Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Deuteronomy

[Antidote]

These are supposedly excerpts, in the Holy Bible, from a speech Moses gave

13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her.' 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives."
If a woman isn't a virgin on her wedding night .. and the accusation is false, then she has to be married for life to her false accuser.

if that's not the case however....

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

then she is to be taken to her fathers doorstep and stoned to death

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

If a woman doesn't scream loud enough whilst she's being raped, she should be stoned to death

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
If a woman gets raped, then she is forced to marry her rapist, as her father gets a paycheck from him.
..
What exactly is your interpretation of this?

And how is your interpretation superior, to that of a century-long tradition by european scholars of the biggest church and christian institution in the history of the world- to interpret these as literal, sacred, homocide-worthy laws? ....

[jimwalton]

First of all, Deuteronomy is casuistic law (case law): hypothetical situations to guide a judge. The writer is giving legal wisdom (not actual cases) so a judge can take the principles and render a decision.

Dt. 22.13-30 is divided into 2 parts: the first involving a false accusation and the second (vv. 20-21) a true accusation. The judge is already being guided. The law involves procedures similar to our modern ones: procuring evidence, a public hearing, calling witnesses, considering intent and motive, and rendering a decision with an appropriate sentence. There is no attempt to defend a guilty women in vv. 20-21; the first section goes to great lengths to protect a woman from false accusation against an abusive husband or trump-up charges.

Vv. 13-19, if a man thinks he can just abuse a woman or toss her aside as he wishes like a piece of trash, he is mistaken. Slander, false accusations, and malicious intent are punishable offenses, and the honor of the woman should be protected in such a case.

The last verse (19), which you mentioned in specific, is actually designed to protect her. You wonder who would want to spend her life with a man who publicly defamed her. Ancient texts, however, need to be read in their culture and understanding their intent. The intent was to rehabilitate the man while protecting the woman. After having been publicly shamed (now everyone in town knows he's a sexual offender), he is forced to take her in, care for her, and assume husbandly responsibilities. The townspeople will be watching him. The woman is now guaranteed financial security. Otherwise, her life was for all intents and purposes over: she would never marry otherwise, never bear children, and be a pauper. The parents get to keep the bride price (plus the fine). The elders and the community will watch over the family to make sure he treats her right.

If the charges are true (vv. 20-21), they are executed. Adultery was a capital crime in the ancient Near East. We are not told why, but it was a widespread cultural practice. We can speculate that adultery was a threat to family life, and therefore the community at large, as well as a complicating factor in inheritances.

> If a woman doesn't scream loud enough whilst she's being raped, she should be stoned to death

You've missed the point completely. It's casuistic law. The idea is that if the woman was complicit, they are both punished, but if she was raped, she is exonerated and the man is executed. That's what's going on here. The ideas of "in the town" and "out in the country" are the verbal mechanisms to show the judge he should find out if she were actually raped or if she was in on this deal and wanted it. If it was actually rape, no punishment should come to her.

[Antidote]

That's an incredibly unintelligent book.

Your interpretation is the most wholesome we can find, with enough mental work.

The worst interpretation is terrible barbarism.

The bible has no comment on which way we should interpret this.

The bible is no help at all.

Some of the most venerated figures in the Christian faith, believed heretics, apostates, witches and Jews should be tortured or killed.

The bible did not help with that at all.

Interpretation determines whether the bible is the worst book we have, or just a moderately bad book.

[jimwalton]

> That's an incredibly unintelligent book.

I obviously disagree. The legal documents of Exodus and Deuteronomy are not to be interpreted as a legal code but as legal wisdom. It deals with a wide variety of legal situations, giving hypothetical examples in a range of life possibilities that would be faced in a town. It makes a list of possible things so as to guide judges on what to consider (evidence, testimony, situation, and motive), how to arrive at a verdict, and a range of sentences so that the punishment fits the crime. There's nothing unintelligent about that.

> The bible has no comment on which way we should interpret this.

Of course it does. It's casuistic law, showing a judge the kinds of situations that might arise, how to gather evidence, listen to testimony, weigh intent, and consider motive, and then it guides him on how to arrive at a verdict and what a fair punishment would be in those kinds of situations. That's how this should be interpreted.

