@markwardonwords]

👐

[@ginamiller6754]

As always you’ve covered this well. Thanks for the lesson. My copy of the NIV is the 1984 one, I now use the ESV mostly & the NASB & NKJV as well.

[@markwardonwords]

I haven’t “majored” in one translation for a long, long time. Sometimes I wonder if I should go back! Not sure I can…

[@ginamiller6754]

@@markwardonwords I like having 2 or 3 available. If one is unclear, I read the same passage in another til I have better understanding.

[@BloodBoughtMinistries]

Sound is a bit rough, but one can still hear what you are saying, but it's all good knowing you are driving in kilometres per hour.

[@markwardonwords]

Yeah, sometimes up here in WA I have a hard time remembering to drive in kmph instead of mph. It was especially hard this time because I was trying to focus on what I was saying.

[@BloodBoughtMinistries]

@@markwardonwords I can imagine! 😁

[@matthewarney]

Sorry to be late to the party. While I understand the balance between literal and dynamic translations, it is a stretch to say that condoning abortion is somehow within the realm of this expression. If a translator opens the door to such a spurious claim against the nature and character of who God is throughout the rest of Scripture, that translation is assuredly wrong. I would think a dynamic translation would hold the greater context of Scripture at an even higher level of influence over the literal ones.

[@markwardonwords]

A good thought.

[@MAMoreno]

As the World article mentions, the Common English Bible agrees with the NIV in translating נפלת as "miscarry." However, the New English Bible (and, by extension, the Revised English Bible) beat both of them to it by decades, and it is supported by a number of scholarly articles and commentaries produced throughout the 20th century. The NEB likely went in this direction thanks to the participation of G.R. Driver, an Old Testament scholar who discussed the topic in his 1956 article "Two Problems in the Old Testament Examined in the Light of Assyriology" (in vol. 33 of the journal Syria; see pg. 75). Driver cites the 1903 commentary "A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers" by George Buchanan Gray. On page 48 of that commentary, Gray credits the interpretation to fellow scholar H. Wheeler Robinson: "In this connection a suggestion made to me by the Rev. H. W. Robinson seems worthy of consideration. In the original rite administered in cases of suspicion aroused by pregnancy the water may have been credited with positive virtue in the case of guilt; being supposed to descend into the womb (המים v.22, as in Gn. 25.3, Ps. 71.6, Ru. 1.11), it may have been regarded as affecting the offspring of a guilty intercourse, so that, though the woman grows great with child ('the swelling belly'), the birth is abortive." Say what you will about the NIV's translation of the text, but it's not completely novel.

[@markwardonwords]

This helps (though you scared me: I wondered if the video released earlier than I intended!). It makes it harder to fit the NIV into the narrative that so many of my fellow conservatives seem to assume, namely one in which the NIV is part of a softening/liberalizing agenda in every choice it makes to diverge from the KJV tradition.

[@MAMoreno]

@@markwardonwords I suppose the NIV felt far more conservative in the 1980s when so many of the Protestant alternatives were either too nontraditional in their handling of the Old Testament (e.g. the Revised Standard Version and New English Bible) or playing in the realm of paraphrase (e.g. Good News for Modern Man and The Living Bible). When the only other "acceptable" modern options were an infamously wooden translation (the pre-1995 NASB) and a translation based on dated scholarship (the NKJV), the NIV felt like a reasonable compromise. Now, the greater abundance of real alternatives in the Evangelical world leaves the NIV more open to criticism.

[@19king14]

NIV always took way too many liberties when translating. It's a "thought for thought" translation; too often, translators' thoughts for God-inspired thoughts. I have a copy and read it cover-to-cover, but never trust it for word or doctrine study, just for paraphrase reading.

[@markwardonwords]

I don't quite agree, but I think that someone can still get great benefit from reading the NIV even if they view it the way you do!

[@19king14]

@@markwardonwords I agree, great benefit can still be gotten from reading the NIV, especially from the historical accounts and events. My tastes lean more towards multiple translations, especially the literal ones, along with commentaries, lexicons, etc..... Comparing the NIV, it strays into "iffy" territory a little more than I can be comfortable with... Nice job on the video, by the way. I felt I was in the front seat with you. Just didn't notice any pot holes (I'm from Pennsylvania, we're noted for them).

[@jakesarms8996]

Even if the woman did lose the baby - it wouldn't be from the questioning or harmless concoction she drank. Nothing was done to her that would induce an abortion. God could have done whatever he wanted - and whatever he would do would be just.

[@markwardonwords]

Right. The Judge of all the earth shall do right!

[@davek6949]

Good video...However, WHY do people insist on doing videos while they are in their car? 😄

[@markwardonwords]

It’s not the best idea. This I confess.

[@edwardgraham9443]

This is the reason I prefer literal or essentially literal translations. There is less room for interpretation or even theological bias, when you translate the word accurately to its original Hebrew or Greek language. That being said, when one cannot tell whether a word or phrase is an idiom, I think it would serve better to translate literally and have the more explanatory rendering in the footnotes. Here is an advertisement for why footnotes are important in Bible translations. Whether this is an idiom or no, I can't see how thigh falling away translates to having a miscarriage. I would think if a miscarriage was intended, the referent would be on the womb and not the thigh. The reference you gave from 1 Kings with Rehoboam's comparison with his father Solomon, I read that in the KJV and NKJV and had no idea what was happening (I don't know an ounce of Hebrew) but reading a history book which made reference to it, I thought, oh my, how could I've missed this. The context of Solomon having so many wives and concubines made the statement much easier to see that Rehoboam was talking about the male member. Ezekiel 23:20 is another of those where God seems to liken the same male body part to that of a horse.

[@markwardonwords]

Thankfully, nobody in the English-speaking world has to choose between formal and functional translations. We can use both and!

[@edwardgraham9443]

@@markwardonwords True. But I'm also thankful that one has the freedom to chose only one of needs be.

[@OfficialBlendFizz]

I was a part of this Bible Tribalism

[@markwardonwords]

Me too!

[@joest.eggbenedictus1896]

I've never heard of anyone ever using one verse from the Bible to weaponize scripture to support an ideology. Said no one.

[@markwardonwords]

Surely it happens. A mistake in the Vulgate is in the first of Luther’s 95 Theses. But translation critics on the internet-sometimes on the right and sometimes on the left-tend to find horrible, intentional translation errors committed by their opponents at every turn.

[@arwyss]

Sorry if I’m not convinced by criticism saying “liberals tend to cherry pick verses to support their beliefs, rather than looking at the Bible as a whole”. That strikes me as the pot calling the kettle black.

[@markwardonwords]

This pot admits to some significant smudges on the surface-on my own life and on those led by my evangelical inerrantist brothers and sisters. But if God spoke in Scripture, which path in this fallen world is most likely to lead to life, that which imperfectly rests on God’s words but keeps attempting to do so, or that which takes God’s words as one fallible opinion among many? Perhaps I misunderstand your comment. This is what it makes me think of.