Eudaimonist

God's ways are mysterious and above ours. Our limited rational minds can't comprehend how the hymen test is an infallible way of determining virginity.

There's a rationalization for you.

BTW, that's a great example of the fallibility of the Bible. I'll have to remember it.

Jeremy Pallant

Ah. Thank you for completing the picture.

I wonder if mixed ancestory is sufficient to disqualify someone as well? Can you imagine the records they would have to keep to ensure that the descendents of bastards were kept out?

The obligatory dick check would have made going to church an...interesting experience.

Carrie

Descendents of Moabites were not supposed to enter the assembly of the Lord, but Kind David had Moabite blood!

I think his grandma was Ruth, who married Boaz. (I'm going from memory since I'm too lazy to bust out the Bible right now). Anyway, Ruth was a Moabite.

Unless it doesn't count if the "dirty blood" is through the mother's side. And no, David was not past the 10th generation mark.

So since David had Moabite blood, so did Jesus (assuming he descended from David.

So David and Jesus shouldn't have been entering the assembly of the Lord, those sinful bastards!

Jeremy Pallant

There's enough meat in that topic for a whole new thread.

Asha'man

The ancient Jews had no knowledge of the human egg. They understood that the man provided "seed," but the woman provided nothing but a place for it to grow.

Therefore, there was no such concept as inheritance from the female bloodline. That is also why all Jewish genealogies only trace the male line.

doc58

I guess that effectively shoots down the apologetic reach looking for a solution to an obvious inconsistency that Matthews geneology was of Joseph and Lukes was of Mary.

>The ancient Jews had no knowledge of the human egg. <

But surely an omniscient God would know and be able to instruct his inspired writers of such.

Asha'man

Yea, those apologetics really suck wind. I'll also point out that Luke doesn't even mention Mary's name, it goes directly from Jesus to Joseph to Eli. So even if it was Mary's genealogy, the text is still incorrect.

Enai

But-isn't the traditional definition of a "real Jew" a person who was born to a jewish mother? So, David's mother wasn't a jew and him neither? Now I'm confused.

ajm51987

Man these people were twisted

Christian

Carrie,

That's not what the passage says at all. The "proof" was the bed sheets from the couples first night together. In ancient Jewish weddings the groom built a wedding chamber off of his Dad's house, and after the ceremony the best man waited outside for the bloody sheets as proof of virginity. Then everyone partied for 7 days while the happy couple was honeymooning in the wedding chamber. Then the couple emerged and the wedding feast began. Here is a link describing ancient Jewish weddings. From that page:

These blood stained bed sheets ("proof" of virginity) is something that any proud father of that day would saved. Even more so after this particular law was given.

The situation addressed is that husband later tries to divorce her and ruin her good name. If he was sucessful she would return to her parents (if they would take her) and live in shame the rest of her days. This law protects her against that. The parents could take the bed sheets from the wedding (which they would have kept anyway) and defend her reputation and her future livelihood.

Keep in mind that it's not as if every woman had to prove her virginity or face the consequences. This law addresses a very specific situation, and the "proof of virginity" is something her parents would have kept anyway. The situation this law addresses was a rare one. No sexual contact between the father and the accused woman is implied here. The vast majority of women do bleed the first time, and in ancient Israel the vast majority of parents who gave their virgin daughters in marriage would have kept the bloody sheets as proof of her purity.

Yes, this was a good and righteous law. It was very much a good thing to allow for the defense of Jewish women whose husbands were trying to ditch them and ruin her (and her family's) reputation in the process.

It is true that a small number of women do no bleed the first time, or have broken their hymen in some nonsexual activity. It's also true that some girls are molested. The parents of this small group of women would not be able to use this law to defend them if their husbands accused them of sexual impurity.

But just because this defense is not available to everyone is no reason to deny this defense to the vast majority of Jewish women who married as virgins.

This was a morally good law. It's really a "women's rights" law when you get down to it.

Hope that helps.

Respectfully,

Christian