Women needlessly killed in the bible

Deuteronomy 13:20 uses the myth of women bleeding as proof of virginity. The problem? Women who don't bleed the first time they have sex are to be stoned to death.

http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/2008/12/the-hymen-breaking-the-myths/

1. The hymen can tear prior to having sex, such as through sports or riding a horse
2. Not all women with intact hymens bleed; there are a number of factors that determine whether a virgin female will bleed or not, such as the elasticity of the hymen
3. Some women are born without a hymen, which would make bleeding through a torn hymen impossible

This means that women living during Old Testament laws could be stoned for acts they didn't even commit, such as premarital sex (though having premarital does NOT warrant such barbaric practices).

Simply put, the the Christian god enacted laws that allow ancient men with little understanding of women's bodies, to kill women in a horrific manner, even if those women were innocent of the crimes they were accused of. Keep in mind, that there are ZERO biblical laws punishing men having premarital sex. As long as she's not someone's wife, he can have at it all he wants; just can't rape her, or he'll have to pay a fine.

Originally posted by @vivify
Deuteronomy 13:20 uses the myth of women bleeding as proof of virginity. The problem? Women who don't bleed the first time they have sex are to be stoned to death.

http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/2008/12/the-hymen-breaking-the-myths/

1. The hymen can tear prior to having sex, such as through sports or riding a horse
2. Not all women with intact hy ...[text shortened]... omeone's wife, he can have at it all he wants; just can't rape her, or he'll have to pay a fine.

Difficult cases was anticipated in the theocratic Israel. And for this case there were judges for varying levels of complexity.

"If a case is too complicated for you to judge between one kind of homicide and another or between one kind of civil suit and another, or between one kind of assault and another, bring the disputed cases within your gates, then you shall arise and go up to the plaec which Jehovah your God will choose;

And you shall come to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is presiding in those days and investigate the matter; and they shall declare to you the sentence of judgment.

And you shall do according to the word of the sentence that they declare to you from that place which Jehovah will choose; and you shall be certain to do according to all that they instruct you. " (Deuteronomy 17:8-10)

God made provision for the foreseen fact that some cases would not be that obvious. He had Moses arrange for difficult cases with complicated circumstances. The need for further investigation of complex disputes was anticipated and ordained in that society.

Originally posted by @vivify
Deuteronomy 13:20 uses the myth of women bleeding as proof of virginity. The problem? Women who don't bleed the first time they have sex are to be stoned to death.

http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/2008/12/the-hymen-breaking-the-myths/

1. The hymen can tear prior to having sex, such as through sports or riding a horse
2. Not all women with intact hy ...[text shortened]... omeone's wife, he can have at it all he wants; just can't rape her, or he'll have to pay a fine.

Simply put, the the Christian god enacted laws that allow ancient men with little understanding of women's bodies, to kill women in a horrific manner, even if those women were innocent of the crimes they were accused of. Keep in mind, that there are ZERO biblical laws punishing men having premarital sex. As long as she's not someone's wife, he can have at it all he wants; just can't rape her, or he'll have to pay a fine.

Since you refer to "the Christian God" you must include the New Testament concerning Christ and the Christian church.

Paul warns that both adulterers and fornicators God will judge, not just adulterers.

" ... NEITHER ... fornicators ... nor adulterers ... will inherit the kingdom of God." (See 1 Cor. 6:9)

Does it sound like "the Christian God" gives fornication a pass but only will judge adultery ?

New American Standard Bible
Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge. ( Hebrews 13:4)

Fornicators and adulterers are put on the same level as liable to God's judgment.

Jesus made the lack of self control so serious that a typical man realizes that he can never make it without both forgiveness and the empowering grace of God.

" You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery.

But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman in order to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

So if your right eye stumbles you, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna.

And if your right hand stumbles you, cut it off and case it from you, for it is more profitable that one of your members perish than for your whole body to pass away into Gehenna." (Matt. 5:27-30)

This shows that Christ is saying that the tendency of sexual immorality has to be dealt with seriously at any cost. To correct the outward action alone is too superficial. The inner motive has to be dealt with and with seriousness of the realization of God's hatred for the sinning.

