Atrocities in the Bible

[Godscreated]

New verse?  Controversy? It;s not new -or- controversial. It's as old as the KJV, and retranslated without any significant changes up to the NIV.  The ritual is meant to induce a miscarriage in the event of an unfaithful spouse.  That's not my translation, that's just what the narrative says.  That is an abortion, decided upon by the husband, carried out by the preist, to avoid becoming a cuckold......signed sealed and delivered as The Law™.  

Do you have a problem with the word of god? Would you like to correct the word of god, for the benefit of those of us who suffer from the misfortune of an excess of literacy and dearth of faith?

My previous post stands in full, why, because you thought you had found a controversial passage but you did not. Like I said if that were the meaning of the passage the Pro-Choice movement would have been using them many years ago.
Just because a woman was unfaithful to her husband doesn't mean she became pregnant so why use something to cause an abortion, if they did and it happened the aborted child could have been the husbands son. Joseph didn't do this with Mary when he believed she had been unfaithful. That law was still in effect for the Jewish people at that time. Your idea on this passage is wrong on so many accounts it's pathetic.
You've never gone back and read the passage as I requested and I still say it's because you're afraid of the truth, so I will go this far with the verses. When did dirt from a dirt floor ever become an agent in abortion, is there a precedent for this?

GC