OT: Deuteronomy 22 and Virgins

Casey · 12-21-2004, 11:21 AM

What is the standard that says which laws we accept or reject? If we reject a law such as this:

Deuteronomy 22

if any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: 15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Then is God still inerrant? This law sounds like it was written by a middle eastern man...

a big problem i have with this passage is that what its saying is that if a woman does not bleed during the first act of intercourse, as evidenced by a bloodied sheet, she is not a virgin and is sentenced to death by stoning. doesn't God, of all beings know that not all virgins bleed their first times?

Case

Casey · 12-22-2004, 11:47 AM

*bump*
Anyone?

**Epaphras** · 12-22-2004, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casey

a big problem i have with this passage is that what its saying is that if a woman does not bleed during the first act of intercourse, as evidenced by a bloodied sheet, she is not a virgin and is sentenced to death by stoning. doesn't God, of all beings know that not all virgins bleed their first times?

Case

Maybe girls were less active back then and that thing (I forgot what it's called) wouldn't rip until their first time, unlike today where it happens from being involved in sports and being more active in general? Just speculating...I'm certainly no expert on ______l bleeding...

Maybe you should talk to a gynecologist?

Soli Deo gloria,
Sean

la_meteo · 12-22-2004, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epaphras

Maybe girls were less active back then and that thing (I forgot what it's called) wouldn't rip until their first time, unlike today where it happens from being involved in sports and being more active in general? Just speculating...I'm certainly no expert on ______l bleeding...

Maybe you should talk to a gynecologist?

Soli Deo gloria,
Sean

Some women are born without hymens, and other's are perforated in a way that would not facilitate bleeding during intercourse.

Edit by Athanasius: I am removing the links as they get a bit graphic for our younger viewers.

Casey · 12-22-2004, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Just speculating...

Quite a bit of speculation at that.

Still waiting for a response. This is a pretty important issue for me, so I'm not going to let this become Theology: page 2 material.

Case

Edit: there was nothing at all graphic on the Discovery Channel site, and with a mods permission I'd like to repost it.

Dr. Worm · 12-22-2004, 01:04 PM

What specifically about this issue is so important to you? The standard for which we consider OT laws to be binding today, or whether or not all women bleed their first time?

sgary · 12-22-2004, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casey

*bump*
Anyone?

I think you are confusing: laws, statutes, and ordinances.

Casey · 12-22-2004, 01:18 PM

The thing that is important to me is that in my mind I can not see this as an actual God-Given law. It comes across to me that a man wrote it. There are parallels of this law in all sorts of middle eastern countries... it really augments the thing in my head screaming that a middle-eastern man wrote this criterion. And if an un-inspired man wrote this law, what other laws stating that they are given by the LORD, are really just some obdurate man's rant?

If I can not accept this very specific verse as being the truth of the all-loving and all-knowing God, then I have an extreme faith-crisis.

Quote:

The standard for which we consider OT laws to be binding today, or whether or not all women bleed their first time?

Both. Firstly, I don't see what part of Christ's death fulfilled this law, but I am willing to be enlightened.

Second, it is a fact that not all women bleed their first time. God, himself being God, should know this. Why would he prescribe a death sentence even for those who didn't bleed their first time?

Case

Casey · 12-22-2004, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgary

I think you are confusing: laws, statutes, and ordinances.

What do you mean here? What's important about the difference?

Case

Dr. Worm · 12-22-2004, 01:44 PM

As to your first objection, that you do not believe this to be a God-given law. Your basis for this claim is that you feel like it was written by a middle-eastern man and was not God-inspired. You say that if you cannot accept this verse as being from God, then you have an extreme faith-crisis. But on what authority do you judge God's word in the first place? If you are to judge God's word, you must appeal to an authority higher than God. In this case, you have appealed to your feelings, setting them as more authoritative than God Himself. In doing so you fallaciously assume that man has the right and ability to reason autonomously from God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casey

Both. Firstly, I don't see what part of Christ's death fulfilled this law, but I am willing to be enlightened.

I am admittedly not familiar enough with theonomy to answer this, I am still unsure as to how far OT law applies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casey

Second, it is a fact that not all women bleed their first time. God, himself being God, should know this. Why would he prescribe a death sentence even for those who didn't bleed their first time?

