@@amyk6403 Ha! I have over 15 different NIV's... ranging from the original first printings to the 1984's and then the 10th Anniversary ones.. to the NIV 2011 I have two different.. comprehensive study ones from D.A. Carson... and others such as John MacArthur's... and now it looks like I'll be buying this one as well ....just to seed how outrageous it is... the funny thing is .. I am a KJV ONLY person...I have about 60 different KJV's... if this keeps up I will need to convert a second bedroom into another library.... I never experienced the "empty nest syndrome"... since I have the empty bedrooms filling up..
@@jeffcarlson3269 You have to admit...the NIV translation of Psalm is pleasing to the ear. It's my preferred translation because I grew up with it. Funny... I have many NIVs, 5 or 6 other translations and only 1 KJV (The 2023 Oxford Coronation edition). I think I'm going to buy myself a nice, readable KJV.
I understand it this way: like the two prostitutes arguing over the baby and King Solomon says to cut the baby in half and then the real mom preferred the baby live than to be right. I think the idea here is to challenge the woman to only take the oath if she is innocent. In the Ancient Near East a woman who was accused of infidelity had no recourse. In Israel, she could protest her innocence in the temple, which is unique among the nation's at that time.
I agree. None of the ingredients in the potion are abortifactive or sterilizing. In a way, if one ignores the bias toward only the male's satisfaction, I find this ritual to be quaint and useful. It's a ritual about jealousy. It's a difficult emotion to shake. Suspicion always returns and imagined betrayal becomes real. It gets in the way. And maybe this ritual helps in putting it to bed.
@jimyoung9262 your words... "I think the idea here is to challenge the woman to only take the oath if she is innocent." Of course it is... but that is not what Tim Nichols was pointing out... I think this passage is easy to understand the literal. .threat of what will happen... Tim was making this video about the voracity... and how blunt this bible stated things... there is Not a question on what was being done or why... but rather how this action is worded....
KJV, or NKJV only for me. Have many translations but these two are my go to. I have a 2011 NIV that I would not feel comfortable to even give away because of the sheer difference in the translation vs KJV.
@@michaelclark2458 Why would you use the NKJV if you use the KJV I don't understand. What is the benefit of using the NKJV if you already use the KJV. Is a lack of vocab understanding of the KJV that would make you reference a NKJV or do you think the translators of the NKJV were more accurate?
@@USAP1776 to teach others not familiar with the KJV. To be aware of different renderings out of NKJV translation footnotes. To be aware of KJV words that have changed meaning over the last 400 years: example prevent.
@@michaelclark2458 Thanks Michael. It is an honest question. The reason is I read primarily from the KJV, but also have a NKJV and never seem to use it. I asked with hopes of maybe getting me to start using it. I will consider what you said so thanks again . I've met many pastors who primarily use the NKJV and have always found that to be quite interesting.
Another change from the 84 edition to the 2011 I have a problem with is Mark 1:41. In the old NIV, it said what nearly every single translation says, "Jesus was moved with compassion," but now it says, "Jesus was indignant." Literally only one manuscript reads that way, and for some reason they went with that one manuscript over all others!
@@fnjesusfreak Bezae has Jesus saying a lot of weird stuff, and a lot of the post-resurrection passages are missing too. My assessment: cult-bible. The fact that NIV deviated from everyone else and chose the singular reading from Codex D is evidence, in my opinion, of at least colossal foolishness or worse.
This isn't as big a problem as it might appear. I concluded based on one definition of indignant that I found that Jesus was angry at the reason why the man here was a leper, which ultimately caused Him to move with compassion toward the man. It does seem odd to me that we would believe Jesus was tempted as we are, but not necessarily ever indicate that He might have shared the same feelings we have.
That was a big change that bothered me as well, and the NIrV had a similar mistranslation saying Jesus was "moved with anger" when he actually had compassion!
I anticipated this NIV UD Bible. I preordered it. I got through the OT and struggled with the blatant bias in the commentary. I literally got through a quarter of Matthew and the bias in the commentary has really left me with extreme regret of my purchase. I love the NIV and was satisfied with the NIV Jesus Bible, the NIV Life application is amazing, the NIV study bible is great as well!!! This Upside-Down Kingdom Bible is extreme in its bias and i literally have it on my shelf as of friday night. I’m sure the LORD will direct someone into my life that can use it. As for me, I’m literally in the NIV Grace and Truth Bible right now and gotta say, what a difference.
@JosephAquino1430 I felt I should buy this bible before it goes out of print or gets banned or both.... I may even buy a couple extra... so when this happens I can sell them on E-bay at 200.00 a pop... that's American Capitalism.... I'd advise You to do the same.. a 500% profit is nothing to sneeze at...
I was digging around in my humble, home library recently when I came across a highly cherished Bible that my late mother gave me as a child. It is falling apart, so I don't handle it often. I decided to open it up to read my mother's handwritten note on the inside: "To [Me], Love Mom, 1994." I was curious about the translation - NIV84. I was so happy to discover that!
For those who haven't read the Common English Bible or the New English Bible: Numbers 5:20-22 CEB: But if you have had an affair while married to your husband, if you have defiled yourself, and a man other than your husband has had intercourse with you”- then the priest must make the woman utter the curse and say to the woman, “May the Lord make you a curse and a harmful pledge among your people, when the Lord induces a miscarriage and your womb discharges. And may the water that brings these curses enter your stomach and make your womb discharge and make you miscarry.” And the woman will say, “I agree, I agree.” Numbers 5:20-22 NEB: But if, while owing him obedience, you have gone astray and let yourself become defiled, if any man other than your husband has had intercourse with you’ (the priest shall here put the woman on oath with an adjuration, and shall continue), ‘may the Lord make an example of you among your people in adjurations and in swearing of oaths by bringing upon you miscarriage and untimely birth; and this water that brings out the truth shall enter your body, bringing upon you miscarriage and untimely birth.’ The woman shall respond, ‘Amen, Amen.’
I 100% disagree with literal translations. Figures of speech have a meaning that is lost if you only look at the words used. For example, if I translate some French and said to you "He was sad without his wife, if only he had the wit of the staircase." You would have no idea what the man was regretting. But if I said, "he was sad without his wife. If only he thought to say he loved her instead of fighting." It makes more sense. A literal translation tries to be more faithful to the words chosen by the author, but a true translation will want to be more faithful to the intended meaning the author was trying to convey. So with that in mind, I have a question for you. (Please don't research 1st as the point is what would you think it means while passively reading) 2 Cor 5:6-7 in literal translations say something like "as long as we're at home in the body, we're apart from the Lord. For we live by faith and not by sight." What does it mean to be "at home in the body"?
I don't know what he thinks, but I always assumed it to mean that as long as we are still living in this physical body, we are bound to the earth, and not in the physical presence of the Lord in our new glorified bodies.
@anickelsworthbiblereviews I ask that particular question because I've heard more than a dozen answers to it, and only a small minority gets it right. The most common answer (and the one I thought the 1st time I heard it) was "being comfortable in your life".
I was trying to figure out why they translated this way and in verse 22 it says "May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries." The NIV being dynamic equivalence they were trying to get the meaning more than the formal wording. The reverences I have found do say that the abdomen swelling involves her procreative organs which would also lead to a miscarriage if she was pregnant when the test was done. I am not saying I love the way they translated it, but after seeing the earlier verse can understand why they did.
@stuartbeach3311 I don't know if this will help.. but I did a study a while back regarding the KJB use of the word belly... especially throughout the book of proverbs... when other translations used the term "inward parts".. or innermost part".. it seems that the belly was a euphemism for the heart or the seat of emotion... since I guess that in olden times many believed that our emotions came from our gut... could be the same here...
