|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2021 14:11:59 GMT -5
Jn
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2021 14:12:08 GMT -5
Hn
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2021 14:12:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2021 14:12:27 GMT -5
Jn
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2021 14:13:13 GMT -5
Km
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2021 14:13:20 GMT -5
[/u] [li]Fornication [Seduction of a Virgin] Ex 22: 16-17; Deut 22:23-24[/li] [li]Non-virginity Accusations [Deut 22:13-21][/li] [li] Rape [ Deut 22:25-29][/li] [li]Temple Prostitution [ Deut 23:17][/li] [/ul]
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2021 14:17:21 GMT -5
The whole point of a trial of any kind is to establish guilt or innocence so obviously both innocent and guilty are subjected to trials. Having a process by which someone can publicly defend oneself against false accusations and clear ones name is highly positive although the accusation is not. In a historical context when men could simply kill their wives and daughters on unfounded suspicions without any legal protection for women, this law shines out heads and shoulders above others of its time.# What was the Jeaslousy curse?This law about jealousy is recorded at Numbers 5:12-31. If a man suspected his wife of unfaithfulness he was to bring her to the priest. The priest made her stand before Jehovah, took some holy water or pure, fresh water, sprinkled into it some dust from the tabernacle floor, and washed or wiped into it the cursings he had written down. The priest will then make the woman unbraid her hair, swear an oath before God that she was innocent and drink the water. After swearing her innocence and drinking some water, she could go home. There was actually nothing in the water that was drunk that could possibly cause the woman any physical harm most water at the time would contain some dust (not dirt) and the traces of ink (which was usually made from organic materials) would not have any physical repurccussions. Unbraiding ones hair doesn't actually cause any pain or physical discomfort. Clearly then the whole process was highly ritualistic. The water was considered "holy" as it was that used by the priests in temple worship and the writing of the cursings washed off in it represented potent symbolism. That it was drunk before Jehovah (God) and with a solemn oath to Him, indicated that the judgement would be left to God since he alone knew whether the woman was innocent or guilty. If she was guilty Almighty God would cause the drink to have miraculous potency to produce the deserved result (lack of fertility). If she later conceived a child she was considered innocent by the community and the child's parentage was not to be questioned. QUESTION: What, if any, are the positive aspects having the legal provision for such a Jealousy ritual?This public ritual had many positive aspects. Firstly it protected an innocent woman from being publicly humiliated without grounds by a suspicious husband. Having her name cleared in front of the community and divinely appointed authorities, meant she and any children she might later bear would not have their heritage called into question. It also acted as a restraint for husbands tempted to accuse their wives of infidelity on trivial grounds. Since the Israelites believed firmly in divine intervention, swearing before God was not taken lightly, and seeing his wife swear before God that she was above reproach would likely appease a more reasonable man. Finally, for a deeply religious nation that definitely believed in miracles, the existence of this ritual discouraged immorality on a national basis, which again would be beneficial to any children whose paternity might have otherwise been questioned. CONCLUSION: The law was entirely positive as it gave innocent woman a means of clearing her name from groundless accusations, protecting any offspring born to her and acted as a restraint for jealous husbands whose accusations would be seen as false in the absence of a miracle* (see note below). In a deeply religious society it discouraged adultery, even if the adulterous act could be concealed. NOTE: *There was actually nothing in the water that was drunk that could physically harm the woman and the process should not be confused with any " trial by ordeal" as practiced during the Dark Ages. Those torturous trials had power in themselves to injure seriously or kill. Whereas the law about jealousy required a miracle to bring about the punishment, (which wasn't death but childlessness); the trials by ordeal during the Dark Ages required a miracle to deliver the woman from punishment. # Why were men suspected of adultery not subject to the same process?It's true that if a wife suspected her husband of infidelity she did not have recall to such a public cursing but logically while a husband can question the paternity of any child BORN in his household, there can be no doubt about the maternity of a child born to a woman. In short, such jealousy trial puts on public record any question of paternity and existed to protect the most vulnerable in the relationship (the woman and her children). In any case, since the process essentially amounted to an appeal to Divine justice, there was nothing to stop a woman suspicious her husband guilty of adultery appealing directly to the Almighty to judge matters nor any reason to believe God would not hear and judge the husband accordingly (see Gen 38:9). The laws for proven adultery were the same for both men and women.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2021 14:18:04 GMT -5
QUESTION: Does the bible command that all pregnancies from adultery must be aborted (Numbers 5:20-28)?