> The bible is no help at all.

Sigh.

> Some of the most venerated figures in the Christian faith, believed heretics, apostates, witches and Jews should be tortured or killed.

Tragic stupidity of previous eras and corrupt practices. Some parts of Christian history are noble and brilliant, other parts are reprehensible and deplorable. It's a characteristic we share with business, education, politics, and jurisprudence, among other disciplines. Every field has successes and regrets.

> Interpretation determines whether the bible is the worst book we have, or just a moderately bad book.

Sigh. It's too bad your bias is so severe that you can't even look at a text objectively. Did you come to the forum to deprecate or to discuss?

[Antidote]

The book may contain the greatest secrets of morality and meaning of the universe, because it has been authored by the creator of the universe.

But reading the bible has nothing to do with the arisal of morality.

Fundamentalist Buddhism gets us Tibetan monks, asceticism and the only timeless wisdom which is candidate for divine authorship.

Fundamentalist Jainism gets us old men watching their step because they don't want to kill ants.

Fundamentalist Christianity gets us "homosexuality is a sin"- get us "jews, apostates and heretics should be killed- because thats what the bible says" gets us "we want to stone women to death" gets us ..

How fun is fundamentalist Christianity? All you have to grant is that, following the bible gives no guarantee of morality. Following Jainism gives us a better case of morality.

The only problem with religious fundamentalism, is the fundamentals of religion...

[jimwalton]

> The book may contain the greatest secrets of morality and meaning of the universe, because it has been authored by the creator of the universe.
> But reading the bible has nothing to do with the arisal of morality.

You're right. The Bible was not written as a moral guide, but to reveal God and His overwhelming desire to have friendship/love relationship with us. Moral teachings a strewn all throughout, but the Bible was not given to teach us morality.

The Bible wasn't started to be written down until about 1300 BC at the earliest possible juncture. Morality is in our hearts and consciences, built into us as humans.

> Fundamentalist Buddhism gets us Tibetan monks, asceticism and the only timeless wisdom which is candidate for divine authorship.

Buddhism is an atheist practice. They don't claim divine authorship or even the existence of a divine being. It's a path to enlightenment, not one to God.

> Fundamentalist Jainism gets us old men watching their step because they don't want to kill ants.

This is true. It is a Christian perspective that ants are part of the circle of life and part of the food chain, but it's not immoral to kill them. We differ from Jainists in this, along with many other, regards.

> Fundamentalist Christianity gets us "homosexuality is a sin"- get us "jews, apostates and heretics should be killed- because thats what the bible says" gets us "we want to stone women to death" gets us ..

Christianity tells us that homosexuality is a sin, but not that Jews, apostates and heretics should be killed. If you claim that's what the Bible says, you need to show it to me.

> How fun is fundamentalist Christianity? All you have to grant is that, following the bible gives no guarantee of morality. Following Jainism gives us a better case of morality.

This doesn't matter. "Fun" isn't the goal. Life the way it was meant to be and a relationship with God are what Christianity is all about. And I find it to be quite fun, actually, as a side note. I have a great time. I love to laugh, play, play sports, watch movies, play music, go places and do things. Life is great fun.

> All you have to grant is that, following the bible gives no guarantee of morality. Following Jainism gives us a better case of morality.

This I disagree with also. Those who truly follow Jesus will be good, moral people. It's one of the inevitable results of being a true Christian. If someone says they are a Christian but they are not a good person, then they are not a Christian, pure and simple.

Following Jainism doesn't give a better case of morality. Any true Christian, just like any Jainist, will be moral and good.

> The only problem with religious fundamentalism, is the fundamentals of religion...

Sounds like a blah blah quote from who knows where. Christianity, in its fundamentals, is beautiful, moral and meaningful. It's the people who claim to follow it but don't that make it look so ugly. But a movement should not be defined by its extremists or its hypocrite, but rather by its founder and its teachings.