This verse as well as other aspects were red flags to me of the NIV 2011 starting to slowly drift towards liberalism. The NIV translation team stated that they wanted the 2011 to compromise with egalitarians. The 2020 revision to the NIV Study Bible had endorsements from female "pastors" due to an article in it which waved away the issue of female pastorship as just a secondary issue that shouldn't divide. Sure enough, a female "pastor", "Rev." Sharon Beekmann, is among the contributors to the Upsidedown Kingdom Bible. If you want a good mediating translation, flee the NIV and check out the BSB or CSB instead.
I looked at this passage as a way of getting a woman to confess her adultery's through threat of physical ailment from the water. As important as being able to bear children was in those times it seems that threat of losing that ability would be harder to bear than admitting ones infidelity, where if a woman was innocent or guilty the water wouldn't affect them either way but the psychology behind it would be great enough for a confession before hand.
I’m a pastor, educated in Greek and Hebrew languages, and I come across bad / faulty translations in the NIV regularly, with no good textual reasons for them. The NIV is just not accurate as a translation. I’ve tried to find redeeming value in it, but just can’t. Back in the day - pre 2011 - it was very helpful, but no longer.
I find this interesting.. there’s really some high class evangelical scholars on the niv so I take their interpretations seriously.. where have you found errors in the translation ?
@@rcboyd9 as far as errors?.. well if you do not consider the omission of about 11 verses done on purpose.. an error... I do not really know if you will be convinced regarding interpretational errors elsewhere... you may want to start with how it deciphered Proverbs 12:27... do a multiple translational check on the wording in that verse and see how it differs in the second half of the verse. .from other translations..
I've studied the Bible over 50 years and I've never heard this passage interpreted like that. (I always suspected that the fear of such a shameful punishment might have prompted the woman to confess IF she was guilty - and maybe that was its primary purpose?)
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews you know what this means don't you?.. now I am going to have to buy this devil's bible so I can notate for myself.. all the indecencies in it... thanks a lot Tim... Gee whiz....!..
I look forward to this. I still have my beloved NIV Study, which I got in 1988. I'm assuming that is the 84. It never occurred to me to check dates like this until I began watching review channels.
I've seen this idea as far back as George Buchanan Gray's book on Numbers (The International Critical Commentary, 1903). Gray says that "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 . . . 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 . . . In the other case the potion may have been regarded as innocuous to the growth of the foetus, which is duly brought to the birth." D.D. Bartlett (A New Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1942) considers this interpretation to be an option: "The precise effect produced by the water is not explained, but it was probably either dropsy or abortion." P.P. Saydon (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1953) states, "The punishment very probably was miscarriage or sterility or something similar." Ronald B. Allen (The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, 1990) notes the NIV's margin and says, "The figurative language here (and in v.27) speaks of the loss of the capacity for childbearing (and, if pregnant at the time of her judgment, the miscarriage of the child)." Baruch A. Levine (The Anchor Bible, 1993) comes to this conclusion: "It is not certain what the combined effects of a swollen belly and sagging thighs mean, in medical terms. It is logical to interpret them as indicating a miscarriage, as may be concluded from the contrast between the stated outcome when the woman is guilty and the outcome when she is innocent, as expressed in v 28, below. If innocent, the woman would 'retain her seed,' and her pregnancy would continue. The reverse of that outcome would be the termination of pregnancy by what amounted to an induced miscarriage or abortion." The authors of The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (2000) list various possible meanings for this text, including the following: "If the woman has been brought into this process because of pregnancy, it may be that the potion would be expected to induce a miscarriage in the case that the pregnancy came about through illicit behavior." Philip J. Budd (Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, 2003) briefly remarks, "A miscarriage is apparently expected should the woman be guilty." In other words, it was not an uncommon interpretation in the century leading up to the release of the TNIV Old Testament in 2005.
I agree with you, Tim, I wish the NIV 2011 had kept what the NIV 1984 said here. Not over-interpreted it to mean "miscarriage". At the very least, I think a good case could be made that it's not "miscarriage" but in reference to infertility, it could be referring to her reproductive organs (e.g. uterus, ovaries) shriveling up and not being able to conceive a baby at all. Not necessarily that there is already a baby present, which is how the NIV 2011 interprets it. For example, see what the biblical scholar Dennis Cole has written in his commentary on Numbers in the New American Commentary series: This oath of cursing has efficacy if the woman has been unfaithful, for it renders her abdomen swollen and barren. The meaning of the physical effects of the curse has been debated by scholars. The phrase has been rendered “causing the belly to distend and the thigh to sag” (NJPS), “your abdomen enlarges and you suffer miscarriage” (Harrison), “make your abdomen swell and your thigh waste away” (NASB). Milgrom suggests that the “thigh” may be a euphemism for the procreative organs (e.g., Gen 24:2,9) and thus refers to the physical inability to beget children. Furthermore, she would experience societal pressure of denouncement and shame. The woman in her barren state would be physically hindered from experiencing an essential element of the Abrahamic covenant of blessing, that of multitudinous progeny.
I came across Numbers 5 when I first started reading the Bible. I believe "thigh" refers to the reproductive organs/ability. I know this because in the Douay Rheims, it does say "thigh" in Numbers 5 . . But it also says "thigh" in Genesis 46:26 when describing Jacob's children: Genesis 46:26 [26] All the souls that went with Jacob into Egypt, and that came out of his thigh, besides his sons' wives, sixty-six. The KJV uses loins, however in the 1611 KJV, it has(Heb. thigh.) in the note next to the word loins. And since "thigh" is being used for both male and female it has to be talking about their reproductive organs or their ability to produce offspring and not about miscarriages. See . . This why I'm wary when it comes to modern scholars/translators 🧐😄 🙏 📖
Renaldo, Tim has always been fair when he reviews a Catholic bible, such as the Douay-Rheims. He will point out a text he finds "different" than what he's used to, but doesn't disparage it, since he keeps in mind that the D-R is translated from the Latin. Would that all Bible reviewers were as non-judgemental as he! God bless Tim.
Thanks for this one. The 1984 NIV remains the translation with which I am most familiar and prefer. My "print" and audible NIV bibles are all 1984, but since it has become difficult to read print without significant magnification and very bright lighting, all the "on-line" NIV bibles are 2011. From the beginning, I have disliked that translation. I used to use, rather heavily, the bible program called "Quick Verse" by Parson's Technology, but they've gone out of business, no longer support it and Microsoft upgrades no longer allow it to run on my PCs. YES, I very much want the printed _and supported_ 1984 translations to come back!!
@@derrickpurdy7011 - good idea, I'll try to find something. Thanks! Currently, I listen to my audible versions more than trying to read, but I've found that listening doesn't hold my attention as well and I miss the "Life Application" commentaries and historical insights. Ah well, no one ever told me getting old was easy!! :) In a way, it makes me long even more strongly to hear God's calling me home through death or by Rapture. Maranatha - Come, Lord Jesus, come!
The 2011 NIV uses rough language, but it’s not an inaccurate translation. The NET doesn’t use miscarriage in the text but the technical notes indicate that’s what it refers to.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews “Thigh fall away” who talks like that today? You are acting as if the NIV translators are being irresponsible by using contemporary English instead of using a weird phrase that describes miscarriage without saying it.
Tim, I don't know if a miscarriage was meant in the NIV2011 or not. But consider that the Lord took Bathsheba's and David's baby because of their sin. What's the difference if a baby dies right after birth or by miscarriage? God still ended the baby's life, yes?
