22 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, that is only two of the cited verses, or have you forgotten what you cited?
Here's what the cited verses say.
Here is what the cited verses really say:
13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[a] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
Now, in your telling of the tale, a woman given to a man in marriage could be simply accused of not possessing her virginity by her betrothed and that was enough to sentence her to stoning.
But clearly in the text you are getting a small piece of your information, the rest of the information says something entirely different.
So, what is this 'entirely different' thing?
a) note that she will still be stoned simply for lack of proof.
b) you, and apparently your translation of the bible called her a whore for not being a virgin prior to marriage.
Well, since my quote is your exact words, why don't you tell us what your motivations possibly could be, other than whay you've said.
So now that I have quoted the full verses that you referenced, can I claim to understand them? Why don't you tell us what they could possibly mean other than the what they say?
That's rich coming from a person who completely mangled the source of contention in the first place!
Rich but true.
22 Mar 14
this bible is full of wonderful stories like this. man meets virgin who is not betrothed (translation, she most likely is a young girl, younger than probably 16), man rapes girl. man gets to marry said girl and continue to rape her, legally.
such happy times.
Deuteronomy 22
28 "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,
29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
22 Mar 14
Originally posted by sonshipso i am guessing that you argue that it is more important for a man who attacks another to be able to boink later on, than for the victim to not die. or be mangled, or robbed. not to mention his wife lacking that hand.or cutting off the hand of a woman if , when defending her husband against an attacker, she grabs said attacker by the balls.
Some Hebrew language scholars say that the passage does not refer to an amputation of a hand. They argue that it indicates an embarrassing public shaving of the offending woman's pubic area.
I don't know f ...[text shortened]... uss. And a man made unable to reproduce was seen as not taking the sacred inheritance seriously.
but hey, as long as the attacker can boink, all is well.
and no, i don't buy the faulty translation. the common consensus is that the arm comes off. if you want to argue faulty translation, i have a noah story that i would like to point to as badly translated and "global flood" actually meant "we had a flood near our village, it was kinda bad, and the town crazy man finally got to sail the boat he has been building for the past few years, along with his 2 sheep"
22 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou misunderstand this, for there is nothing said about rape here. The man violates the virginity of the young woman by having sex with her outside of marriage. Also the age of the young woman is not stated and it states she is a young woman, not a girl. This appears to be a way of trapping a husband to me.
this bible is full of wonderful stories like this. man meets virgin who is not betrothed (translation, she most likely is a young girl, younger than probably 16), man rapes girl. man gets to marry said girl and continue to rape her, legally.
such happy times.
Deuteronomy 22
28 "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lie ...[text shortened]... er, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
22 Mar 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziI beg to differ with you. It was actually THREE sheep and a parakeet.
so i am guessing that you argue that it is more important for a man who attacks another to be able to boink later on, than for the victim to not die. or be mangled, or robbed. not to mention his wife lacking that hand.
but hey, as long as the attacker can boink, all is well.
and no, i don't buy the faulty translation. the common consensus is that th ...[text shortened]... inally got to sail the boat he has been building for the past few years, along with his 2 sheep"
22 Mar 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo, what is this 'entirely different' thing?
No, that is only two of the cited verses, or have you forgotten what you cited?
Here is what the cited verses really say:
[quote]13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the yo ...[text shortened]... a person who completely mangled the source of contention in the first place!
Rich but true.[/b]
a) note that she will still be stoned simply for lack of proof.
b) you, and apparently your translation of the bible called her a whore for not being a virgin prior to marriage.
The "entirely different" thing is the thing which you omitted... you know: the thing you stumbled upon when you finally read the entire citation.
Here's what you said originally:
...(and purely on her husbands say so)...
And yet what I quoted in the first place shows it was decidedly not strictly on the basis of the man's say so.
The actual transliteration in v21 has it as "prostitution," so it is assumed that the closest meaning method used for the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer of the Westminster Leningrad Codex puts this as "playing the whore."
I had no input into the work.
Why don't you tell us what they could possibly mean other than the what they say?
This I have already done.
You made a false claim
how a woman could be stoned to death merely on the basis of her betrothed's word
which was challenged and shown to be false.
Instead, I referenced the entire passage dealing with the topic, specifically highlighting the exact part which contradicted your claim.
Rich but true.
Obviously not.
22 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhoever did come up with it needs their head examined.
The actual transliteration in v21 has it as "prostitution," so it is assumed that the closest meaning method used for the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer of the Westminster Leningrad Codex puts this as "playing the whore."
I had no input into the work.
Why don't you tell us what they could possibly mean other than the what they say?
This I have already done.
No, you haven't. You have told us what they say, not what they mean other than what they say. And you didn't answer my real question. I asked you whether or not my quoting the passages proves that I have understood them.
Obviously not.
I see you have lost track in addition to failing to check who posted what and understanding my arguments. Oh well.
22 Mar 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhoever did come up with it needs their head examined.
Whoever did come up with it needs their head examined.
Why don't you tell us what they could possibly mean other than the what they say?
[b]This I have already done.