Without the redeeming death of Christ (the Christian God incarnate) there is no hope. The typical man realizes that the whole modern society is designed to stir up his lust for exploitation.

We can be forgiven through Christ's redemption.
We cannot remain the same kind of person and not be dealt with in sanctification.
Sooner or latter the Christian will be transformed by the sanctifying Spirit of Christ before he or she has a life which can practically enter into the coming kingdom of God.

Paul warns that the wrath of God is coming upon the world because of such things.

" For this you realize, knowing that every fornicator or unclean person or greedy person (who is an idolater) has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Let not one deceive you with vain words, for because of THESE THINGS (including fornication aside from adultery) the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience.

Therefore do not be partakers with them." ( Ephesians 4:5-7)

Man must be saved from the guilt of sin.
Man must be saved from the power of sin as well.

Redemption is final and certain to secure eternal life.
Sanctification is not optional, to prepare one to live in the coming age of the kingdom of Christ and of God.

What can be postponed cannot be put off indefinitely.

Copied with permission from Christian Thinktank at http://christianthinktank.com/w2stds.html [My bolding]

Under Submitted question -

"Wasn't there a HUGE double standard in biblical sexual ethics?--weren't women supposed to be 'good', but men didn't have to?"

Glen Miller's reply:

This shows up in a surprisingly large number of sources (WS:AHTO:20ff; WS:AST:15ff; WS:WWR:184; WS:TCP:170ff).
Typically, they point to the Sotah trial (Trial of Jealously, Trial of Bitter Waters), noting that there was no counterpart test for a man's fidelity, or draw attention to the law stipulations about proving a bride's virginity.

The Sotah trial turns out to be a PROTECTION for women(!), not a double standard:

Num 5.12--the trial of bitter waters (Sotah) is a an amazing provision by God for a woman to publicly clear her name (and indict a dysfunctional husband in the process). This is the procedure invoked by a jealous and/or paranoid husband who suspected his wife of infidelity. God gave this law to protect the woman from physical and economic abuse from a capricious and petty husband. In many of the cultures of that day, men had absolute dictatorial rights over their wives. If they suspected adultery, they were allowed to kill the woman without any appeal on her part. There was not a process of justice, or process where they BOTH had to appear before a higher authority. In fact, in the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1720 BC.), CH 132, women who were suspected of this type of infidelity were required to throw themselves into the Euphrates river--if they drown, they were guilty; if not, they were innocent! (Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 171). God would instead provide a public vindication process, before His leaders, his people, and the couple. If the woman was vindicated, the man would bear the stigma of unfounded and paranoid jealousy, and slanderous accusation before his friends/family (with possible legal consequences). Her rights were protected by this very ceremony. This was a very, very advanced pro-women procedure for those times.

By comparison, in the other law codes of that time, ANYONE could accuse her and force her to undergo the River Ordeal(!). So, the Laws of Ur-Nammu, 14 [ca. 2100bc, Ur in Sumer]: "If a man accuses the wife of a young man of promiscuity but the River Ordeal clears her..." (LCMAM:18).

And the proof of virginity is the same thing--a protection (see the syllabus for discussion on this one).
The examples given as evidence for a double-standard are simply too weak to support such a conclusion. On the other hand, we have TONS of passages that support (1) a much greater emphasis on male fidelity and (2) preferential treatment for women in disputes of this nature.

The 10 commandments SINGLE OUT the male (Ex 20.17b)...
in cases of rape, the woman is given the benefit of the doubt (Lev 19.20ff; Deut 22.25-27)...
and is protected from disastrous marriages from those (Ex 22.16)...
in cases of adultery, BOTH parties were killed--a fact noted by authors as being a 'step forward' at that time (Lev 20.10-12)...
the male is CONSISTENTLY singled out for admonition in this area (Lev 18; Deut 27; Jer 5.7; Ezek 18.6; 22.10ff)...
even the case of female war captives was regulated for the male! (Deut 21.11)...
in some cases women were "excused from guilt" because of the guilt of the men! (Hos 4.14ff)...
And remember, this "inequality" AGAINST the male would had to have involved a female--but they do not get 'equal time' in the warnings/admonitions! They are often simply assumed to be more righteous in this area (cf. The "benefit of the doubt" passages above).
Again, the data is simply otherwise--IF there is a double-standard, THEN it is "against" the men!

