The hymen doesn't work that way, bible.

[Robert.Evans]

Considering that animals were rode often during Biblical times, it stands to reason that the possibility of the hymen breaking through other means was probably well known to them.

That is a good point. So I wonder how they dealt with such a problem then? Presumably they realised there might be other reasons?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Most people don't know that today, because most people don't ride bumpy animals, they drive smooth travelling cars. They also don't have to work half as hard as people did back then. I am sure breaking hymens was much more common then than it is today. And if it was more common, more people were probably aware of it. And if people were aware of it, then we may be able to come up with a reason why the verse requires that the father go to the elders of the city first, rather than just gathering up the gaggle of guys to stone her.

Haha... that is a good point. So perhaps the elders knew something. Good, seems to make sense.

Do you think then that the law was not used as strict as some people now like to think? Do you think they were more of a ruling that could be used depending on the situation? It would seem impossible to right down every law for every possible event.

 

[Tumah]

That was the law, correct?

For leading someone to idol worship, yes, stoning.

 

[fantome profane]

You're saying "because it comes from the Tanakh/OT it must be wrong"? That's not a very good argument.

The point is that the hymen can be broken by things other than sexual intercourse, and that sexual intercourse can occur without breaking the hymen.

Do you dispute either of those things?

 

[Tumah]

That is a good point. So I wonder how they dealt with such a problem then? Presumably they realised there might be other reasons?

I assume so. The Talmud mentions that there were families who even when they're hymen broke, there was no blood. As well as performing relations in such a way as to avoid the hymen. Also, why should the father be more trusted than the husband? Maybe the father cut himself and threw it on a sheet?

Haha... that is a good point. So perhaps the elders knew something. Good, seems to make sense.

Do you think then that the law was not used as strict as some people now like to think? Do you think they were more of a ruling that could be used depending on the situation? It would seem impossible to right down every law for every possible event.

I think the passage there is meant as a guideline: when it can be proven one way or another, then this is what needs to be done. You find a number of cases where if Scriptures is only referring to the specific case it mentions, than it would make for a very unstable law system. Like rape later on in verse 23. If he rapes her in a city, then she is also killed, because she could have yelled for help and didn't. Well, what if she did but there was a heavy metal concert going on right nearby? Obviously Scriptures is giving a possible scenario that we can draw inferences from: if we can ascertain that she was capable of calling for help but chose not to, then she should be killed as well.
We can be literal. Just not so literal as to be stupid.

 

[Tumah]

The point is that the hymen can be broken by things other than sexual intercourse, and that sexual intercourse can occur without breaking the hymen.

Do you dispute either of those things?

Nope. The Talmud speaks about both of them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Everything in the bible is true,

The Earth is not fixed or flat.

But then, it's not supposed to be an easy read.

Even considering older translations, it's still a fairly easy and simple read.

 

[fantome profane]

Nope. The Talmud speaks about both of them.

So the conclusion is that you cannot use the condition of the hymen as a test for "virginity".

 

[Tumah]

So the conclusion is that you cannot use the condition of the hymen as a test for "virginity".

Sounds good to me.

 

[Machavelle]

The Earth is not fixed or flat.

Even considering older translations, it's still a fairly easy and simple read.

And rabbits do not chew their cud.

 

[Machavelle]

Santa clause living in the North pole is more plausible.

 

[Tumah]

And rabbits do not chew their cud.

Where does it say that rabbits chew their cud?

 

[Machavelle]

Where does it say that rabbits chew their cud?

Leviticus 11:3-6

 

[Machavelle]

Proof that the Bible was the word of Ancient men with little scientific knowledge.

Not an all knowing God.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Most people don't know that today, because most people don't ride bumpy animals, they drive smooth travelling cars. They also don't have to work half as hard as people did back then. I am sure breaking hymens was much more common then than it is today. And if it was more common, more people were probably aware of it. And if people were aware of it, then we may be able to come up with a reason why the verse requires that the father go to the elders of the city first, rather than just gathering up the gaggle of guys to stone her.

I find it appalling that any god would command any such revolting practice at all.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Nope. The Talmud speaks about both of them.

Can I ask where?
I'm also still unclear at how any use of 'virginity testing' is used as there's no way you could rely on the results as indication of anything.

 

[rosends]

Leviticus 11:3-6

Here is a book which discusses that

http://www.amazon.com/Camel-Hare-Hyrax-Natan-Slifkin/dp/9652295752

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Everything in the bible is true, but it doesn't mean you will like it and certainly doesn't mean you will understand it. But then, it's not supposed to be an easy read.

imo it's not a hard read. Its prose and instructions are fairly straight forward especially compared to the mich more flowery Vedas. What's hard is trying to justify these laws as altruistic.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Most people don't know that today, because most people don't ride bumpy animals, they drive smooth travelling cars. They also don't have to work half as hard as people did back then. I am sure breaking hymens was much more common then than it is today. And if it was more common, more people were probably aware of it. And if people were aware of it, then we may be able to come up with a reason why the verse requires that the father go to the elders of the city first, rather than just gathering up the gaggle of guys to stone her.

I doubt that. With the prolification of acrobatics (specifically splits) as a youth activity as well as bike riding, two other great ways to break the hymen and not done by women back then...
Nope I think this is the case of cultural memes overshadowing biological fact.
And I think if the elders were educated on this subject they would have known that proving virginity is impossible. And there's no way the husband could 'find her not a virgin' or the father could present evidence of virginity. So I wonder why the instruction is there at all.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You automatically assume error, I automatically assume there's an explanation.

I don't have to assume it's an error. It is an error. There is factually no physical test for virginity. No way the husband could have 'found her' not a virgin while having sex either and no way the father could prove she was one. But if you have an alternative explanation I'd love to hear it.

And let's be honest we're talking about very, very young girls here. The probability of them bleeding during their first time would be pretty darn high.

The study I mentioned starts at 13. 52% non-break. And besides, it wouldn't break if it already broke during a fall or on a horse or doing the splits.