Answering Atheists: The Case of the Slandered Bride (Deuteronomy  

Thank-you so much for this one; it is very helpful. Also, thank you for the initial PG warning at the beginning. I believe that this warning should also be given verbally as part of the intro to the teaching, just in case one misses the short blip in the script. Thank-you for all you do!

Matthew 1:19 "Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly" also supports your position.

Interesting 🤓, Thank you for today's teaching.

So we still don't know if the "proof" is reliable. Yet this is God speaking.

See Revelation 14:12 & 18:23,Quit PCR test Please see these verses, i do belive they are important cause cause its very informative for us in todays ages

Unfortunately he forgot to address in any satisfying manner the most critical issue for me, which was the ’what if no blood-stained evidence - real or fake - is ever provided’. Instead of actually acknowledging the moral issue at hand, he says: ”While the evidence of the blood-stained cloth might seem strange to modern readers, such evidence was widely accepted as an indication of virginity in ancient Near Eastern culture and even among some middle Eastern cultures today.” While that is obviously true, it in no way justifies using that as evidence of virginity, since the scientific fact still remains that hymens do not always bleed when they break, and some women have such small amounts of the tissue that it seems like they have no hymen at all. While I can grant that the intention of the law may have been to protect women from slander more than to send them to their early deaths, like the man says, it is still clearly stipulated that if such an allegation is made about the bride, the parents of the bride have to provide to the village court the red-stained bedsheets that have the blood of either the woman’s or, in the case of forgery, of some animal’s. An aspect not acknowledged in the video’s portrayal is that forging the evidence might not be so easy as the presenter makes it out to be, for the man might easily take hold of the bedsheets immediately after the intercourse and thereby preventing tampering with the evidence. At the end of the day, we still have a horrifying law that doesn’t seem to be aware about modern medical facts about how the hymen works, which is indicative of the commandment’s human origins.

Like & share.

The elephantine documents are not divorce certicates, they are marriage contracts. The contracts set out the structure of the relationship and the rights and remedies involved. It should be noted that the contracts are generally symetrical, as between husband and wife. The contracts provide for betrothal divorce with the standing up of the husband or wife in the assembly and announcing that "I hate my wife" or "I hate my husband" with a fee of 7.5 shekels to the initiating party. The term "hate" does not mean "divorce," rather it means "hate" i.e. the feeling of repulsion or disgust. It is only the context of standing up in the assembly that makes the statement refer to divorce. Divorce, during the betrothal period, is not only allowed, it is protected. It need not have any justification or fault, and it carries no damages, other than the aforementioned 7.5 shekels, which is a rather modest sum, perhaps to cover legal costs. \ Subsequent to the wedding, the remedies change. A man may not stand up in the assembly and announce "I hate my wife" after this point, instead he might simply breach the contract by evicting his wife from his "house" i.e. from his life, from their life together. This is deemed "hatred" i.e. the feeling of hatred is legally deemed to be present to make him breach the contract in this way. The contracts provided a liquidated damages clause of 200 shekels for this, which is a very large sum. The wife is still entitled to her property in the marriage, and even to her other rights in the marriage, e.g. she could even get a court order for him to restore her. This clause is not a divorce right held by the husband, it is a liquidated damages remedy for the wife. The reasons there is no divorce certificates recovered from Elephantine could include 1. Divorce was probably not common. The man doesn't get the bride price back so he doesn't do it during the betrothal period even though he is entitled to unless he is really motivated to get rid of her and kiss goodbye to his bride price. is 2. Divorce was oral according to the contract, so it would leave no records. 3. If the divorce was recorded in writing, it would probably be by means of endorsing the marriage contract with the details rather than drawing up a new contract. 4. Divorce was not lawful after the betrothal period had finished and the marriage was ratified and consummated.

It sounds as though the honor killings that we thankfully understand are horrific today were acceptable in the Old Testament. Stoning to death was still an option regardless of lesser penalties. Maybe I missed it, but did the man have to be a virgin too before marriage or could he have slept with five previous women? Was stoning a possible penalty for him too, especially if he lied to his wife about it?