Originally posted by @vivify

Deuteronomy 13:20 uses the myth of women bleeding as proof of virginity. The problem? Women who don't bleed the first time they have sex are to be stoned to death.

Deuteronomy chapter 13 only has 18 verses.

You could start by getting your expert to reference the correct intended passage.

Originally posted by @sonship

Deuteronomy 13:20 uses the myth of women bleeding as proof of virginity. The problem? Women who don't bleed the first time they have sex are to be stoned to death.

[b]Deuteronomy chapter 13 only has 18 verses.

You could start by getting your expert to reference the correct intended passage.[/b]

It's Deut 22:13-21. It was late when I started this thread, so I screwed up there.

Regarding fornication being wrong for both men and women, the NT was created about 1,400 years after Deuteronomy; the NT wouldn't even become cannon until hundreds of years after it was written. That's a long time to have such a harsh double-standard, isn't it? Christians need to stop justifying OT horrors with "God doesn't do that...anymore."

Lastly, you say the virginity test is a "protection", but that's only if a woman bleeds.
What about a woman who doesn't naturally bleed the first time she has sex? In that case, the test becomes and indictment; and as the bible says, "if no proof can be found", she can be stoned to death, because bleeding is the only test the bible provides.

Originally posted by @vivify

Regarding fornication being wrong for both men and women, the NT was created about 1,400 years after Deuteronomy;

God progressively and gradually revealed Himself and His eternal purpose. God is exceedingly profound. And His unveiled Himself progressively.

Along the way, one item revealed is His hatred for sin.
The Gospel of Luke would make no sense immediately following the book of Genesis or Exodus.

The New Testament following the book of Deuteronomy by many latter centuries is significant to believers. The structure of God's progressive revelation is such that it is important that the books stand upon each other as time progresses.

the NT wouldn't even become cannon until hundreds of years after it was written.

That is right. And it is important to the progressive revelation of a "holistic" or "plenary" entire revelation of God and His eternal purpose.

The account of Jesus convicting a crowd about to stone a woman for adultery in John 8 has such impact because it is built upon previous groundwork showing God's heart.
Just His hatred for sin is not the total picture.

I think you should consider not only Exodus and Deuteronomy but take into account John and Luke too.

And while you are considering the Old Testament, do so more thoroughly. I showed you that there was the anticipation of complicated circumstances which called for wise and God fearing judges to carefully investigate more completely disputes. And we are not even in the New Testament yet.

I consider also the case of Rahab the harlot in Joshua.
I consider her entire household (which likely was a brothel or in the modern vernacular ("a whore house" ). The whole household was saved rather than stoned.

If the writers were aiming at constructing a slanted case against women, this instance would have been an embarressing episode to exclude. Its inclusion says something about a fuller portrait of "the Christian God" (as you wrote).

That's a long time to have such a harsh double-standard, isn't it? Christians need to stop justifying OT horrors with "God doesn't do that...anymore."

I told you that even before you get to the New Testament many centuries latter you still have sane provisions accompanying harsh laws.

I think you have to keep in mind that the law was given to a generation that witnessed the miraculous deliverance from Egypt and other astounding manifestations of God. These people knew about the God Moses was speaking of in these laws.

Those early generations of Hebrews knew that God was real and meant business.
At the same time the laws contained the offerings which means of redemption, atonement, and pardon.

I don't just consider the strict laws about punishment.
I have to consider as well the sin offering, the trespass offering, the peace offering as alternatives to reconcile the offender to God.

Instead of thousands of stonings I think there were thousands of gallons of animal blood sacrificed on the altars for caught sinners and offenders of the law.