ANSWER: No. Numbers 5 reads as following: Firstly it should be noted that the said "swelling" and "falling away" is not presented as a result of any sexual encounter but as a RESULT of the drinking of the prepared "holy water". (In other words the text says she drinks the water and THEN her belly swells, not her belly swells (as a result of sexual intercourse) and THEN she drinks the water) So the above procedure is not that of a woman already showing signs of pregnancy.
QUESTION: What then is the meaning of the "falling away" of her "thigh"?
In the bible the "thigh" is often used as a euphemism for the reproductive organs. For example, refering to Jacobs children Genesis 46:26 speaks of those "which came out of his loins" (ERV) literally his "thigh" ("issue out of the upper thigh" AKJV - compare Ex 1:5; Jg 8:30). So evidently, this "curse" refers NOT to the abortion of an unborn child conceived in adultery but to the "waste away" (CB), “shrink” (Da) or “shrivel” (Mo) of an adulteresses reproductive organs perhaps suggesting loss of fertility.
That the adulteress is not being cursed with an forced abortion is evident by how the effects are contrasted for an innocent woman falsely accursed, we read "However, if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free from such punishment, and she will be able to conceive and produce offspring." (Num 5:28). Logically if the provision was made for women that had alread conceived, then the final clause would be redundant. In any case, while there is a possibility the jealousy trial was initiated by a suspicous pregnancy, the contents of the water would in no way have induced a spontaneous abortion.
QUESTION Would the water contain abortifacient elements such as pomegranate seeds or siliphium ? No, the mosaic law strictly prohibited the use of poisonous concuccsions (see Deut 29:18) presumably because of their links with witchcrraft. While it is conceivable that minute traces of pomagranate seeds might have been found on the temple floor, pomegranates were not a regular feature in temple sacrifice and there certainly could not have been enough to induce an abortion.
QUESTION: Does the fact that men suspected of adultery were not subject to the same process indicate that it was in fact an abortive process?
No. It's true that if a wife suspected her husband of infidelity she did not have recall to such a public cursing but logically while a husband can question the paternity of any child BORN in his household, there can be no doubt about the maternity of a child born to a woman. In short, such jealousy trial puts on public record any question of paternity IF the wife were pregnant. Any percieved inequality because a wife could not equally curse a would-be filandering husband with sterility, does not negates the explicit statements in the text in favor of baseless supposition.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 29, 2021 9:11:45 GMT -5
Nn
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 29, 2021 9:11:53 GMT -5
DEUTERONOMY 22:17"and is accusing her of misconduct by saying: “I have found out that your daughter does not have evidence of virginity.” Now this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ They will then spread out the cloth before the elders of the city." NWT "On the wedding night a cloth or garment was used and then kept or given to the wife’s parents so that the marks of the blood of the girl’s virginity would constitute legal protection for her in the event she was later charged with lack of virginity or of having been a prostitute prior to her marriage. Otherwise, she could be stoned to death for having presented herself in marriage as a spotless virgin and for bringing great reproach on her father’s house. (De 22:13-21) This practice of keeping the cloth has continued among some peoples in the Middle East until recent times" - is Vol II p. 342
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 29, 2021 9:55:40 GMT -5
“A man must not have sexual intercourse with an animal to become unclean by it; nor should a woman offer herself to an animal to have intercourse with it. It is a violation of what is natural." - Lev 18:23
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 18, 2021 3:11:06 GMT -5
Ok
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 18, 2021 3:11:24 GMT -5
K'
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 6, 2021 13:24:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 6, 2021 13:24:40 GMT -5
Vv
|
|