That’s really a secondary issue. The issue is this text doesn’t indicate that at all. I admit God does some extreme things, especially regarding Israel and the consequences of their sin.
Yes, I was thinking about this point as well. There seems to be two related but separate issues: 1) whether the woman was pregnant, and 2) whether God would take the life of a child in judgment. It is clear from Scripture that He does do the latter.
David’s situation was an extreme action in an extreme situation. God could have used many indirect means that would lead to a baby’s death. Ahab’s death and the council of spirit beings comes to mind. But a child inside the womb being killed by God (or by an indirect means of bitter water) as a normal practice of adultery, would be in my opinion, a much larger issue.
WOW! I can't believe that the NIV 2011 would interpret that verse like that. I just purchased the Zondervan Thompson Chain Reference. Guess what, it's a 2011. Now I'm not sure if I should even use it as a study bible. I think I'll stick with my NASB TCR for self study. Thank you for pointing this out. I haven't started reading the 2011 yet.
I have discovered that every Bible translation, including the KJV will have texts that upset someone. This is 1 of a few NIV translation choices that I don't like, but it may not be wrong. I certainly won't make a practice of making people drink magic cursed water, so I don't see a doctrine issue other than what Tim has stated.
This is wild and one of the many reasons I stopped reading the niv some time ago. I just compared it to a few translations and in the douay rheims it says womb, would be interested to hear your thoughts on how that translation renders this.
This was news to me as well. The NIV interpretation, however, is also in the Word Biblical Commentary!and the UBS Translators Handbook. To me, they could have placed that rendering in the footnotes, but even in the text this wouldn’t morally contradict passages like 2 Sam 12:14ff. Thanks for sharing! ✌️🤓
Unfortunately all translations interpret to some degree. There's no such thing as one to one word translation. The big thing is do we trust the translators. There's some godly people on the NIV 2011 team.
I also think the NIV 2011 has a bad translation of Matthew 15:21-31, 'The Faith of the Canaanite Woman.' In vers 27 she tells Jesus "No," telling him he's wrong, while in every other translation that I know of she says, "Yes, but," or "Yes, yet."
Thank you Pastor Tim. I don’t use the NIV 2011. Sticking with my NIV 1984. But it’s way behind the NKJV and NASB 95 & 77. Perhaps we should stop updating translations. 😊 BTW. What happened to the NCV. I’ve got an old Bible with that translation but one never sees it now. 😊
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews It was called the New Century Version and Max Lucado had a devotional bible with that translation in it. I think it was somewhat like the NLT.
Hm. I think I see what you're saying. (This version explicitly stating the woman is pregnant.) But if, "thigh falls away", is literally what the Hebrew states, doesn't that seem to also be some sort of euphemism? For what, is the question. But it doesn't seem to make sense that this means her thigh, her physical body part, comes apart from the rest of her body.
Gee, a newer edition of a particular translation gets more "out there" in its rendering and/or its commentary than we should expect or can tolerate; who knew? /s Thank you for bringing this to the attention of your evangelical brethren who value the NIV so highly.
I noticed the NIV chooses words in certain verses that I don't see any other translation for example Galatians 3:13 says Cursed is everyone who is a hung on a pole. Every other translation I've seen says tree so that was a little weird and also Mark 1:41 says Jesus was indignant instead of what most translations say as compassionate or pity. Now I wouldn't say the translation is evil like others may say but I don't know why they chose alot of the things they did, that's one of the reasons I made the choice to use the csb instead for now on because I feel it's more accurate while being very readable
Why don't you think it is evil? Mark 1:41 the NIV 2011 changed their minds from the '84 and went with a singular reading from Codex D, which is obviously a cult-bible (it's like an ancient Joseph Smith type bible). This represents either colossal stupidity or something more deliberate. This is the word of God that is being translated - they shouldn't mess around or make excuses.
@@PrimitiveChristian-m3p I just think some people get too into conspiracies with modern translations, but I know the people who work on translations have studied the Bible longer than I have even lived so I trust that they make the decisions they do for a reason. I've heard that a small number of manuscripts use indignant but I haven't looked into it too much myself
@@JacobNeel It's a very "small" number: it's "1" manuscript, Codex D. Which is trash to begin with, and all New Testament Greek compilers have rejected that textual variant as illegitimate. If you trust these amazing bible scholars so much, then aren't you a bit curious why, after only 2,000, they were able to figure out that Jesus indignant rather than filled with compassion? That's a LOT of translators over the millennia that thought that was bogus.
@@PrimitiveChristian-m3p like I said I haven't looked into it a whole lot myself. I have alot to learn I'm still pretty new to all this but I love to learn about it
According to Dr. Bullinger, from his Companion Bible, he says in his note for verse 21: 'This ordeal was provided for in the Laws of Khammurabi, sections 131 and 132.' Perhaps those sections will shed some light on this translation.
This law is described and quoted in _The Story of God Bible Commentary: Numbers_ by Jay Sklar (Zondervan, 2023). The following text is from that commentary. ________________ The laws of Hammurabi give an example in which one man accuses another’s wife of adultery. Law 132 states: If the finger was pointed at the wife of a [man] because of another man, but she has not been caught lying with the other man, she shall throw herself into the river for the sake of her husband. If she makes it out of the river, she is innocent; if not, she is guilty.
@@MAMoreno I have a copy of the Laws of Khammurabi, however, what I do not understand is what the bitter water, which is described beginning in verse 17 as holy water with dust from the floor of the tabernacle mixed into an earthen vessel, has to do with the river as described in Law 132. Neither Law describes anything remotely close to this bitter water. Perhaps there is another Law that illustrates this?
I have a NIV Essentials 2011 from Biblica Zondervan and it's off in some parts. I thought it was me! I'm going to have to check that part! I put it next to my KJV and it's really made me feel like I shouldn't be reading it!
I hear you Tim, but euphemisms do exist in the Bible. If what you're referring to IS a euphemism, then to translate it "literally" is to mistranslate. Thanks for your videos! I enjoy getting my Nickels Worth whenever I can :)
I agree, but to go against EVERY SINGLE translation and commentary in existence and create a theological problem at the same time I believe is where the line is crossed.
I disagree. If God-breathed scripture used a euphemism to express something, we should do the same. When Genesis says Adam "knew" his wife Eve, that is a euphemism for sex. However, Hebrew HAS ways to say "have sex" that the author could have used and indeed did use elsewhere, so the euphemism is intentional and shouldn't be erased
@justinj_00 Look up the Hebrew for someone being angry. It should say they are "long of nose" if you want it to be literal. Also, see how the Hebrew talks about the "kidneys" where we would say "heart."
@anickelsworthbiblereviews I don't see the problem here. Didn't God allow the illegitimate child of David to die for the sin of his parents? (As uncomfortable as this is making me to ask, I feel we shouldn't avoid this kind of question.)
