The hymen doesn't work that way, bible.

[Shadow Wolf]

The land is.

No, it isn't. Because it is so large we perceive it as flat, but it is not.

nope

The KJV, one of the harder ones to read, is only at about a 12th grade level, and some translations are as low as 3rd grade. According to the Flesch-Kincaid scale, the KJV is only at a 5th grade level. Like it or not, the Bible is a very simple and very easy read, especially for those who read poetry, philosophy, and religious texts you actually have to meditate on such as the Tao Te Ching.

 

[Tumah]

Just so we all know:

source

Leviticus 11:6
ווְאֶת הָאַרְנֶבֶת כִּי מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה הִוא וּפַרְסָה........And the hare, because it brings up its cud, but does not have

יַפְרִיס טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם:..............................................a [completely] cloven hoof; it is unclean for you;
source

​

So, why can't the book be wrong?

In any case, even if it was a translation error why has god let the mistranslation of this most important message go uncorrected year after year, misleading millions of believers? Why go to the trouble of making sure one's word is taken down yet not caring what happens to it after that? Make sense to you?

First of all, your image is a translation from the Modern Hebrew, which is not the same as Biblical Hebrew. There are even words in Biblical Hebrew that have the opposite meaning in Modern Hebrew.

I don't know what you mean by misleading millions of believers. I don't know of any Jews who would consider eating rabbit were it not for this verse. Identifying the specific animal is about as important as knowing what gopher wood is. Not at all. In fact, considering that the the earlier verses make it clear that having only one of the two signs does not a kosher animal make, its a better question to ask why its necessary to have such a verse in the first place.

Anyway why can't the translators be wrong? There are a number of animals, especially birds, listed in the Bible that we can no longer identify. In fact, for that reason, Jews only eat a very few select number of birds, even though states the Talmud, most birds are kosher. That didn't stop translators from identifying them.

 

[Tumah]

When it comes to the hymen, yes, the Tanakh/OT is wrong, not just because it comes from the Tanakh/OT, but because we can look at what it says and know it isn't correct.

If you say so.

 

[Tumah]

One could also ask, why does it have to be the translator that is wrong and not the writer?

Right.

 

[Tumah]

What?

You switched from speaking about virginity in general to a more general topic.

 

[Tumah]

In this thread I have not made any anti-religious, ant-Semitic, or anti-biblical arguments. But you are wrong. You do not understand simple biology. And the truth does matter.

You said:And I am just trying to get you to understand that you are wrong. This is not an attack on the Bible, or on Judaism. But the simple fact is you - Tumah - are wrong. Do you understand that?

No I don't understand that. Because you have no proof of that fact. The OP's study is based on 13 year old girls and above. The verse under discussion discusses girls under 13. A quick google of procedure for children who are suspected of being abused, pulls up among other things, how to check the hymen of a child. Why would they do that?

 

[fantome profane]

No I don't understand that. Because you have no proof of that fact. The OP's study is based on 13 year old girls and above. The verse under discussion discusses girls under 13. A quick google of procedure for children who are suspected of being abused, pulls up among other things, how to check the hymen of a child. Why would they do that?

Because it is a deeply ingrained myth. You have chosen to ignore all the evidence, logic and reason that shows that it is a myth. And that just shows how deeply ingrained this myth is.

 

[Tumah]

Because it is a deeply ingrained myth. You have chosen to ignore all the evidence, logic and reason that shows that it is a myth. And that just shows how deeply ingrained this myth is.

There is no evidence...
That kind of shows just how far you're willing to grasp at straws to find an issue in the Bible.
Not only that, but as I've mentioned more than once on this thread, the idea that its possible to circumvent the hymen or lose the hymen outside of relations, is already made clear in the Talmud. So its kind of difficult to hear that this "myth" might be so deeply ingrained in me.

Edit for more stuff.

 

[Mindmaster]

Welp, I've never seen an "intact hymen" despite how many young girls my young man self had seen... Many of whom I've known to be complete virgins before and after our together time. I think the whole thing is a complete myth, but even if it weren't between tampons, self-discovery, and hygiene I couldn't imagine it to be a suitable reference of ones purity. You are far less pure if you do not occasionally douche, lol.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you say so.

Not just me, but many medical professionals as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginity_test
Many researchers state that the presence of an intact hymen is not a reliable indicator of whether a female has been vaginally penetrated because the tearing of the hymen may have been the result of an involuntary sex act, such as rape, or other event.[10]
...
It is a misconception that the hymen always tears during first intercourse or that intercourse is required to rupture the hymen.
...
It is commonly accepted that some women are born without hymens.[26][27]

 

[Tumah]

Not just me, but many medical professionals as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginity_test
Many researchers state that the presence of an intact hymen is not a reliable indicator of whether a female has been vaginally penetrated because the tearing of the hymen may have been the result of an involuntary sex act, such as rape, or other event.[10]
...
It is a misconception that the hymen always tears during first intercourse or that intercourse is required to rupture the hymen.
...
It is commonly accepted that some women are born without hymens.[26][27]

I think you should go back and read over some earlier posts in this thread.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You switched from speaking about virginity in general to a more general topic.

I'm still talking about this supposed test for female virginity and the emphasis placed on said virginity.

 

[Tumah]

I'm still talking about this supposed test for female virginity and the emphasis placed on said virginity.

Oh, ok.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No I don't understand that. Because you have no proof of that fact. The OP's study is based on 13 year old girls and above. The verse under discussion discusses girls under 13. A quick google of procedure for children who are suspected of being abused, pulls up among other things, how to check the hymen of a child. Why would they do that?

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/women-suffer-myths-hymen-and-virginity-test
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201103/the-hymen-membrane-widely-misunderstood

 

[Skwim]

First of all, your image is a translation from the Modern Hebrew, which is not the same as Biblical Hebrew. There are even words in Biblical Hebrew that have the opposite meaning in Modern Hebrew.

