Is the Bible wrong about virgins? Deuteronomy 22:13-21

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Skovand1075

Active Member
Jul 13, 2022
331
79
28
35
Alabama.
www.instagram.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So before engaging in this conversation I ask that you use wisdom. To use wisdom means to read the whole post and then respond by either agreeing, by asking clarifying questions, by disagreeing by countering my points or either by further elaborating on the story. Trigger warning for the sensitive here. This disagrees with biblical inerrancy. This post will be made in three sections. The scriptures, the errors in the scriptures and lastly a healthier understanding of what it could mean.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Scriptures.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21
New American Standard Bible

Laws on Morality

13 “If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, 14 and he charges her with shameful behavior and publicly defames her, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her to have evidence of virginity,’ 15 then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 And the girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man as a wife, but he turned against her; 17 and behold, he has charged her with shameful behavior, saying, “I did not find your daughter to have evidence of virginity.” But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread out the garment before the elders of the city. 18 Then the elders of that city shall take the man and rebuke him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl’s father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he is not allowed to divorce her all his days.

20 “But if this charge is true, and they did not find the girl to have evidence of virginity, 21 then they shall bring the girl out to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death, because she has committed a disgraceful sin in Israel by playing the prostitute in her father’s house; so you shall eliminate the evil from among you.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Errors.
So there are two main things wrong with this. One is the scientific errors of virginity and the other is the issue of woman abuse and murder.

Claim one.
It says that if a man does not find evidence of his newly wed virgin wife then her parents are given the chance to collect evidence themselves and bring it before the priest or else the woman is to be stoned to death.

What’s the evidence? It can only be one thing. The parents are going to the bedroom to find bloody sheets. See ancient Jewish people believed that all virgins bleed every time. That if a woman did not bleed, then it meant that she was not a virgin and that meant she must have willingly had sec with another man. But as many women, scientist and medical experts can attest to, that’s not true. Not all women bleed the first time. Hymens could be naturally different from broth. Hymens can be broken by riding horses, donkeys, camels and so on. They can be broken by being sexually abused as kids by their fathers , or they could have been raped and so on. But it’s simply not true that all virgins bleed the first time. This is wrong.

Secondly it’s always evil to kill innocent , non threatening people. It’s vile. Any Jewish men that murdered their probably underage wives were garbage. All the Jewish men that took concubines as their sex slaves were garbage. Rape is always wrong. No matter what. Killing a 16 year old just because she was molested as a kid and had a broken hymen or even if she slept with someone else before getting married, is evil.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Healthier Biblical Hermeneutics


All of the collective scriptures are known as meditation texts. Jesus himself says to mediate on the word of God. You read the Bible front to back, back to front, side to side and pick up biblical tropes, patterns and hyperlinks. We know that Yahweh hates human sacrifices and that he abhors the murder of innocent people.

So we must view all these passages through the corrective lens of Jesus. We must view all of these passages by knowing Yahweh desires mercy and compassion and love. So if you are two parents and you just heard your daughter has been accused of fornication by her newly wed husband and that she was soon to be murdered by people throwing rocks at her until she died what would you do? Well you would want to save her.

When reading those passages we see something that should make us think of something earlier. What did these parents witness and grow up hearing from the Bible about kids being murdered? They would think of the exodus. The angel of death. A Christian should also see Christ in this story. In all these stories we know shed blood equals protection from death. To save their kids from the angel of death they smeared blood up and down their houses posts.

One thing to pay attention to is that the parents were the only ones that could collect the evidence. Not the priests, not the judges and not the husband. Only the parents. They had to collect it and bring it before the priests. So remembering the previous story would mean the parents had plenty of time to collect blood of a lamb and spread it on the garment saving their daughter. Just like a
Rahab lied to save then others. We know lying out of love to protect someone is not bad. We know Jesus was against stoning a woman. We know God hates human sacrifice. So the parents would collect the garment, put blood on it and then bring it before the priests.

so why would god say that? It’s to protect women. Yahweh inspired mankind through their paradigm. It’s why in Joshua the sun moves while the earth stays still. God wanted to reach mankind in a way they could understand .
 

Skovand1075

Active Member
Jul 13, 2022
331
79
28
35
Alabama.
www.instagram.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That's enough for me to not bother reading the rest. If you don't believe the Bible the Word of God I'm not really interested.