With love ❤ and not to just be contrary, but... Didn't God guarantee that David and Bathsheba's baby would die? The context of that scene makes it seem like a punishment for their adulterous relationship. What about the killing of the first-born sons in Exodus? All innocents. When it comes to violence in the OT, I have wrapped my head around the fact that God can do whatever he wants and deems necessary. Who am I to question it? I don't condone any kind of violence or abortion. But God is God, and righteousness isn't always a pretty picture. Somebody's dose of righteousness may be another person's peril *and* God uses all things for good. It's a complex situation and I am merely mortal. I think that the NIV 2011 is a reasonable translation of the verse, all things considered. In the KJV, 5: 20 says, "The Lord make thee...when the Lord doth make..." The primary actor is the Lord. Whatever is supposed to happen when she drinks the potion, it is the Lord's doing. The 2011 NIV conveys the probable meaning of the words "thight to rot." I think the note is wrong in assuming that the woman must be pregnant. That's not the NIVs fault. If she were pregnant, and the ritual caused her thigh to rot, one can assume a miscarriage would follow. Consider this, though: None of the ingredients in this "potion" are actually abortifactive or sterilizing. My intuition tells me that everyone "passed the test." The ritual was actually more about shaming and restitution than it was about the test. Remember, this test is performed on *suspicion* of adultery, not on being caught in the act. The husband says his peace, the priests become involved with the family, the woman gets the hell scared out of her and then they go home, marriage restored. I'm amatuer, so give me a break. Ok? These are just some thoughts....
It is interesting that this is one of the areas pro life advocates use to juatify abortion as well. (I've seen a handful over the last year or two bring it up)
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews You are correct it's complex but quite beniffical. I know most people will not get there. I am glad I have learned enough to start understanding some of the things that don't translate well. To me Greek is harder than Biblical Hebrew.
Wowsers. NIV takes fewer interpretive risks than the NET and NRSVs, but when they do go out on a limb, what a stretch it is! Somewhat irresponsible for the top evangelical seller.
I recall you once said you can't read a single word of Hebrew or Greek. Careful wading into waters you're not prepared for. (nor am I) If translations are far apart it usually means the original language is indecisive in translation.
I appreciate that caution. But I’ll trust faithful translators over the years as well. This one is out of left field with no other reputable translation backing it.
PhD in OT here. I can accept the NIV’s understanding as a possible interpretation, but it doesn’t seem to be a responsible translation. I’m not a strict formal equivalence guy, but this is a good example of being too interpretative IMO. HALOT (Hebrew lexicon) sees a reference to miscarriage in Num 5, but that appears to be an interpretation of the passage, rather than something inherent in the word itself.
I understand the tragic nature of a baby that dies, but I don’t understand being so flabbergasted at the thought of God ending a baby’s life. Isn’t that what happened to the baby of David and Bathsheba’s adultery? 2 Samuel 12:15
In the Hebrew there’s definitely no indication of a miscarriage? Like a word for womb or something that could be rendered to mean that? Generally curious.
*KJV Translators*: We are giving you a sure thing. “But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.” From the KJV Preface: Translators to the Readers *Modern Translators*: We can’t give you a sure thing. “We simply do not know what the original author wrote.” Bruce Metzger, leading modern textual critic “…the New Testament tradition presents an insoluble tie between two or more alternative endings…If a critic prefers to identify a different reading as the original, there is no problem.” Kurt Aland of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament “The evidence that has been preserved is arbitrary from a textual point of view… ‘Critical edition’ is the most inappropriate of all names for the thing to which custom applies it, an edition in which the editor is allowed to fling his opinions in the reader’s face without being called to account and asked for his reasons.” Emmanuel Tov, leading Old Testament textual critic "I am afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord.” Dr. William Irwin, RSV Translator, after leaving the project early.
It seems thigh to rot would mean her reproductive organs to shrivel up. Belly to swell seems to be a complication as a result. I don’t think it means suddenly a pregnancy would be revealed.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I can understand your interpretation but I can also see the NIV's. I prefer they didn't interpret it that way, but "thigh to rot" leaves a lot for the modern man to try to understand. There are some other texts that seem unloving, like stoning rebellious children that I don't get (in all translations). I really think this text is a fear based one on both the man not to wrongly accuse his wife as he will lose his own children and to the wife to be honest or lose her child and future children. Even a way of preventing Priests from having to judge family jealousy by making them fear going to the priest in the first jealousy hint.
I loved the NIV from when it first came out. I used the 84 edition from the time it was released. Until the 2011 came out. I threw it in a garbage can in front of a class of adults I was teaching at Church. I went back to the 84, until they stopped making them. I have bounced around translations since then.
This is more proof the Bible is not error free. The books of the Bible were written by Prophets (holy men of God). I think they should be interpreted by the same. If you tell me the heavens are closed I will ask why.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews You will interpret the passage one way and another pastor will will interpret it differently. This why I say we need prophets to tell us the correct interpretation.
@anickelsworthbiblereviews I've decided to stay away from all the translations where it says a virgin has to marry her r a p i s t and the NIV is one of them, unfortunately 😔
Love the close up stare for effect.
Love your content Tim. Keep up the great work.
Your faces 🤣. But yes, I wish we could get the 1984 NIV back, it's way better.
I am blessed to have the Zondervon Arch. Study Bible 1984 version. It cost $40 at Costco back in 2010.
I have 6 1984 NIVs in my line-up. I pick them up used on Amazon whenever I see one.
@@amyk6403
Ha! I have over 15 different NIV's... ranging from the original first printings to the 1984's and then the 10th Anniversary ones.. to the NIV 2011 I have two different.. comprehensive study ones from D.A. Carson... and others such as John MacArthur's... and now it looks like I'll be buying this one as well ....just to seed how outrageous it is...
the funny thing is .. I am a KJV ONLY person...I have about 60 different KJV's...
if this keeps up I will need to convert a second bedroom into another library.... I never experienced the "empty nest syndrome"... since I have the empty bedrooms filling up..
@@jeffcarlson3269 You have to admit...the NIV translation of Psalm is pleasing to the ear. It's my preferred translation because I grew up with it. Funny... I have many NIVs, 5 or 6 other translations and only 1 KJV (The 2023 Oxford Coronation edition). I think I'm going to buy myself a nice, readable KJV.
@@amyk6403
God bless you on your bible quest... I pray that the Lord will continue to keep you thrilled in His word..
I understand it this way: like the two prostitutes arguing over the baby and King Solomon says to cut the baby in half and then the real mom preferred the baby live than to be right.
I think the idea here is to challenge the woman to only take the oath if she is innocent.
In the Ancient Near East a woman who was accused of infidelity had no recourse. In Israel, she could protest her innocence in the temple, which is unique among the nation's at that time.
I agree. None of the ingredients in the potion are abortifactive or sterilizing. In a way, if one ignores the bias toward only the male's satisfaction, I find this ritual to be quaint and useful. It's a ritual about jealousy. It's a difficult emotion to shake. Suspicion always returns and imagined betrayal becomes real. It gets in the way. And maybe this ritual helps in putting it to bed.
@jimyoung9262
your words...
"I think the idea here is to challenge the woman to only take the oath if she is innocent."
Of course it is... but that is not what Tim Nichols was pointing out... I think this passage is easy to understand the literal. .threat of what will happen... Tim was making this video about the voracity... and how blunt this bible stated things...
there is Not a question on what was being done or why... but rather how this action is worded....
KJV, or NKJV only for me. Have many translations but these two are my go to. I have a 2011 NIV that I would not feel comfortable to even give away because of the sheer difference in the translation vs KJV.
Not Inspired Version is dangerous. Honestly the NLT is better than the NIV in my opinion. I am mostly KJV with some use of the NKJV though.
@@michaelclark2458the NLT is Amazing especially for beginners
@@michaelclark2458 Why would you use the NKJV if you use the KJV I don't understand. What is the benefit of using the NKJV if you already use the KJV. Is a lack of vocab understanding of the KJV that would make you reference a NKJV or do you think the translators of the NKJV were more accurate?
@@USAP1776 to teach others not familiar with the KJV. To be aware of different renderings out of NKJV translation footnotes. To be aware of KJV words that have changed meaning over the last 400 years: example prevent.