I don't think I envision thousands upon thousands of stonings in ancient Israel.
I do see the strictness of the few capital offenses punishable by death.
But I also see the calls for investigative inquiry and the expiatory offerings to atone for sins, make peace, and deal with trespasses.

This is all before the offering of the body of Jesus Christ for the sins of the whole world in the New Testament.

Lastly, you say the virginity test is a "protection", but that's only if a woman bleeds.
What about a woman who doesn't naturally bleed the first time she has sex?

I think you have to ask yourself if you think adult men and women of the ancient time were completely ignorant of these things? They couldn't tell you many latter scientific things. But I think you underestimate their knowledge of female menstration.

But were they altogether ignorant about female anatomy ?
I think the inclusion of this kind of provision speaks of the recognition that some cases were needed more in-depth investigation taking into account their knowledge of exceptional circumstances.

"If a case is too complicated for you to judge between one kind of homicide and another or between one kind of civil suit and another, or between one kind of assault and another, bring the disputed cases within your gates, then you shall arise and go up to the plaec which Jehovah your God will choose;

And you shall come to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is presiding in those days and investigate the matter; and they shall declare to you the sentence of judgment. (Deut.
17:8,9)

I envision protests were heard.
Alibis were considered.
Pleas of innocence, misunderstanding, uncommon circumstances, I think were made.
They were human beings, human families, caring relatives, sympathetic parents, uncles, aunts, sisters, brothers, etc.

I see the laws' strictness.
But I also consider avenues of fairness taken advantage of by typical knowledgeable people with normal human sentiments.

Dr. Paul Copan is very good on YouTube with evaluating Old Testament legalities.
He's the author of "Is God a Moral Monster: Making Sense of the Old Testament God"

Sample the first five minutes to see if it would be worth your while.
It was certainly worth mine.

YouTube

In that case, the test becomes and indictment; and as the bible says, "if no proof can be found", she can be stoned to death, because bleeding is the only test the bible provides.

I will study the matter more.
While I do I'll remember that God created the female body.
No group of Feminist Phds. instructed Him how to do it.

Originally posted by @sonship

I think you have to ask yourself if you think adult men and women of the ancient time were completely ignorant of these things? They couldn't tell you many latter scientific things. But I think you underestimate their knowledge of female menstration.

you underestimate their knowledge of female menstration.

Wait....what?

Who's talking about a woman's cycle? Are you aware that some women bleed the first time they have sex due to factors such as a ruptured hymen? Or...do you really think this about women having sex during their periods?

you think adult men and women of the ancient time were completely ignorant of these things?

Religious men and women even today are ignorant of such things. There are still societies that execute women if they don't bleed after sex (which they use as "proof" of virginity), such as Iran.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3468499/Idaho-senator-sparks-outrage-saying-rape-victims-T-pregnant-trauma-incident.html

Republican (of course) senator, Pete Nielsen, told an a committee about rape that women can't get pregnant unless they consent to rape. He believes that a woman's body will reject unwanted semen, thereby making pregnancy by rape impossible. Needless to say, this man is also a Christian.

If religious men are still ignorant about these things in the age of the internet, what makes you think ancient men were any better?

Originally posted by @vivify
Deuteronomy 13:20 uses the myth of women bleeding as proof of virginity. The problem? Women who don't bleed the first time they have sex are to be stoned to death.

http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/2008/12/the-hymen-breaking-the-myths/

1. The hymen can tear prior to having sex, such as through sports or riding a horse
2. Not all women with intact hy ...[text shortened]... omeone's wife, he can have at it all he wants; just can't rape her, or he'll have to pay a fine.

I think back at that time Young women didn't play sports.

Originally posted by @vivify
[b]you underestimate their knowledge of female menstration.

Wait....what?

Who's talking about a woman's cycle? Are you aware that some women bleed the first time they have sex due to factors such as a ruptured hymen? Or...do you really think this about women having sex during their periods?

you think adult men and women of the ancient ...[text shortened]... about these things in the age of the internet, what makes you think ancient men were any better?

