The hymen doesn't work that way, bible.

[Skwim]

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.

Altogether different than what? Are you saying you don't recognize my linked source, Chabad.org, as presenting valid Hebrew? Or is it that their translation is in error? If so, take it up with them. I'm sure they'd appreciate being set straight.

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

Maybe I've made a mistake, so just that I'm clear here, are you saying that one of thee qualifying characteristics of all edible animals is that they must have cloven hooves. Is this correct?

That's not a flaw in my link.

Sure it is, and denying it wont make it go away.

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".

Purchase it yourself and look it up. I don't care whether or not other Jewish sources may have other translations for the word than just "rabbit." The point here is that your source is wrong. Rabbits, coneys, hyraxes, and "rock badgers" don't chew cud. Period!

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Yes and I'm wondering why the emphasis on female virginity and why not being a virgin at the time of marriage is punishable by death.

 

[rosends]

Yes and I'm wondering why the emphasis on female virginity and why not being a virgin at the time of marriage is punishable by death.

Virginity isn't punishable by death. Adultery is. The case involves adultery committed after kiddushin but before nesuin (the two stages of marriage). You should check the talmud, tractate Ketubot, page 44b if you want to learn more about the case. Page 46a, there also says that they don't actually spread a cloth out as proof.

A woman who isn't a virgin can certainly be married and isn't punished for it.

 

[Tumah]

Altogether different than what? Are you saying you don't recognize my linked source, Chabad.org, as presenting valid Hebrew? Or is it that their translation is in error? If so, take it up with them. I'm sure they'd appreciate being set straight.

I'm sure they are already quite familiar with the issue and are just relying on one of the standard commentaries translation. But as the site I linked said, other commentaries present other translations of the word.

Maybe I've made a mistake, so just that I'm clear here, are you saying that one of thee qualifying characteristics of all edible animals is that they must have cloven hooves. Is this correct?

They must both have split hooves and chew their cud in order to be kosher. So yes, split hooves is one of the signs the animal must have.

Sure it is, and denying it wont make it go away.

Purchase it yourself and look it up. I don't care whether or not other Jewish sources may have other translations for the word than just "rabbit." The point here is that your source is wrong. Rabbits, coneys, hyraxes, and "rock badgers" don't chew cud. Period!

The reason I brought my source, is to show you that there are other translations for the word in question. Remember when you were insisting that "rabbit" is the only correct translation? The link shows you that there are other translators within Jewish sources for the translations of the word. So they may also be wrong about what the word is referring to. I'm ok with that. The point is that there is more than one attempted identification of the word and there is no conclusive proof that the word ארנבת means rabbit. Which brings us back to my original point, maybe the translators got it wrong, not the Author.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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

I think they would have noticed that

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.

I can only repeat that is it not.

 

[Skwim]

I'm sure they are already quite familiar with the issue and are just relying on one of the standard commentaries translation. But as the site I linked said, other commentaries present other translations of the word.

So no one knows for sure what the author meant.

They must both have split hooves and chew their cud in order to be kosher. So yes, split hooves is one of the signs the animal must have.

Ah ha. Thank you. But it does make one wonder why god bothered mentioning cud chewing at all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Virginity isn't punishable by death. Adultery is. The case involves adultery committed after kiddushin but before nesuin (the two stages of marriage). You should check the talmud, tractate Ketubot, page 44b if you want to learn more about the case. Page 46a, there also says that they don't actually spread a cloth out as proof.

A woman who isn't a virgin can certainly be married and isn't punished for it.

Then why are we even discussing the OP? Did someone just make it up??

 

[rosends]

Then why are we even discussing the OP? Did someone just make it up??

I didn't respond to the OP because it takes scientific issue with a literal reading of the text which is not how the text is meant to be understood.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I didn't respond to the OP because it takes scientific issue with a literal reading of the text which is not how the text is meant to be understood.

So it's meant to be understood in the specific way that you've interpreted it? It doesn't say what it says?

 

[rosends]

So it's meant to be understood in the specific way that you've interpreted it? It doesn't say what it says?

Me? No, the oral law which, according to Jewish tradition, was given at the same time, so it was ALWAYS understood that way. So it says what it says, as long as you read ALL of it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Me? No, the oral law which, according to Jewish tradition, was given at the same time, so it was ALWAYS understood that way. So it says what it says, as long as you read ALL of it.

Maybe you should respond to the OP then.

I'm reading the words it says.

 

[rosends]

Maybe you should respond to the OP then.

I'm reading the words it says.

I understand that that is what you and the OP are doing. But 8 pages in, it seems silly to point out that theologically, the OP's argument is a non-starter.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I understand that that is what you and the OP are doing. But 8 pages in, it seems silly to point out that theologically, the OP's argument is a non-starter.

Okay, well I'm going to continue to talk about the words in the OP.

 

[rosends]

Okay, well I'm going to continue to talk about the words in the OP.

that's fine. If you want to discuss the words (even in translation) in the vacuum of the literal words, there are loads to look at textually which won't make sense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

that's fine. If you want to discuss the words (even in translation) in the vacuum of the literal words, there are loads to look at textually which won't make sense.

You just told me you think, "it seems silly to point out that theologically, the OP's argument is a non-starter." Which I took to mean that you aren't interested in discussing the words in the OP.

 

[rosends]

You just told me you think, "it seems silly to point out that theologically, the OP's argument is a non-starter." Which I took to mean that you aren't interested in discussing the words in the OP.

Right. I'm just pointing out that if that is the direction, there are plenty of other examples to fasten on.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Right. I'm just pointing out that if that is the direction, there are plenty of other examples to fasten on.

This thread is about this one.

 

[rosends]

This thread is about this one.

among others. cf arnevet.

 

[Robert.Evans]

So no one knows for sure what the author meant.

Ah ha. Thank you. But it does make one wonder why god bothered mentioning cud chewing at all.

It's not about chewing cud

 

[allright]

These verses are talking about the actions parents can take if a husband is slandering their daughter Verse 34 "brings a bad name on her"
verse 15 the parents bring charges against him before the elders
A trial is held
Deuteronomy 19: 15-21"The husband would have to prove she is an adulteress by providing two or three witnesses who if they were found to be lying would be put to death" "one witness shall not arise against any man concerning any iniquity or offense he commits"
Jesus speaking to the woman caught in adultery "Where are you accusers? (plural)
They even accused Jesus of giving testimony about himself and saying his testimony was invalid without witnesses