God is the absolute standard for justice, apart from Him we have no basis other than our own subjective feelings for judging between what is just and what is not. Which is to say, to determine the justice of anything, we must first assume God's absolute justice. On what other standard can we presume to judge God's law?

We also believe that God is omnipotent. Do all women bleed their first time? No. Did every Hebrew woman under that law bleed their first time? This is certainly not something too big for an all-powerful God to control. I am not necessarily saying that God sovereignly caused all Hebrew women to bleed their first time, though I would have no problem with believing it. I am saying that the only way this could be taken as a compromise of God's justice is if you first assumed that God was not just.

**Epaphras** · 12-22-2004, 02:00 PM

I suggest viewing this passage in light of New Testament teaching. That's all I can offer for now.

Soli Deo gloria,
Sean

sgary · 12-22-2004, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casey

What do you mean here? What's important about the difference?

Case

Well..the statutes & ordinances are no longer in play, see Col.2.14

What you are talking about (I think) is a ordinance.

Mathijs · 12-22-2004, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epaphras

Maybe girls were less active back then and that thing (I forgot what it's called) wouldn't rip until their first time, unlike today where it happens from being involved in sports and being more active in general? Just speculating...I'm certainly no expert on ______l bleeding...

Maybe you should talk to a gynecologist?

Soli Deo gloria,
Sean

well, that is what I heard about it. nor am I an expert on it, but as far as I know thats as close to the thruth I can get. also the use of tampons causes this.

Casey · 12-22-2004, 11:19 PM

Quote:

As to your first objection, that you do not believe this to be a God-given law. Your basis for this claim is that you feel like it was written by a middle-eastern man and was not God-inspired. You say that if you cannot accept this verse as being from God, then you have an extreme faith-crisis. But on what authority do you judge God's word in the first place? If you are to judge God's word, you must appeal to an authority higher than God. In this case, you have appealed to your feelings, setting them as more authoritative than God Himself. In doing so you fallaciously assume that man has the right and ability to reason autonomously from God.

The reason I don't feel that this is a God-given law is that it screams ignorance, and the God I believe in is omniscient, right?

Can you really not read this passage and see that?

Quote:

God is the absolute standard for justice, apart from Him we have no basis other than our own subjective feelings for judging between what is just and what is not. Which is to say, to determine the justice of anything, we must first assume God's absolute justice. On what other standard can we presume to judge God's law?

Why do I all of a sudden feel extremely uneasy about the Bible being the only authority we have? Are you saying that in essence, we Believe God's words are infallible and just because the Bible says so, and we trust the Bible because God says so? It sounds like my faith rests on one big assumption... the more I think about it, the more I feel a bit disgusted.

Quote:

We also believe that God is omnipotent. Do all women bleed their first time? No. Did every Hebrew woman under that law bleed their first time? This is certainly not something too big for an all-powerful God to control. I am not necessarily saying that God sovereignly caused all Hebrew women to bleed their first time, though I would have no problem with believing it.

Yea that's nice to think about, isn't it? but we can't really rely on that speculation as anything substantial as far as debating this thing in question.

Quote:

Well..the statutes & ordinances are no longer in play, see Col.2.14

What you are talking about (I think) is a ordinance.

Interesting. I'd like to hear more on this, but it still doesn't erase the big problem for me, which is that God prescribed this law.

Quote:

also the use of tampons causes this.

those links that were removed described in depth (read by some: graphically) described the causes.

Case

Mathijs · 12-23-2004, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casey

Why do I all of a sudden feel extremely uneasy about the Bible being the only authority we have? Are you saying that in essence, we Believe God's words are infallible and just because the Bible says so, and we trust the Bible because God says so? It sounds like my faith rests on one big assumption... the more I think about it, the more I feel a bit disgusted.

look now, I hope this is what you belive. see hebrews 11:1 Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen. (web)
what other base do you see for beliving the Bible to be true, or trust God?
it is through faith and you are confirmed by what you feel/see/experience/whatever from God, things that tell you: see, its true! He does excist!
"Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason once accepted, despite your changing moods."
-- C.S. Lewis