No, you haven't. You have told us what they say, not what they mean other than what they say. And you didn't answer my real question. I asked you whether or not my quoting the ...[text shortened]... t track in addition to failing to check who posted what and understanding my arguments. Oh well.[/b]
Based upon... what, exactly?
Your extensive academic studies in the ancient languages, customs and history?
Or is it simply offensive to your values?
No, you haven't. You have told us what they say, not what they mean other than what they say.
That was necessary to establish, since you had it wrong.
And you didn't answer my real question.
For some reason, I get the funny feeling that it really doesn't matter what the underlying principles are, you'll simply move to the next 'offensive' passage as a way to continue your rejection of the whole.
I asked you whether or not my quoting the passages proves that I have understood them.
Given your analysis even after quoting the passage, I'd say you do not.
You still haven't rescinded your earlier contention that a woman could be stoned on the basis of one man's say so.
I see you have lost track in addition to failing to check who posted what and understanding my arguments. Oh well.
No, I'm following it every step along the way.
You're not going to get out of it that easy.
22 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIts not offensive to your values? And you have the nerve to call other people shallow minded?
Or is it simply offensive to your values?
For some reason, I get the funny feeling that it really doesn't matter what the underlying principles are, you'll simply move to the next 'offensive' passage as a way to continue your rejection of the whole.
I am yet to introduce a single passage in this whole thread - yet you seem sure that I will just keep jumping from passage to passage? Once again, you are demonstrating your lack of understanding of what is really going on - hence you should not be criticising unless you wish to withdraw your claim that doing so demonstrates your shallow mindedness?
Given your analysis even after quoting the passage, I'd say you do not.
Therefore you being able to quote me accurately does not demonstrate that you understand me. QED.
You still haven't rescinded your earlier contention that a woman could be stoned on the basis of one man's say so.
I hereby rescind it - although I didn't actually mention the getting stoned part.
No, I'm following it every step along the way.
You're not going to get out of it that easy.
You are clearly not following all that closely as you seem to get something wrong in just about every post you make.
22 Mar 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadIts not offensive to your values? And you have the nerve to call other people shallow minded?
Its not offensive to your values? And you have the nerve to call other people shallow minded?
[b]For some reason, I get the funny feeling that it really doesn't matter what the underlying principles are, you'll simply move to the next 'offensive' passage as a way to continue your rejection of the whole.
I am yet to introduce a single passage in th ...[text shortened]... following all that closely as you seem to get something wrong in just about every post you make.[/b]
Not in the least.
Why? Because it's from a completely different currency than the ones currently traded on the planet.
This is one of the reasons why I consider your inquest so incredibly shallow and misguided.
You are judge and jury on a case which rests upon one snippet of evidence viewed sans any background or context, hell-bent on returning a guilty verdict based on nothing more than the first headline you read.
It's Rodney King all over again with you.
I am yet to introduce a single passage in this whole thread - yet you seem sure that I will just keep jumping from passage to passage?
You didn't need to introduce anything other than the topic: there are plenty of folks who were of the same mind who would do that heavy lifting for you.
Of course, you jumped right in once anything was introduced, as expected.
Therefore you being able to quote me accurately does not demonstrate that you understand me. QED.
The only problem with your QED is that I have demonstrated both an accurate depiction of your words as well as the reinforcement of my assessment of your intentions with more of your own words.
I hereby rescind it - although I didn't actually mention the getting stoned part.
Sure you did:
a) note that she will still be stoned simply for lack of proof.
And, really: does it matter?
We all knew what you were talking about, even if you didn't.
You are clearly not following all that closely as you seem to get something wrong in just about every post you make.
If this is the standard you wish to make the rule, you should have shut up a long time ago.
22 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOh? This sort of thing is currency?
Not in the least.
Why? Because it's from a completely different currency than the ones currently traded on the planet.
This is one of the reasons why I consider your inquest so incredibly shallow and misguided.
Well I am not convinced that I am the one that is shallow and misguided.
You are judge and jury on a case which rests upon one snippet of evidence viewed sans any background or context,
Sounds rather like the poor woman getting stoned doesn't it? Why was it OK for judges back then, but not for me?
You didn't need to introduce anything other than the topic: there are plenty of folks who were of the same mind who would do that heavy lifting for you.
Of course, you jumped right in once anything was introduced, as expected.
Did I? I already pointed out that that was not the case yet you repeat the claim? Well this time it is a lie not a mistake because it has already been pointed out to you multiple times.
The only problem with your QED is that I have demonstrated both an accurate depiction of your words as well as the reinforcement of my assessment of your intentions with more of your own words.
Nevertheless, I have demonstrated that accurately quoting my words, does not prove you understood them. That is all I wished to demonstrate.
Sure you did:
a) note that she will still be stoned simply for lack of proof.
Go back and check the context of that quote. You will see that that came later and does not say that she will be stoned merely on the husbands say so.
You really can't finish a post without getting something wrong can you?
And, really: does it matter?
We all knew what you were talking about, even if you didn't.
Ha ha. So its all about what I didn't even know I was talking about? Talk about taking liberties in mind reading!