Religious men and women even today are ignorant of such things. There are still societies that execute women if they don't bleed after sex (which they use as "proof" of virginity), such as Iran. [quote]

But not all men and women are.

I reason about this matter including God, not excluding God.
I do not evaluate this matter not taking into account -
God's faithfulness, God's guidance, God's sovereignty, God's enlightening of consciences.

I'm sorry. Though the case is a tough one, I do not consider it devoid of God's presence with the people as if the law was only a rigid computer like flowchart - If, Then, Else, GoTo.

You may know that the five daughters of Zelophehad actually made their case to Moses about fairer treatment of women, and they were heard. See Numbers 27. Now this is only one instance recorded for us. But its significance in being included that Moses was flexible and wise to amend the law to make provision for circumstances particular to women Israelites.

My opinion is that the article you are depending on probably hypes up the negatives in a biased way.

One of the reasons the Christian gospel spread so extensively was because women perceived that they were better treated under the teachings of Jesus. (You brought up the phrase "the Christian God"😉.



[quote]
Republican (of course) senator, Pete Nielsen, told an a committee about rape that women can't get pregnant unless they consent to rape. He believes that a woman's body will reject unwanted semen, thereby making pregnancy by rape impossible. Needless to say, this man is also a Christian.

Now you wouldn't like it is I pointed out some stupidity stemming from Evolutionist and painted all Darwinists with a negative broad brush. Probably if I researched the incident you speak of I would also find protestation and disagreement of other Christians.

( I know nothing about the senator ).

If religious men are still ignorant about these things in the age of the internet, what makes you think ancient men were any better?

I don't think necessarily ALL were wiser.
I think it realistic that some were.

I don't think ALL Christians today would see it the same way are you senator.
I think it realistic that SOME Christians would not see it that way the senator did.
Same would apply to ancient times among the Jews of Israel.

Examine your bias a bit.

Originally posted by @sonship
Examine your bias a bit.

Interesting comment, given that you automatically enter every argument with the mindset that any criticism of your god is wrong, and that your particular deity of choice is without flaw.

...In pious times, ere priestcraft did begin,
Before polygamy was made a sin;
When man on many multiplied his kind,
Ere one to one was cursedly confined;
When nature prompted, and no law denied
Promiscuous use of concubine and bride;
Then Israel’s monarch after heaven’s own heart,
His vigorous warmth did variously impart
To wives and slaves; and, wide as his command,
Scattered his maker’s image through the land
Michal, of royal blood, the crown did wear;
A soil ungrateful to the tiller’s care:
Not so the rest; for several mothers bore
To godlike David several sons before.
But since like slaves his bed they did ascend,
No true succession could their seed attend.
Of all this numerous progeny was none
So beautiful, so brave, as Abaslom:
Whether, inspired by some diviner lust,
His father got him with a greater gust;
Or that his conscious destiny made way,
By manly beauty, to imperial sway....

an extract from Absalom and Achitophel

by John Dryden

https://www.poetsgraves.co.uk/Classic%20Poems/Dryden/from_absalom_and_achitophel.htm

Originally posted by @vivify
Interesting comment, given that you automatically enter every argument with the mindset that any criticism of your god is wrong, and that your particular deity of choice is without flaw.

Interesting comment, given that you automatically enter every argument with the mindset that any criticism of your god is wrong, and that your particular deity of choice is without flaw.

I am biased. But I could also say that there are some difficult places to understand in the Bible. We are discussing one of them.

The caveats I have included are not unreasonable.

Okay, and now your comment is interesting too.

Tell me how the effect be greater than the cause of it ?
How could creatures of God be bestowed with a goodness that their Creator did not have within Himself to bestow ?

The gist of your complaint is that God in the Bible was not right enough. So the deficit has to be made up by His own creations. God needs to learn something from us, whom He created, somehow, more upright than Himself.

Once again you mentioned ( my particular deity ) of God for me - "the Christian god".
So obviously you should expect me to speak in reference to the Christians' God which you specified.