[Antidote]

> Buddhism is an atheist practice. They don't claim divine authorship

not less of a candidate, if we really had to compare ideas

> Christianity tells us that homosexuality is a sin, but not that Jews, apostates and heretics should be killed. If you claim that's what the Bible says, you need to show it to me.

St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin. The most venerated figures within the faith.

You can say your interpretation is different from that of Saints-, but we know that it was their interpretation of the bible.

> This doesn't matter. "Fun" isn't the goal. Life the way it was meant to be and a relationship with God are what Christianity is all about. And I find it to be quite fun, actually, as a side note. I have a great time. I love to laugh, play, play sports, watch movies, play music, go places and do things. Life is great fun.

Fun for everyone who is not going to be eternally tortured for not believing in mythology, and the divinity of a 1st century carpenter. "but they dont really go to hell", we are talking fundamental christianity.

> This I disagree with also. Those who truly follow Jesus will be good, moral people. It's one of the inevitable results of being a true Christian. If someone says they are a Christian but they are not a good person, then they are not a Christian, pure and simple.

This is arrogance of interpretation. Your interpretation of the bible might be the most wholesome, that is not the track record of most bible interpreters. You can not elevate your personal interpretation above everyone elses, and especially not those who were hailed as Saints, and could read the books in original greek and hebrew.

> Sounds like a blah blah quote from who knows where. Christianity, in its fundamentals, is beautiful, moral and meaningful. It's the people who claim to follow it but don't that make it look so ugly. But a movement should not be defined by its extremists or its hypocrites, but rather by its founder and its teachings.

Religions are not the same.

When fundamentalists point to scripture, and do something terrible- it is an issue of the fundamentals of religion.

Religion with good fundamentals don't have problems with fundamentalists. Where are the Jainists who shoots up cartoonists in Paris? Where are the Jainists who kills Jews for accusations of torturing crackers (case of medieval christianity)?

[jimwalton]

> St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin. The most venerated figures within the faith.

Yeah, I said "The Bible."

Augustine: Was not a persecutor of Jews. He was suppresionistic but not antisemitic, as far as I know. If you claim otherwise, you must support it. While he may have said some nasty things, he didn't advocate murder or genocide. He also spoke strongly against heretics and defended the faith. If you contend that he advocated killing them, you'll have to prove it.

Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther. Yep. Terrible. Not what the Bible teaches.

John Calvin's views about Jews are highly debated, but he did recommend killing heretics.

Yep. All regrettable and horrible. They were wrong. It's not what the Bible teaches. Again, we cannot judge a philosophy by its abuse. The Bible never teaches that Jews, heretics, or apostates should be killed. Nowhere, never. I go by the Bible.

> Fun for everyone who is not going to be eternally tortured for not believing in mythology

Hell is for those who deny the truth about Christ, not for people who refuse to believe in mythology. And you should know that there is much debate about whether the Bible teaches eternal punishment for all who reject Christ, or only for those who reject Christ eternally. So if you want to seek truth, come to Jesus and be saved, and you won't have to worry about the possibility of hell. Hell is only for those who refuse to come to Jesus, denying the truth.

> Your interpretation of the bible might be the most wholesome, that is not the track record of most bible interpreters.

You can't speak for most interpreters. I'm confident you have not done a quantitative study.

> You can not elevate your personal interpretation above everyone elses, and especially not those who were hailed as Saints, and could read the books in original greek and hebrew.

Augustine, Luther, and Calvin were great Bible commentators. They were obviously wrong about certain things in their lifestyle and in their perception of others. I respect their Bible teachings, but not all of their life choices. I can make a distinction between those two. I also study the texts in the original Hebrew and Greek. And, by the way, we have access to more documents and to more information via archaeology than they ever dreamed of, so we have a larger body of work to guide us in interpretation than they did. We regard the teachings of Luther and Calvin as reputable, but they have been superseded in many cases by the new information available to us that was not available to them. We are able to interpret more accurately and reliably than they were.

> Religions are not the same.

