jess

actually, one additional point, speaking as an infertile person.

the ancient Jews had a good grasp on female fertility--- the custom of the mikvah (when the wife was 'impure' until she took the ritual bath 7 days after her period ended, and then was allowed to have sex) actually ensure fertilization of the average cycled woman. it is about 14 days into the 28 day 'typical' cycle, right when ovulation 'should' be taking place.

not sure how/if this applies, but it does add to the 'how would the husband know' bit.

Bumble Bee Tuna

Evangelion: Why are you here? You don't intend to answer the question. You can say that the question doesn't pose a problem for your theology. Great. It doesn't pose a problem to ours, either. What the thread is asking for is a fundy's interpretation.

And why does the goal of the thread matter? Christians evangelize. We try to come up with ways to fight back. Where is the problem? Why are you derailing this thread?

-B

diana

I'm not sure I understand, jess. Would you please expound on this point?

Thanks.

d

diana

(This is from the New English Translation footnotes that jess quoted from Evangelion's link.)

Intriguing read. I missed it the first time through. My apologies.

This footnote would be false, since one of the provisions of the passage is that this is what a man does with a woman he suspects of adultery. This is not the same as "bearing false witness," in which the guilty party says he saw something when he didn't.

d

jess

diana: just that there is speculation that the ancient jews seemed to have a good grasp on female fertility, and that the rule of the mikvah was designed to ensure the procreation of the race.

in that case, a man who did not sleep with his wife after the mikvah (when she was most fertile) and yet she became pregnant, may have good cause to assume that someone had slept with her.

that make sense?

diana

Yup. Thanks!

d

Echo

Evangelion,

What is your opinion on that? Do you think the idea and instructions for this ritual really came from God, or was the ritual developed by humans and attributed to God to give it the blessing of divine authority? Or perhaps another explanation?

Tell me what you think about it.

brighid

I see absolutely nothing about your claim that demonstrated any objectively as evidenced by: a)you are absolutely clear "knowledges" as to the actual intentions of the poster (seeing you, as a mortal, fallable human being lack omniscience) b)you repeated and UNPROVEN claims that the poster has an "atheist agenda" c)your failure to detail just was "atheist behavior" is d)your accusations of bigotry, et al. c)your refusal to answer the MANY questions posted to you d)the valid and "mature" responses given by other atheists (particularly diana) that you claim have not taken place e) quoting the detailed intentions of the poster out of context f)and continually repeating the Jewish question mantra when it has been asked and answered, as well as the reasons why on a discussion board where you admit no Jews seem to frequent the OP restricted it's questions (rightfully so) to a certain segment of Christians!

So would you care to illuminate us as to where you actually interjected an ounce of objectivity? Perhaps you need to reacquaint yourself with the definition of objectivity.

But if not for your own behavior NO ONE would have accused you of anything for there would be no reason. You interjected your own agenda and clearly your own prejudices while hypocritically claiming the atheist lack of objectivity, prejudice, etc. Acquaint yourself with the concept of personal responsibility and understand that it was your actions and your questions that were challenged upon their own merits, nothing more and nothing less.

Attempting to deflect the responsibility of Christianity to answer how their God could accept the use of magic, curse, poison and the very painful punishment of a woman for nothing more then being suspected of adultery (no proof is actually needed according to Scripture), and the failure to set an relatively equal punishment for an adulterous man seems entirely unconscionable, cruel, and utterly immoral. Therefore it is the Christian, within the context of this thread and on this board (that Jews don't frequent) that they must reconcile their believe in a perfectly moral, just, loving and compassionate God with this and many other passages.

Is it not misogynistic to demand a woman prove her innocence while not making an equal demand on a man? Isn't it cruel and immoral to concoct a poisonous potion a woman must drink to test her fidelity to her husband? Isn't it against the edicts of other OT passages against the use of sorcery, cursing and magic specifically passages calling for the death of "witches"? Or is that business restricted to women and punishment only for them as regularly found in other Christian dogmas and actions through out history?

Why is it that Christians no longer follow this test for adultery? Would you call for such actions and ritual to be given to suspected adulterous women in your community? Should this sort of action be taken against your daughter, mother, friend, etc. in your Christian community, as directed by the God who fathered your savior?

The passage in question is misogynistic and I have little confidence that if something similar were posed from an Islamic Holy Text that the vast majority of the Christian community (liberal and otherwise) would denounce it for the cruel and immoral piece of tripe that it is. This divinely inspired and sanctioned torture of women (and the destruction of any fetus) by the God of your Bible is not much different then similar punishments in Islamic Shariah law such as found in Afghanistan and Nigeria.

Why is it that this sort of torture is explained away in Christian scripture? Why do you detract from the actual issue by focusing on completely irrelevant factors (take a look at our library and what logical fallacy(s) you are employing with your modus operandi) and actually, as a Christian reconcile our questions for us from a more liberal point of view?

Brighid

brighid

Diana,

Thank you for the link to Numbers 5. I am going to have to bookmark that site. Amazing how different the Jewish translation of that passage is. It doesn't seem to be sugar coated, or translated in a way to make it seem less vile then it really is.

Brighid

diana

You're welcome. Here's another Jewish version (circa 1917): <a href="http://www.hareidi.org/bible/Numbers5.htm#5" target="_blank">JPS</a>. It is sugar-coated.

What I was looking for an have been unable to find was a Rabbinic discourse on the passage. Can anyone help me out here?

Thanks.

d