@@michaelclark2458 Thanks Michael. It is an honest question. The reason is I read primarily from the KJV, but also have a NKJV and never seem to use it. I asked with hopes of maybe getting me to start using it. I will consider what you said so thanks again . I've met many pastors who primarily use the NKJV and have always found that to be quite interesting.
Another change from the 84 edition to the 2011 I have a problem with is Mark 1:41. In the old NIV, it said what nearly every single translation says, "Jesus was moved with compassion," but now it says, "Jesus was indignant." Literally only one manuscript reads that way, and for some reason they went with that one manuscript over all others!
A manuscript which is known to be riddled with errors, at that! (Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis)
@@fnjesusfreak Bezae has Jesus saying a lot of weird stuff, and a lot of the post-resurrection passages are missing too. My assessment: cult-bible. The fact that NIV deviated from everyone else and chose the singular reading from Codex D is evidence, in my opinion, of at least colossal foolishness or worse.
@@PrimitiveChristian-m3p Also, what the derp is up with Bezae's Acts?
This isn't as big a problem as it might appear. I concluded based on one definition of indignant that I found that Jesus was angry at the reason why the man here was a leper, which ultimately caused Him to move with compassion toward the man. It does seem odd to me that we would believe Jesus was tempted as we are, but not necessarily ever indicate that He might have shared the same feelings we have.
That was a big change that bothered me as well, and the NIrV had a similar mistranslation saying Jesus was "moved with anger" when he actually had compassion!
I anticipated this NIV UD Bible. I preordered it. I got through the OT and struggled with the blatant bias in the commentary. I literally got through a quarter of Matthew and the bias in the commentary has really left me with extreme regret of my purchase. I love the NIV and was satisfied with the NIV Jesus Bible, the NIV Life application is amazing, the NIV study bible is great as well!!!
This Upside-Down Kingdom Bible is extreme in its bias and i literally have it on my shelf as of friday night. I’m sure the LORD will direct someone into my life that can use it. As for me, I’m literally in the NIV Grace and Truth Bible right now and gotta say, what a difference.
@JosephAquino1430
I felt I should buy this bible before it goes out of print or gets banned or both.... I may even buy a couple extra... so when this happens I can sell them on E-bay at 200.00 a pop... that's American Capitalism....
I'd advise You to do the same.. a 500% profit is nothing to sneeze at...
I was digging around in my humble, home library recently when I came across a highly cherished Bible that my late mother gave me as a child. It is falling apart, so I don't handle it often. I decided to open it up to read my mother's handwritten note on the inside:
"To [Me], Love Mom, 1994."
I was curious about the translation - NIV84. I was so happy to discover that!
The REB NEB and CEB all translate it basically the same way as the NIV 2011 (miscarriage)
I’ve never heard of any of those. Probably super interpretive.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Revised English Bible, New English Bible and Common English Bible ...
Oh, I actually have an NEB, forgot about it. I’ve not heard of the other two though.
In addition to those, the earlier TNIV also has miscarriage.
For those who haven't read the Common English Bible or the New English Bible:
Numbers 5:20-22 CEB:
But if you have had an affair while married to your husband, if you have defiled yourself, and a man other than your husband has had intercourse with you”- then the priest must make the woman utter the curse and say to the woman, “May the Lord make you a curse and a harmful pledge among your people, when the Lord induces a miscarriage and your womb discharges. And may the water that brings these curses enter your stomach and make your womb discharge and make you miscarry.” And the woman will say, “I agree, I agree.”
Numbers 5:20-22 NEB:
But if, while owing him obedience, you have gone astray and let yourself become defiled, if any man other than your husband has had intercourse with you’ (the priest shall here put the woman on oath with an adjuration, and shall continue), ‘may the Lord make an example of you among your people in adjurations and in swearing of oaths by bringing upon you miscarriage and untimely birth; and this water that brings out the truth shall enter your body, bringing upon you miscarriage and untimely birth.’ The woman shall respond, ‘Amen, Amen.’
I 100% disagree with literal translations.
Figures of speech have a meaning that is lost if you only look at the words used.
For example, if I translate some French and said to you
"He was sad without his wife, if only he had the wit of the staircase." You would have no idea what the man was regretting.
But if I said, "he was sad without his wife. If only he thought to say he loved her instead of fighting." It makes more sense.
A literal translation tries to be more faithful to the words chosen by the author, but a true translation will want to be more faithful to the intended meaning the author was trying to convey.
So with that in mind, I have a question for you.
(Please don't research 1st as the point is what would you think it means while passively reading)
2 Cor 5:6-7 in literal translations say something like "as long as we're at home in the body, we're apart from the Lord. For we live by faith and not by sight."
What does it mean to be "at home in the body"?
I don't know what he thinks, but I always assumed it to mean that as long as we are still living in this physical body, we are bound to the earth, and not in the physical presence of the Lord in our new glorified bodies.
That’s because that’s what he meant. Pretty simple.
@anickelsworthbiblereviews
I ask that particular question because I've heard more than a dozen answers to it, and only a small minority gets it right.
The most common answer (and the one I thought the 1st time I heard it) was "being comfortable in your life".
I was trying to figure out why they translated this way and in verse 22 it says "May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries." The NIV being dynamic equivalence they were trying to get the meaning more than the formal wording. The reverences I have found do say that the abdomen swelling involves her procreative organs which would also lead to a miscarriage if she was pregnant when the test was done. I am not saying I love the way they translated it, but after seeing the earlier verse can understand why they did.
If she was pregnant. That’s the key. My issue is to make pregnancy necessary.
@stuartbeach3311
I don't know if this will help.. but I did a study a while back regarding the KJB use of the word belly... especially throughout the book of proverbs... when other translations used the term "inward parts".. or innermost part"..
it seems that the belly was a euphemism for the heart or the seat of emotion... since I guess that in olden times many believed that our emotions came from our gut...
could be the same here...
Appreciate your diligence. I wasn't aware.
This verse as well as other aspects were red flags to me of the NIV 2011 starting to slowly drift towards liberalism.
The NIV translation team stated that they wanted the 2011 to compromise with egalitarians. The 2020 revision to the NIV Study Bible had endorsements from female "pastors" due to an article in it which waved away the issue of female pastorship as just a secondary issue that shouldn't divide.
Sure enough, a female "pastor", "Rev." Sharon Beekmann, is among the contributors to the Upsidedown Kingdom Bible.
If you want a good mediating translation, flee the NIV and check out the BSB or CSB instead.
While any translation has to make assumptions, the NIV is among my least favorite.
I looked at this passage as a way of getting a woman to confess her adultery's through threat of physical ailment from the water. As important as being able to bear children was in those times it
seems that threat of losing that ability would be harder to bear than admitting ones infidelity, where if a woman was innocent or guilty the water wouldn't affect them either way but the psychology
behind it would be great enough for a confession before hand.
I’d agree.
Yes. I believe you are correct.
I’m a pastor, educated in Greek and Hebrew languages, and I come across bad / faulty translations in the NIV regularly, with no good textual reasons for them. The NIV is just not accurate as a translation. I’ve tried to find redeeming value in it, but just can’t. Back in the day - pre 2011 - it was very helpful, but no longer.
I find this interesting.. there’s really some high class evangelical scholars on the niv so I take their interpretations seriously.. where have you found errors in the translation ?
@@rcboyd9
I think D.A. Carson... promotes the NIV... as well as Craig Blomberg and David Walke,.... and Tremper Longman III among many...