I agree. To sound grand and magnanimous by saying, "I accept all religions" is actually to either violate them all or violate reason, or both. All religions, plainly and simply, cannot be true. Some beliefs are false, and we know them to be false. So it does no good to put a halo on the notion of tolerance as if everything could be equally true. To deem all beliefs equally true is sheer nonsense for the simple reason that to deny that statement would also, then, be true. But if the denial of the statement is also true, then all religions are not true.

The religions actually contradict each other. It's possible that all are wrong, but it's not possible that all are right. if any are right, it has to be one of them and no more. At the heart of every religion is an uncompromising commitment to a particular way of defining who God is or is not and accordingly, of defining life's purpose. Anyone who claims that all religions are the same betrays not only an ignorance of all religions, but also a caricatured view of even the best-known ones. Every religion at its core is exclusive.

We all have a right to proclaim what we believe about ultimate things, but that doesn't mean that everything we believe is right. The thinking person must honestly weigh the evidence and come to the right conclusion.

> When fundamentalists point to scripture, and do something terrible- it is an issue of the fundamentals of religion.

I disagree. When fundamentalists point to scripture and then do something terrible, they are using the religion as a cover for their self-will. The problem is not with the religion but with the religionist.

> Where are the Jainists who shoots up cartoonists in Paris? Where are the Jainists who kills Jews for accusations of torturing crackers (case of medieval christianity)?

I take it you're a Jainist. I have some Jainist friends—WONDERFUL people. Jainism forbids crime, and so does Christianity.

[Antidote]

> you won't have to worry about the possibility of hell

In all probability, we will both be wrong on God's multiple choice test. Is it A) Christianity, B) Judaism, C) Islam. Or the thousands of other dead gods? We both have very similar chances of damnation. I am as unconcerned about christian torture in the afterlife, as we both are islamic torture in the afterlife.
..

> I am not a Jainist, either.

I think you have two problems in your arguments.

You are not willing to acknowledge that people have had terrible interpretations, that are different from yours, that are actual interpretations, and not "covers" for some external motivation.

Or recognize, that perfectly intelligent and sane people do terrible things, believing that the creator of the universe wants them to do it.

That your interpretation of such a vague book says as little about the book, as anyone else's interpretation of it. And probably less about it, than the interpretation of an institution which had more power than any king, and who spent a millennia interpreting it.
To accuse the Saints of dishonesty in their interpretation, adds nothing to the discussion. Can you, Jim, prove that you aren't interpreting the bible dishonestly, that you aren't abusing it? to use it as a cover for modernized western values? No. And it adds nothing to the discussion. Luther can't disprove your accusations either, especially with his critical lack of livingness.

[jimwalton]

> In all probability, we will both be wrong on God's multiple choice test.

I am quite confident that the resurrection of Jesus decided the matter. Nobody but nobody comes back from the dead without something very unusual and supernatural at work. That's the difference between Christianity and a thousand other dead gods. The real one is alive.

It's not a matter of having confidence in one's religion. Confidence is worthless when it comes to assessing truth. Correspondence to reality is what matters, and following the evidence where it leads. On that count I can guarantee—a 100% guarantee that I have no chance of damnation.

> You are not willing to acknowledge that people have had terrible interpretations, that are different from yours, that are actual interpretations, and not "covers" for some external motivation.

Oh, I very much agree with this. I acknowledge that there are many terrible interpretations, both in past history and now proliferating on the Internet. In these conversations I have I know that people are getting their information from the Internet, and it's just crazy wrong. They're way different from mine.

> Or recognize, that perfectly intelligent and sane people do terrible things, believing that the creator of the universe wants them to do it.

I disagree with this. If they do terrible things believing that God or god wants them to do it, then they are not perfectly intelligent or sane. They are certifiably crazy.

> That your interpretation of such a vague book

Your bias is showing again. This book is amazing. It has been studied for millennia and continues to be. Its beneficial influence on culture is immeasurable. The wisdom contained in it is unparalleled.

> Can you prove that you aren't interpreting the bible dishonestly, that you aren't abusing it?

Absolutely. Their practice diverged from the teaching of the text. These are no-brainers.

> to use it as a cover for modernized western values?

Yes I can because we live in a global communication community. We can converge the wisdom of cultures from all over to arrive at valid interpretation.