History of the Scofield Bible
(www.wrmea.org)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (17)
sorted by:
Its not the translation; its ignorant moderns assuming more ancient people are as stupid as they are. Anybody with a brain knows what Numbers 5 describes: a religious rite, specifically a religious right invoking Devine intervention and judgement. The punishment for adultery under Levitical law was death, but the law required witnesses. This rite was specifically prescribed for women accused of adultery by their husbands without the requisite proof. Neither the Levites nor the people thought dusty water was an abortifacient; the "rite of dirty water" was invoking God's judgement. This particular rite essentialy exonerated women accused of adultery without evidence, baring Devine intervention.
"Neither the Levites nor the people thought dusty water was an abortifacient"
Then the translation shouldn't say that it is, even if it is a divine abortion. That translation was absolutely chosen, despite the literal translation not matching it, to advocate that ancient Israelites thought bringing about a miscarriage of a bastard child was a proper course of action for adultery. The entire translation was made with an agenda.
This was just one example, whole retranslation chock full of proto wokism from what I remember. Not to mention that the central claim, that the formal English language had changed significantly from 1984 to the late 2000s, was wrong. Only what was considered by leftists to be politically correct had changed, and that was what the translation was tailored to.
I remember people warning that Zondervan would do it when they bought the copyright. I thought they were crazy. Some years later they were proven right, I was proven wrong.