@@rcboyd9 as far as errors?.. well if you do not consider the omission of about 11 verses done on purpose.. an error...
I do not really know if you will be convinced regarding interpretational errors elsewhere... you may want to start with how it deciphered
Proverbs 12:27...
do a multiple translational check on the wording in that verse and see how it differs in the second half of the verse. .from other translations..
I've studied the Bible over 50 years and I've never heard this passage interpreted like that. (I always suspected that the fear of such a shameful punishment might have prompted the woman to confess IF she was guilty - and maybe that was its primary purpose?)
I’d say that’s the case. The goal was to get a confession. I’d say after the first woman had the bad experience it would have been effective.
I think you're likely correct.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews
you know what this means don't you?..
now I am going to have to buy this devil's bible so I can notate for myself.. all the indecencies in it...
thanks a lot Tim...
Gee whiz....!..
I look forward to this. I still have my beloved NIV Study, which I got in 1988. I'm assuming that is the 84. It never occurred to me to check dates like this until I began watching review channels.
Yes. That would definitely be the 84.
I've seen this idea as far back as George Buchanan Gray's book on Numbers (The International Critical Commentary, 1903). Gray says that "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 . . . 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 . . . In the other case the potion may have been regarded as innocuous to the growth of the foetus, which is duly brought to the birth."
D.D. Bartlett (A New Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1942) considers this interpretation to be an option: "The precise effect produced by the water is not explained, but it was probably either dropsy or abortion."
P.P. Saydon (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1953) states, "The punishment very probably was miscarriage or sterility or something similar."
Ronald B. Allen (The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, 1990) notes the NIV's margin and says, "The figurative language here (and in v.27) speaks of the loss of the capacity for childbearing (and, if pregnant at the time of her judgment, the miscarriage of the child)."
Baruch A. Levine (The Anchor Bible, 1993) comes to this conclusion: "It is not certain what the combined effects of a swollen belly and sagging thighs mean, in medical terms. It is logical to interpret them as indicating a miscarriage, as may be concluded from the contrast between the stated outcome when the woman is guilty and the outcome when she is innocent, as expressed in v 28, below. If innocent, the woman would 'retain her seed,' and her pregnancy would continue. The reverse of that outcome would be the termination of pregnancy by what amounted to an induced miscarriage or abortion."
The authors of The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (2000) list various possible meanings for this text, including the following: "If the woman has been brought into this process because of pregnancy, it may be that the potion would be expected to induce a miscarriage in the case that the pregnancy came about through illicit behavior."
Philip J. Budd (Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, 2003) briefly remarks, "A miscarriage is apparently expected should the woman be guilty."
In other words, it was not an uncommon interpretation in the century leading up to the release of the TNIV Old Testament in 2005.
I get that. But I don’t have to agree.
I agree with you, Tim, I wish the NIV 2011 had kept what the NIV 1984 said here. Not over-interpreted it to mean "miscarriage". At the very least, I think a good case could be made that it's not "miscarriage" but in reference to infertility, it could be referring to her reproductive organs (e.g. uterus, ovaries) shriveling up and not being able to conceive a baby at all. Not necessarily that there is already a baby present, which is how the NIV 2011 interprets it. For example, see what the biblical scholar Dennis Cole has written in his commentary on Numbers in the New American Commentary series:
This oath of cursing has efficacy if the woman has been unfaithful, for it renders her abdomen swollen and barren. The meaning of the physical effects of the curse has been debated by scholars. The phrase has been rendered “causing the belly to distend and the thigh to sag” (NJPS), “your abdomen enlarges and you suffer miscarriage” (Harrison), “make your abdomen swell and your thigh waste away” (NASB). Milgrom suggests that the “thigh” may be a euphemism for the procreative organs (e.g., Gen 24:2,9) and thus refers to the physical inability to beget children. Furthermore, she would experience societal pressure of denouncement and shame. The woman in her barren state would be physically hindered from experiencing an essential element of the Abrahamic covenant of blessing, that of multitudinous progeny.
I came across Numbers 5 when I first started reading the Bible. I believe "thigh" refers to the reproductive organs/ability.
I know this because in the Douay Rheims, it does say "thigh" in Numbers 5 . . But it also says "thigh" in Genesis 46:26 when describing Jacob's children:
Genesis 46:26
[26] All the souls that went with Jacob into Egypt, and that came out of his thigh, besides his sons' wives, sixty-six.
The KJV uses loins, however in the 1611 KJV, it has(Heb. thigh.) in the note next to the word loins.
And since "thigh" is being used for both male and female it has to be talking about their reproductive organs or their ability to produce offspring and not about miscarriages.
See . . This why I'm wary when it comes to modern scholars/translators 🧐😄 🙏 📖
Renaldo, Tim has always been fair when he reviews a Catholic bible, such as the Douay-Rheims. He will point out a text he finds "different" than what he's used to, but doesn't disparage it, since he keeps in mind that the D-R is translated from the Latin. Would that all Bible reviewers were as non-judgemental as he! God bless Tim.
@manfredcaranci6234 I have no clue what you're talking about . .
I agree with Tim.
It doesn't make sense that 'thigh' would refer to 'miscarriage'.
The best Bibles I have read are The Orthodox Study Bible, Douay-Rheims Bible, ESV-CE & New American Bible 1991.
Thanks for this one. The 1984 NIV remains the translation with which I am most familiar and prefer. My "print" and audible NIV bibles are all 1984, but since it has become difficult to read print without significant magnification and very bright lighting, all the "on-line" NIV bibles are 2011. From the beginning, I have disliked that translation. I used to use, rather heavily, the bible program called "Quick Verse" by Parson's Technology, but they've gone out of business, no longer support it and Microsoft upgrades no longer allow it to run on my PCs.
YES, I very much want the printed _and supported_ 1984 translations to come back!!
If you can find one, a PDF copy of the 1984 NIV would benefit you as PDFs can be zoomed, making them more readable.
@@derrickpurdy7011 - good idea, I'll try to find something. Thanks!
Currently, I listen to my audible versions more than trying to read, but I've found that listening doesn't hold my attention as well and I miss the "Life Application" commentaries and historical insights.
Ah well, no one ever told me getting old was easy!! :) In a way, it makes me long even more strongly to hear God's calling me home through death or by Rapture. Maranatha - Come, Lord Jesus, come!
What size print can you read?
The 2011 NIV uses rough language, but it’s not an inaccurate translation. The NET doesn’t use miscarriage in the text but the technical notes indicate that’s what it refers to.
The notes indicate that’s what scholars think it could refer to.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews “Thigh fall away” who talks like that today? You are acting as if the NIV translators are being irresponsible by using contemporary English instead of using a weird phrase that describes miscarriage without saying it.
There's nothing wrong with the NIV2011 or the NET. They're good for what they're good for.
NKJV all the way ❤. God Bless You All my Precious Brothers and Sisters
Tim, I don't know if a miscarriage was meant in the NIV2011 or not. But consider that the Lord took Bathsheba's and David's baby because of their sin. What's the difference if a baby dies right after birth or by miscarriage? God still ended the baby's life, yes?
That’s really a secondary issue. The issue is this text doesn’t indicate that at all. I admit God does some extreme things, especially regarding Israel and the consequences of their sin.
Yes, I was thinking about this point as well. There seems to be two related but separate issues: 1) whether the woman was pregnant, and 2) whether God would take the life of a child in judgment. It is clear from Scripture that He does do the latter.
David’s situation was an extreme action in an extreme situation. God could have used many indirect means that would lead to a baby’s death. Ahab’s death and the council of spirit beings comes to mind. But a child inside the womb being killed by God (or by an indirect means of bitter water) as a normal practice of adultery, would be in my opinion, a much larger issue.
