Translating to fit Preconceived Theology

There is the extreme example of this in the Jehovah's Witness's New World Translation where all passages showing the Deity of Jesus Christ are perverted to support their Arianism. Then conservatives, or evangelicals are quick to point out what they see as an anti-supernatural and anti-prophecy bias in the mainline translations: RSV, NEB, NRSV, REB; but are there significant biases and preconceptions in the translations put out by evangelicals and conservatives as well? As a clear example, consider the abortion debate, and the significance of Ex. 21:22.

“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide." Ex. 21:22 NASB 1977

“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide." Ex. 21:22 NASB 1995

What happened to the NASB between 1977 and 1995? The significance of this verse in the abortion debate became apparent. While the Septuagint, Wycliffe and Douay translations clearly translate as a miscarriage, and that is continued in the RSV, NEB, NRSV and REB; the conservative evangelical versions have changed to some form of "gives birth prematurely". Has that been the understanding of some of our fathers in the faith?

In checking the commentaries, the understanding of miscarriage is held by the Puritans John Trapp and Matthew Poole; then Matthew Henry sees miscarriage here. Adam Clarke in the 19th century understands miscarriage. Even the early 20th century Lutheran Paul Kretzmann understands miscarriage.

Most of us probably use various translations. My choice is in this order: KJV, ASV, RSV, NEB, NRSV and REB. I view the KJV, ASV and the RSV as more literal word for word. The NEB and REB more dynamic and thought for thought. The NRSV seems to be closer to literal word for word yet goes thought for thought at times. I post this as my reasoning and approach, not insisting that any other see it like this.

I see 3 replies of a general nature, but the method of how one determines the truth of Ex. 21:22,23 is not given. I'll present where I come down on the passage and why.

I am a "creationist" not a "traducianist" as to the origin of the soul. I believe that God forms the body and then creates the soul/spirit within the body, Gen. 2:7, Zech. 12:1; and only then you have a human being, a person. Death is when the soul/spirit leaves the body:

"And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin." (Gen 35:18, KJV) ["departing" here is same Hebrew as in Ex. 21:22]

The passage in question, Ex. 21:22,23 came to fit easily into the statements of Gen. 2:7 & Zech. 12:1; the KJV "fruit depart" to me meant death, having known that phrase "the dearly departed", etc. The passage in the KJV is as follows:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life" (Exod 21:22-23, KJV)

When brothers or others rough house or get into horse play with a pregnant sister or other woman, I do not recall anyone saying "Stop that, you'll make her give birth prematurely"... no, I hear them say, "Stop that, you'll cause her to lose the baby!"

The KJV "strive" is Strong's H5327, in KJV translated "be laid waste, runinous, strive (together)." If it was rough enough to cause a woman to try to intervene or separate them, it was harsh enough to cause a miscarriage.

Upon leaving KJV onlyism, yes I used to be a KJOist and a fundamentalist; my first alternate translation was the NASB1977 which reads:

“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life" (Ex 21:22,23)

Then I had the support of men of God out of the past, such as the Puritan John Trapp and the British Methodist Adam Clarke.

"But if mischief followed, that is, if the child had been fully formed, and was killed by this means, or the woman lost her life in consequence, then the punishment was as in other cases of murder-the person was put to death; Ex 21:23." Clarke

"i.e., No life be lost. There is a time, then, when the embryo is not alive; therefore the soul is not begotten, but infused after a time by God." Trapp

I also could read the Septuagint, the LXXE, and I quote from the "New English Translation of the Septuagint"

"Now if two men fight and strike a pregnant woman and her child comes forth not fully formed, he shall be punished with a fine. According as the husband of the woman might impose, he shall pay with judicial assessment. But if it is fully formed he shall pay life for life..." Exodus 21:22,23
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/02-exod-nets.pdf

A scholarly paper presenting the Septuagint as the most accurate translation of Exodus 21:22,23 can be found online here:
http://tmcdaniel.palmerseminary.edu/LXX_EXO_ 21_22-23.pdf

It came later that I found that this passage was critical to the abortion debate, and then I found a lot of misinformation on how this was viewed legally in our country's past, as is stated by one of American's founders, James Wilson(1790):

"With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger."
Of the Natural Rights of Individuals - Teaching American History

Then when Roe v Wade came about, suddenly all the prior translations were wrong, now it is the new Fundamentalist/Evangelical translations that have finally gotten it right on Ex. 21:22,23. Those coming out of the Reformed side of the Protestant Reformation who had been predominantly creationists as to the origin of the soul, now seemed to adopt the Lutheran view, traducianism.

Reading the arguments given for translating "give birth prematurely", I get the strong feeling it begins with denying "miscarriage" and then trying to prop up that belief with various arguments. As to the argument about the embryo's heart beat, I find that as silly as saying a chicken is alive after I've chopped its head off and it is flopping about on the ground! I do not look to medical science to tell me when the embryo/fetus becomes a human being, I seek that answer in the Scriptures.

That is how I undertake to understand the passage, but I do not say you sin to view it otherwise. I do believe in 'soul liberty', liberty of conscience.