The hymen doesn't work that way, bible.

[ADigitalArtist]

And where does it say any of that?

Other than Deuteronomy 6:1? "These are the commands, decrees and laws the LORD your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess," Moses said that these are God ordained commands. The word 'torah' means law, and the torah is also used to describe all the books of the bible containing the Mosaic law, which includes but is not limited to the ten commandments, given to the people through Moses by God.
Exod. 24:12 also says “Come up to Me on the mountain and be there; and I will give you tablets of stone, and the law and commandments which I have written, that you may teach them.” Which means that the law, all of it, was given by God. Not just the 10 commandments. Exodus 24:18 says he stayed on the mountain receiving instruction for the law for 40 days and 40 nights.

 

[Thana]

Other than Deuteronomy 6:1? "These are the commands, decrees and laws the LORD your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess," Moses said that these are God ordained commands. The word 'torah' means law, and the torah is also used to describe all the books of the bible containing the Mosaic law, which includes but is not limited to the ten commandments, given to the people through Moses by God.
Exod. 24:12 also says “Come up to Me on the mountain and be there; and I will give you tablets of stone, and the law and commandments which I have written, that you may teach them.” Which means that the law, all of it, was given by God. Not just the 10 commandments. Exodus 24:18 says he stayed on the mountain receiving instruction for the law for 40 days and 40 nights.

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.

But this is getting tedious, If you don't want to concede then I don't really have anything else to add, I've presented my case and you've dismissed it so thats that.

But just so you know, It's okay to get things wrong sometimes. I get stuff wrong all the time, It's no biggie especially on this site. Debate can be be a fun and interesting way to learn new things instead of a fight for intellectual dominance.

 

[Ingledsva]

They could get married after 19, but marriage consummation wasn't until 15 (14 at the earliest) even if given by the father.
Besides, a year wouldn't change the fundamental size and function of a hymen. Mine broke horseback riding when I was 10 and didn't heal. (And I know this because my menstruation cycle was showing signs of endometriosis so my lady parts were frequently tested at the time) I would have been killed, because my virginity couldn't have been proven.

Actually we have a lot of ancient Hebrew sources that tell us a child three years and one day old could be married through intercourse.

*

 

[Tumah]

No it is not. That is a myth. It really is that simple.

And again... although you have no proof that it isn't true, it doesn't matter if its true or not.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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.

But this is getting tedious, If you don't want to concede then I don't really have anything else to add, I've presented my case and you've dismissed it so thats that.

But just so you know, It's okay to get things wrong sometimes. I get stuff wrong all the time, It's no biggie especially on this site. Debate can be be a fun and interesting way to learn new things instead of a fight for intellectual dominance.

Wow that doesn't sound condescending and arrogant at all. Lol.
From my perspective you're trying to cherry-pick around the passage very hard when it is, indeed, right there in the law. This isn't something Jews dismissed. That's why the the authors of the Babylonian Talmud struggled to find a different interpretation that involved even more rediculous tests (my favorite the aforementioned putting a woman on hole in a wine barrel lid to see if the fumes traveled through her and out her mouth). They certainly didn't say 'this wasn't God's law. Must be just things the Israelites did at the time.'

 

[Thana]

Wow that doesn't sound condescending and arrogant at all. Lol.
From my perspective you're trying to cherry-pick around the passage very hard when it is, indeed, right there in the law. This isn't something Jews dismissed. That's why the the authors of the Babylonian Talmud struggled to find a different interpretation that involved even more rediculous tests (my favorite the aforementioned putting a woman on hole in a wine barrel lid to see if the fumes traveled through her and out her mouth). They certainly didn't say 'this wasn't God's law. Must be just things the Israelites did at the time.'

It wasn't my intention to come across as condescending, It's just you're new on the site and I thought I'd let you know that you don't have to be perfect.

And tell me why, if it's supposed to be Law, is it not practiced anymore and is not included in the Mitzvot?

 

[Robert.Evans]

The Earth is not fixed or flat.

The land is.

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

nope

 

[Robert.Evans]

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.

If you think it is easy then you don't understand it. There are many levels of understanding that can be gained from it, not least the way they understood it in their time period.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Where does it say that rabbits chew their cud?

Putting aside that it doesn't say rabbit, do you think that "chewing the cud" might actually mean just lifting the head to chew? I doubt they really understood what chewing the cud was then as we understand it now. It would make more sense.
The difference might be between a cow, that lifts grass, chews and then starts again. a pig tends to leave its head down and keep eating, a sign of greed perhaps.

 

[Tumah]

Actually we have a lot of ancient Hebrew sources that tell us a child three years and one day old could be married through intercourse.

*

I already pointed out that the verse is referring to a girl under the minimum age of her study.

 

[Tumah]

Putting aside that it doesn't say rabbit, do you think that "chewing the cud" might actually mean just lifting the head to chew? I doubt they really understood what chewing the cud was then as we understand it now. It would make more sense.
The difference might be between a cow, that lifts grass, chews and then starts again. a pig tends to leave its head down and keep eating, a sign of greed perhaps.

Maybe ארנבת is not a rabbit. Why does it have to be the book that's making the mistake and not the translator?

 

[fantome profane]

And again... although you have no proof that it isn't true, it doesn't matter if its true or not.

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:

But finding blood on the sheet is a strong indicator that she was a virgin.

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?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Is the emphasis textual or is the emphasis based on the attention people are giving to the limited textual resources?

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?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nice slight of hand.

What?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is a revolting practice, but when one considers all the other dastardly, and outright heinous things god did it doesn't come as any surprise. It's almost as if god hates people---concocting absurd reasons to make them suffer. That people can turn a blind eye to these abominations and instead venerate such a god is beyond reason. My reason anyway.

We're in agreement on that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Maybe ארנבת is not a rabbit. Why does it have to be the book that's making the mistake and not the translator?

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

 

[allright]

The whole issue in this passage is the husbands wants his money back not getting a divorce Deuteronomy 24:1 gives him the right to just hand her a bill of divorce.
It says the parents are to bring evidences (plural) of her virginity. Also the parents and daughter would certainly have taken the precaution of telling the husband before hand of any physical reasons why she might not bleed on the first night before witnesses knowing the cloths importance as evidence of her virginity and that her life was at stake. They also would had made sure they had other proof of her virginity and would have made sure the husband was informed of everything in front of witnesses before the marriage, probably putting it in writing
Also God is very good at exposing liars

 

[fantome profane]

The whole issue in this passage is the husbands wants his money back not getting a divorce Deuteronomy 24:1 gives him the right to just hand her a bill of divorce.
It says the parents are to bring evidences (plural) of her virginity. Also the parents and daughter would certainly have taken the precaution of telling the husband before hand of any physical reasons why she might not bleed on the first night before witnesses knowing the cloths importance as evidence of her virginity and that her life was at stake. They also would had made sure they had other proof of her virginity and would have made sure the husband was informed of everything in front of witnesses before the marriage, probably putting it in writing
Also God is very good at exposing liars

What? How in the world would any parent know whether or not their daughter would bleed? There is no possible way that they could know that. This is what people don't understand. I know this myth is deeply ingrained, but it is a myth. There is no such thing as "proof of virginity".

 

[Skwim]

Maybe ארנבת is not a rabbit. Why does it have to be the book that's making the mistake and not the translator?

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?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

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.