WOW! I can't believe that the NIV 2011 would interpret that verse like that. I just purchased the Zondervan Thompson Chain Reference. Guess what, it's a 2011. Now I'm not sure if I should even use it as a study bible. I think I'll stick with my NASB TCR for self study. Thank you for pointing this out. I haven't started reading the 2011 yet.
I have discovered that every Bible translation, including the KJV will have texts that upset someone. This is 1 of a few NIV translation choices that I don't like, but it may not be wrong. I certainly won't make a practice of making people drink magic cursed water, so I don't see a doctrine issue other than what Tim has stated.
I miss NIV 1984
This is wild and one of the many reasons I stopped reading the niv some time ago.
I just compared it to a few translations and in the douay rheims it says womb, would be interested to hear your thoughts on how that translation renders this.
This was news to me as well. The NIV interpretation, however, is also in the Word Biblical Commentary!and the UBS Translators Handbook. To me, they could have placed that rendering in the footnotes, but even in the text this wouldn’t morally contradict passages like 2 Sam 12:14ff. Thanks for sharing! ✌️🤓
While in part it is a moral issue for me, the bigger issue is I don’t think that’s what it actually means. The woman doesn’t have to be pregnant.
From what I understand a translators job is the translate not to interpret. and I think it’s a big red flags in any translation that does that
I’d prefer any interpretive thoughts or alternate possible meanings to be in the notes.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviewsyes absolutely
Unfortunately all translations interpret to some degree. There's no such thing as one to one word translation. The big thing is do we trust the translators. There's some godly people on the NIV 2011 team.
I also think the NIV 2011 has a bad translation of Matthew 15:21-31, 'The Faith of the Canaanite Woman.' In vers 27 she tells Jesus "No," telling him he's wrong, while in every other translation that I know of she says, "Yes, but," or "Yes, yet."
Thank you Pastor Tim. I don’t use the NIV 2011. Sticking with my NIV 1984. But it’s way behind the NKJV and NASB 95 & 77. Perhaps we should stop updating translations. 😊 BTW. What happened to the NCV. I’ve got an old Bible with that translation but one never sees it now. 😊
I’ve never heard of that one.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews It was called the New Century Version and Max Lucado had a devotional bible with that translation in it. I think it was somewhat like the NLT.
Hm. I think I see what you're saying. (This version explicitly stating the woman is pregnant.) But if, "thigh falls away", is literally what the Hebrew states, doesn't that seem to also be some sort of euphemism? For what, is the question. But it doesn't seem to make sense that this means her thigh, her physical body part, comes apart from the rest of her body.
It seems to literally mean to cause her reproductive organs to shrink. Almost like a menopausal type of deal.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews That makes more sense than having her whole upper leg fall off! Looks like a difficult passage in every way.
You know what? I'm gonna not like the NIV2011 harder now.
😂😂😂
Gee, a newer edition of a particular translation gets more "out there" in its rendering and/or its commentary than we should expect or can tolerate; who knew? /s
Thank you for bringing this to the attention of your evangelical brethren who value the NIV so highly.
The translation doesn't bother me near as much as the notes that you're reading sir
The article is certainly the bigger issue, but the translation is what got it there.
P.s. Heiser went into great detail about this verse in Naked Bible series on Numbers. If anyone is interested.
I love Dr Heiser.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Me too! I miss him.
WOW, ill stick with the 84 thanks
I noticed the NIV chooses words in certain verses that I don't see any other translation for example Galatians 3:13 says Cursed is everyone who is a hung on a pole. Every other translation I've seen says tree so that was a little weird and also Mark 1:41 says Jesus was indignant instead of what most translations say as compassionate or pity. Now I wouldn't say the translation is evil like others may say but I don't know why they chose alot of the things they did, that's one of the reasons I made the choice to use the csb instead for now on because I feel it's more accurate while being very readable
Why don't you think it is evil? Mark 1:41 the NIV 2011 changed their minds from the '84 and went with a singular reading from Codex D, which is obviously a cult-bible (it's like an ancient Joseph Smith type bible). This represents either colossal stupidity or something more deliberate. This is the word of God that is being translated - they shouldn't mess around or make excuses.
@@PrimitiveChristian-m3p I just think some people get too into conspiracies with modern translations, but I know the people who work on translations have studied the Bible longer than I have even lived so I trust that they make the decisions they do for a reason. I've heard that a small number of manuscripts use indignant but I haven't looked into it too much myself
@@JacobNeel It's a very "small" number: it's "1" manuscript, Codex D. Which is trash to begin with, and all New Testament Greek compilers have rejected that textual variant as illegitimate. If you trust these amazing bible scholars so much, then aren't you a bit curious why, after only 2,000, they were able to figure out that Jesus indignant rather than filled with compassion? That's a LOT of translators over the millennia that thought that was bogus.
@@PrimitiveChristian-m3p like I said I haven't looked into it a whole lot myself. I have alot to learn I'm still pretty new to all this but I love to learn about it
According to Dr. Bullinger, from his Companion Bible, he says in his note for verse 21: 'This ordeal was provided for in the Laws of Khammurabi, sections 131 and 132.' Perhaps those sections will shed some light on this translation.
There are definitely some connections to surrounding cultures. Not sure which one inspired the other, but I don’t think God is a copyist.
This law is described and quoted in _The Story of God Bible Commentary: Numbers_ by Jay Sklar (Zondervan, 2023). The following text is from that commentary.
________________
The laws of Hammurabi give an example in which one man accuses another’s wife of adultery. Law 132 states:
If the finger was pointed at the wife of a [man] because of another man, but she has not been caught lying with the other man, she shall throw herself into the river for the sake of her husband.
If she makes it out of the river, she is innocent; if not, she is guilty.
@@MAMoreno I have a copy of the Laws of Khammurabi, however, what I do not understand is what the bitter water, which is described beginning in verse 17 as holy water with dust from the floor of the tabernacle mixed into an earthen vessel, has to do with the river as described in Law 132. Neither Law describes anything remotely close to this bitter water. Perhaps there is another Law that illustrates this?
@@derrickpurdy7011 The parallel is in the practice of an ordeal for a supposedly unfaithful wife, not in the particular details of the ordeal.
@@MAMoreno That makes sense. Thanks.
I enjoy the NIV 2011
Same
I have a NIV Essentials 2011 from Biblica Zondervan and it's off in some parts. I thought it was me! I'm going to have to check that part! I put it next to my KJV and it's really made me feel like I shouldn't be reading it!
I mean I’m not vilifying it, just think it’s over interpreted in some parts. Interpreting belongs in the notes in my opinion.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I agree. I just think this 2011 is definitely not one of the better translations.
I truly think the niv 2011 is just willing to make an interpretation rather than translating it into essentially nothing
Where the heck did they get all that?😮
There’s a lot of scholars that agree.
I hear you Tim, but euphemisms do exist in the Bible. If what you're referring to IS a euphemism, then to translate it "literally" is to mistranslate. Thanks for your videos! I enjoy getting my Nickels Worth whenever I can :)
I agree, but to go against EVERY SINGLE translation and commentary in existence and create a theological problem at the same time I believe is where the line is crossed.
I disagree. If God-breathed scripture used a euphemism to express something, we should do the same. When Genesis says Adam "knew" his wife Eve, that is a euphemism for sex. However, Hebrew HAS ways to say "have sex" that the author could have used and indeed did use elsewhere, so the euphemism is intentional and shouldn't be erased
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Yeah, and it has been used to support the pro-abortion narrative too. So it has borne some really bad fruit.