You provide some excellent analysis on a range of points, but you also missed some other important points. "hate" is not to be treated as another word meaning "divorce." "hate" is a feeling, not an action. However, "hate" and "love" are expressed and legally implied by actions. In the marriage contract, as with some other contracts, there is a basic duty to "love" and this love is to be expressed by the appropriate actions. But the appropriate actions are dependent on the circumstances. Actions, however, are easier to prove than feelings. The contract can list these actions, but the list is incomplete and only mentions some of the more important ones. Likewise, actions that breach the contract are "hate" but again, only some of the actions are mentioned in the contract, and the actions of "hate" are also dependent on the circumstances. The remedies for the actions that breach the contract may also be specified in the contract, or they may be left to the courts to determine on a case by case basis, or they may be a matter of policy or law. When a contract describes an action as "hate," therefore, it means "breach" rather than divorce or the termination of the contract. The feeling of "hate" is legally deemed to be present based on the actions in breach of the duties and actions consistent with "love." Divorce may or may not be available or appropriate for a case or a contract, depending on the drafting of the contract and depending on the law and public policy. The Torah provision in this case specifies that divorce is not an available remedy if the man loses his case, but it does not say that divorce is the essence of the man's motivation, or that he already divorced her in Deut 22:13 and this was annulled by the court in 22:19. The essence of the man's conduct in 22:13 is "breach": the man wronged his wife and violated his marriage contract by giving his wife a bad name. Of course, this does not mean he didn't want to divorce her, but that does not make "hate" mean "divorce" itself. The man's misconduct in giving his wife a bad name automatically produces the capital case for the man to prove. That is how the law works. If the man gives his wife a bad name, rather than going quietly to the court, then he becomes liable to prove his capital case against his wife for her "whoring in her father's house." The term "in her father's house" means before the betrothal, as betrothal takes the woman from "her father's house" to "her husband's house" not physically, but legally. She becomes his wife by betrothal, and she becomes part of his "house" by means of the marriage contract, even though the marriage contract is not ratified and not consummated yet. For this reason, when the betrothed woman is divorced, she is sent out of her husband's "house" by mere notice and without proof of any fault or misconduct, Deut. 24:1-4. The men in Deut. 24:1-4 have their reasons for divorcing the woman, but the reason doesn't have to meet any particular standard, and he doesn't have to prove any fault in her to anyone, rather he divorces her by mere notice, and he doesn't get the bride price back (generally). So, having accused his wife and given her a bad name, the man has to prove that she was not a virgin when she was betrothed to her, not simply on the wedding consummation. And that is more difficult to prove, whether to the civil standard of proof, or to the capital standard of proof. If, for example, he was the one who had sexual relations with her before the wedding but after the betrothal, then his virginity claim against her is lost. If he eats at his father in law's house, without other witnesses present, his virginity claim is lost on the reasoning that he might have been the one who took her virginity before the wedding (see Mishnah Ketubot 1:5). If she claims to have been raped during the betrothal period, she is likewise innocent. In any case, it is simply impossible to prove, to the capital standard, that the woman had sexual relations with another man by two eye-witnesses before the betrothal, and the woman in the case simply cannot be put to death under this law. The point of the law is to give the man a case he cannot win, not to give the woman's parents a case that they can only win if they have the bloody sheet. The idea that the woman's parents could fabricate the evidence is not a good idea. The implied custom and scenario is that the wedding consummation takes place in the consummation chamber, and that the cloth is inspected by both the bride's parents and the groom's parents and other witnesses immediately after the wedding consummation. If the cloth is not blood-stained at this time, the bride's parents will not be able to get away with fabricating the claimed evidence later. If such evidence properly exists, the man's claim is deemed to be false for all purposes (and of course the spouses and their parents could conspire to produce the evidence in the consummation chamber to save face, but that is not the same thing as the bride conspiring with her parents to do so to without the consent of the groom). If it does not exist, then he has a capital case if he misconducted himself by giving her a bad name. But, if he does not misconduct himself, and if he raises his case quietly and properly and timely, he might -- just might -- be able to claim for divorce on the basis that he was induced to enter the betrothal by virginity fraud. The Mishnah provides a number of restrictive conditions for such a divorce case: 1. The woman has to be one who is legally deemed to have been a virgin. Widows and divorcees (even if the divorce was before the wedding) are not subject to virginity claims, for example. 2. The woman must be married on Wednesday. 3. The case must be raised on the next day, after consummating his marriage, on Thursday 4. The man must not have been eating at his father in law's house without witnesses between the betrothal and the wedding 5. The woman must not have been (possibly) raped between the betrothal and the wedding 6. The woman's failure to bleed on the wedding consummation must not have been because of some other reason etc. The result is that divorce after the wedding is basically impossible even if she wasn't a virgin and even if she did defraud him. If the woman did not defraud you into the betrothal by virginity fraud that you can prove, the marriage is ratified and "he may not divorce her all of his days." And if she did defraud you into the betrothal by virginity fraud, if you make a wrong move, you have a capital case you never win. And if she did defraud you into the betrothal by virginity fraud, even if you don't make any wrong move, your civil case will fail if you don't get married on the right day, and if you don't raise your case within 1 day of the consummation, and if she might be able to claim some other reason for her non-virginity on the wedding consummation (e.g. her hymen was ruptured by wood and not by a man, or she was raped during the betrothal period). During the betrothal period, however, divorce for adultery or non-virginity is possible, but the man doesn't have to prove it. He doesn't need any reason to divorce his wife, whatever reason sufficient for him to decide is adequate. He doesn't have to prove anything to anyone. He forfeits the bride price, so he needs to be quite motivated, but that is his money and his decision. The bride too can refuse to go ahead with the wedding and tell him she hates him and divorce him, during this time, but perhaps she might have to pay back the bride price.

You need to leave the biblical verses UP LONGER for the slow readers like me😁

how did you choose the 119?

2Cor. 11:2 . . . for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

This was very informative and interesting. So, if I understood correctly. If the woman was not a virgin, and that the "proof" could be fabricated with bird blood, and furthermore there were no witnesses of fornication, then the man had no legal way to divorce. This is actually very much to the advantage of the woman, she would be a liar of course. But terrible for the woman if the man took the evidence and got rid of it, she would then be stoned. But, thinking a little from the man's side now, there were no rules for a man's innocence regarding sex, right? I ask because I do not know.

why do you call the law a curse then defend it? 👑 maybe i’m disgusted. are you condemned for accepting the idol? 📖