Doesn't matter. Your Torah says, don't eat hare because it chews its cud. Pure and simple.

I don't know what you mean by misleading millions of believers. I don't know of any Jews who would consider eating rabbit were it not for this but the scripture clearly forbdis them to eat verse. Identifying the specific animal is about as important as knowing what gopher wood is.

I have no idea what you or your Jewish friends, or the Jewish friends of your friends, or the Jewish enemies of your friends eat, they may eat braised horse hocks for all I know, but the things I do know they are forbidden to eat are, hasenpfeffer (rabbit stew), beer basted rabbit, grilled garlic rabbit, quinoa with rabbit and kale, rabbit with mustard, and rabbit casserole. Take a look HERE.

Not at all. In fact, considering that the the earlier verses make it clear that having only one of the two signs does not a kosher animal make, its a better question to ask why its necessary to have such a verse in the first place.

Hey, it was your god who said it, not me. Ask him.

Anyway why can't the translators be wrong?

Sorry, but your linked source is seriously flawed.

"Most commentaries translate arnevet not as rabbit but as either coney, rock badger or hyrax, all of which do in fact chew their cud."
​

This is either an outright lie or an ignorant remark. First of all, just to clear things up, the name "coney" is used to identify the rabbit, but is also an alternative name for the hyrax, and "rock badger" is nothing more than another name for a particular kind of hyrax, the rock hyrax. Moreover, looking at the label "coney" we find out:

coney (n.)
c. 1200, from Anglo-French conis, plural of conil "long-eared rabbit" (Lepus cunicula) from Latin cuniculus (source of Spanish conejo, Portuguese coelho, Italian coniglio), the small, Spanish variant of the Italian hare (Latin lepus), the word perhaps from Iberian Celtic (classical writers say it is Spanish).

Second of all, and the real kicker in your linked source is, like the rabbit, hyraxes don't chew any cud either.
Source: p463, The Encyclopedia of Mammals, Dr. David Macdonald.

 

[Tumah]

Doesn't matter. Your Torah says, don't eat hare because it chews its cud. Pure and simple.

No it doesn't. It says
ואת הארנבת כי מעלת גרה הוא ופרסה לא הפריסה טמאה הוא לכם
You see. I don't see the word "hare" or "rabbit" there at all. Its a different language altogether.

I have no idea what you or your Jewish friends, or the Jewish friends of your friends, or the Jewish enemies of your friends eat, they may eat braised horse hocks for all I know, but the things I do know they are forbidden to eat are, hasenpfeffer (rabbit stew), beer basted rabbit, grilled garlic rabbit, quinoa with rabbit and kale, rabbit with mustard, and rabbit casserole. Take a look HERE.

Right. We don't eat rabbit. Because it doesn't have split hooves or chew its cud. What's your point?

Sorry, but your linked source is seriously flawed.

"Most commentaries translate arnevet not as rabbit but as either coney, rock badger or hyrax, all of which do in fact chew their cud."
​

This is either an outright lie or an ignorant remark. First of all, just to clear things up, the name "coney" is used to identify the rabbit, but is also an alternative name for the hyrax, and "rock badger" is nothing more than another name for a particular kind of hyrax, the rock hyrax. Moreover, looking at the label "coney" we find out:

coney (n.)
c. 1200, from Anglo-French conis, plural of conil "long-eared rabbit" (Lepus cunicula) from Latin cuniculus (source of Spanish conejo, Portuguese coelho, Italian coniglio), the small, Spanish variant of the Italian hare (Latin lepus), the word perhaps from Iberian Celtic (classical writers say it is Spanish).

Second of all, and the real kicker in your linked source is, like the rabbit, hyraxes don't chew any cud either.
Source: p463, The Encyclopedia of Mammals, Dr. David Macdonald.

That's not a flaw in my link. Its an issue you have with the source. You can purchase "The Living Torah" by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, check out his sources and see whether its true that Jewish sources have other translations for the word than just "rabbit".

 

[rosends]

I don't know, it's there in the text. The fact that such a vile practice of verifying a female's virginity by checking bed sheets and having people inspect her and make decisions about her virginity exists in the text at all is an indication that there is emphasis placed on female virginity within the culture/religion. Otherwise, why go into it in that manner? And why make non-virginity punishable by death if it's not important to be a virgin?

No one says it isn't important to be a virgin within a particular culture only that in terms of the number of absolute verses that deal with the topic is relatively small compared to the number which deal with other issues. So a complaint that there is any sort of excessive interest or focus would be inaccurate.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No one says it isn't important to be a virgin within a particular culture only that in terms of the number of absolute verses that deal with the topic is relatively small compared to the number which deal with other issues. So a complaint that there is any sort of excessive interest or focus would be inaccurate.

I said there was an emphasis on female virginity. And I would say that is true given the outline for the "virginity test" given in the OP. Does it not say that a woman's not being a virgin can be punishable by death? Seems like a heavy punishment for something that isn't important at all.

 

[rosends]

I said there was an emphasis on female virginity. And I would say that is true given the outline for the "virginity test" given in the OP.

The emphasis exists, and in the same way, there is an emphasis on eating kosher animals (with more textual verses outlining the physical characteristics required). There are entire sections dealing with spiritual purity after childbirth and about what kind of physical manifestation requires sequestration from the community. There is emphasis on a lot of stuff.

 

[CG Didymus]

Yes, The Law is the Law. Virginity tests however are not nor have they ever been so, and that is why no Jew I've ever heard of considers them such or practices them.

I thought Deut. 22:13-21 was already mentioned. The father has to bring a bloody sheet from the marital bed to prove his daughter was a virgin.