@justinj_00
Look up the Hebrew for someone being angry.
It should say they are "long of nose" if you want it to be literal. Also, see how the Hebrew talks about the "kidneys" where we would say "heart."
@anickelsworthbiblereviews
I don't see the problem here.
Didn't God allow the illegitimate child of David to die for the sin of his parents?
(As uncomfortable as this is making me to ask, I feel we shouldn't avoid this kind of question.)
With love ❤ and not to just be contrary, but...
Didn't God guarantee that David and Bathsheba's baby would die? The context of that scene makes it seem like a punishment for their adulterous relationship. What about the killing of the first-born sons in Exodus? All innocents.
When it comes to violence in the OT, I have wrapped my head around the fact that God can do whatever he wants and deems necessary. Who am I to question it? I don't condone any kind of violence or abortion. But God is God, and righteousness isn't always a pretty picture. Somebody's dose of righteousness may be another person's peril *and* God uses all things for good. It's a complex situation and I am merely mortal.
I think that the NIV 2011 is a reasonable translation of the verse, all things considered. In the KJV, 5: 20 says, "The Lord make thee...when the Lord doth make..." The primary actor is the Lord. Whatever is supposed to happen when she drinks the potion, it is the Lord's doing. The 2011 NIV conveys the probable meaning of the words "thight to rot." I think the note is wrong in assuming that the woman must be pregnant. That's not the NIVs fault. If she were pregnant, and the ritual caused her thigh to rot, one can assume a miscarriage would follow.
Consider this, though: None of the ingredients in this "potion" are actually abortifactive or sterilizing. My intuition tells me that everyone "passed the test." The ritual was actually more about shaming and restitution than it was about the test. Remember, this test is performed on *suspicion* of adultery, not on being caught in the act. The husband says his peace, the priests become involved with the family, the woman gets the hell scared out of her and then they go home, marriage restored.
I'm amatuer, so give me a break. Ok? These are just some thoughts....
It is interesting that this is one of the areas pro life advocates use to juatify abortion as well. (I've seen a handful over the last year or two bring it up)
I just can’t see it in the text.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews agreed!
Like my Hebrew speaking friend says learn to read Hebrew. Considering this translation that is not a bad idea.
It’s not that simple. Learning words and language requires learning culture and surroundings too. It’s complex.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews You are correct it's complex but quite beniffical. I know most people will not get there. I am glad I have learned enough to start understanding some of the things that don't translate well. To me Greek is harder than Biblical Hebrew.
How did you get yourself a copy of an NIV from Humble Lamb? 😂
Ha ha. Good eye. You’re the first one to catch it.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviewsWhaaaat? Coming soon?
Wowsers. NIV takes fewer interpretive risks than the NET and NRSVs, but when they do go out on a limb, what a stretch it is! Somewhat irresponsible for the top evangelical seller.
I recall you once said you can't read a single word of Hebrew or Greek. Careful wading into waters you're not prepared for. (nor am I)
If translations are far apart it usually means the original language is indecisive in translation.
I appreciate that caution. But I’ll trust faithful translators over the years as well. This one is out of left field with no other reputable translation backing it.
PhD in OT here. I can accept the NIV’s understanding as a possible interpretation, but it doesn’t seem to be a responsible translation. I’m not a strict formal equivalence guy, but this is a good example of being too interpretative IMO.
HALOT (Hebrew lexicon) sees a reference to miscarriage in Num 5, but that appears to be an interpretation of the passage, rather than something inherent in the word itself.
I understand the tragic nature of a baby that dies, but I don’t understand being so flabbergasted at the thought of God ending a baby’s life. Isn’t that what happened to the baby of David and Bathsheba’s adultery? 2 Samuel 12:15
Because the text doesn’t indicate it.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I thought you were flummoxed at the general idea
In the Hebrew there’s definitely no indication of a miscarriage? Like a word for womb or something that could be rendered to mean that?
Generally curious.
I’m no Hebrew expert. But I know every major translation doesn’t indicate a miscarriage.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews okay, and you’re right as far as I can tell they do not.
*KJV Translators*: We are giving you a sure thing.
“But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.” From the KJV Preface: Translators to the Readers
*Modern Translators*: We can’t give you a sure thing.
“We simply do not know what the original author wrote.” Bruce Metzger, leading modern textual critic
“…the New Testament tradition presents an insoluble tie between two or more alternative endings…If a critic prefers to identify a different reading as the original, there is no problem.” Kurt Aland of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament
“The evidence that has been preserved is arbitrary from a textual point of view… ‘Critical edition’ is the most inappropriate of all names for the thing to which custom applies it, an edition in which the editor is allowed to fling his opinions in the reader’s face without being called to account and asked for his reasons.” Emmanuel Tov, leading Old Testament textual critic
"I am afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord.” Dr. William Irwin, RSV Translator, after leaving the project early.
It’s all an interesting dynamic.
I agree that the NIV choice here is unfortunate, but just what is meant by "belly to swell" especially in connection with infidelity?
It seems thigh to rot would mean her reproductive organs to shrivel up. Belly to swell seems to be a complication as a result. I don’t think it means suddenly a pregnancy would be revealed.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Is the belly swelling "sudden"?
Seems so. I am not a woman, but I do know menopause can come with belly swelling aka bloating. To me this could be instant menopause.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I can understand your interpretation but I can also see the NIV's. I prefer they didn't interpret it that way, but "thigh to rot" leaves a lot for the modern man to try to understand.
There are some other texts that seem unloving, like stoning rebellious children that I don't get (in all translations). I really think this text is a fear based one on both the man not to wrongly accuse his wife as he will lose his own children and to the wife to be honest or lose her child and future children. Even a way of preventing Priests from having to judge family jealousy by making them fear going to the priest in the first jealousy hint.
Please take a look at Hosea 9:14 in all translations! I am seeing a connection? @anickelsworthbiblereviews
NIV = Not inspired version. For real, use ESV, NKJV or NLT instead!
Most of your more dynamic translations have an issue here and there.
NIV is awesome
Perhaps you should write a paper on this passage on the meaning of this Hebrew verse that the video be not taken as alarmist with no basis
Perhaps I can just share my opinion and people can decide for themselves.
I loved the NIV from when it first came out. I used the 84 edition from the time it was released. Until the 2011 came out. I threw it in a garbage can in front of a class of adults I was teaching at Church. I went back to the 84, until they stopped making them. I have bounced around translations since then.
This is more proof the Bible is not error free. The books of the Bible were written by Prophets (holy men of God). I think they should be interpreted by the same. If you tell me the heavens are closed I will ask why.
Not sure what you are saying here.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I am saying we had prophets in ancient times such as Moses, Isaiah, and many others there is a need for prophets today.
That has nothing to do with the scripture being inerrant.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews You will interpret the passage one way and another pastor will will interpret it differently. This why I say we need prophets to tell us the correct interpretation.
NKJV is the best translation for today. 😃
Holy crap Batman. Glad I didn't live in OT times!!
NIV Not Inspired Version
I've seen this many times and couldn't agree more!
I wouldn’t go that far. But I do think it over interprets.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I would say that any bible that claims God causes unaliveing babies is a not inspired version.
NIV is awesome
What a horrible translation. 😬
I mean it has its oddities, but I wouldn’t call it horrible based on that.
@anickelsworthbiblereviews I've decided to stay away from all the translations where it says a virgin has to marry her r a p i s t and the NIV is one of them, unfortunately 😔