Much love!
If you can’t read a post then you’re thoughts don’t matter. Or if you lie. You seem to enjoy lying.

such as saying the Bible is not inerrant is not rejecting it as the word of god. But I know you don’t know anything about the debate. You also don’t know how to read a post and understand its parameters.
But like I said, if you’re easily triggered because you support killing teenage girls and think that all virgins bleed then this post is not for you. I just hope you keep your word this time and don’t further respond. That you don’t lie, and not interested and move along.

love is proven through actions. Love is respect. Love is maturity. Don’t need Tom waste time on your posts saying much love when you actually are just trying to weaponize it as snark.
 

Robert Gwin

Well-Known Member
Mar 19, 2021
6,888
1,587
113
69
Central Il
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So before engaging in this conversation I ask that you use wisdom. To use wisdom means to read the whole post and then respond by either agreeing, by asking clarifying questions, by disagreeing by countering my points or either by further elaborating on the story. Trigger warning for the sensitive here. This disagrees with biblical inerrancy. This post will be made in three sections. The scriptures, the errors in the scriptures and lastly a healthier understanding of what it could mean.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Scriptures.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21
New American Standard Bible

Laws on Morality

13 “If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, 14 and he charges her with shameful behavior and publicly defames her, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her to have evidence of virginity,’ 15 then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 And the girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man as a wife, but he turned against her; 17 and behold, he has charged her with shameful behavior, saying, “I did not find your daughter to have evidence of virginity.” But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread out the garment before the elders of the city. 18 Then the elders of that city shall take the man and rebuke him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl’s father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he is not allowed to divorce her all his days.

20 “But if this charge is true, and they did not find the girl to have evidence of virginity, 21 then they shall bring the girl out to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death, because she has committed a disgraceful sin in Israel by playing the prostitute in her father’s house; so you shall eliminate the evil from among you.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Errors.
So there are two main things wrong with this. One is the scientific errors of virginity and the other is the issue of woman abuse and murder.

Claim one.
It says that if a man does not find evidence of his newly wed virgin wife then her parents are given the chance to collect evidence themselves and bring it before the priest or else the woman is to be stoned to death.

What’s the evidence? It can only be one thing. The parents are going to the bedroom to find bloody sheets. See ancient Jewish people believed that all virgins bleed every time. That if a woman did not bleed, then it meant that she was not a virgin and that meant she must have willingly had sec with another man. But as many women, scientist and medical experts can attest to, that’s not true. Not all women bleed the first time. Hymens could be naturally different from broth. Hymens can be broken by riding horses, donkeys, camels and so on. They can be broken by being sexually abused as kids by their fathers , or they could have been raped and so on. But it’s simply not true that all virgins bleed the first time. This is wrong.

Secondly it’s always evil to kill innocent , non threatening people. It’s vile. Any Jewish men that murdered their probably underage wives were garbage. All the Jewish men that took concubines as their sex slaves were garbage. Rape is always wrong. No matter what. Killing a 16 year old just because she was molested as a kid and had a broken hymen or even if she slept with someone else before getting married, is evil.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Healthier Biblical Hermeneutics


All of the collective scriptures are known as meditation texts. Jesus himself says to mediate on the word of God. You read the Bible front to back, back to front, side to side and pick up biblical tropes, patterns and hyperlinks. We know that Yahweh hates human sacrifices and that he abhors the murder of innocent people.

So we must view all these passages through the corrective lens of Jesus. We must view all of these passages by knowing Yahweh desires mercy and compassion and love. So if you are two parents and you just heard your daughter has been accused of fornication by her newly wed husband and that she was soon to be murdered by people throwing rocks at her until she died what would you do? Well you would want to save her.

When reading those passages we see something that should make us think of something earlier. What did these parents witness and grow up hearing from the Bible about kids being murdered? They would think of the exodus. The angel of death. A Christian should also see Christ in this story. In all these stories we know shed blood equals protection from death. To save their kids from the angel of death they smeared blood up and down their houses posts.

One thing to pay attention to is that the parents were the only ones that could collect the evidence. Not the priests, not the judges and not the husband. Only the parents. They had to collect it and bring it before the priests. So remembering the previous story would mean the parents had plenty of time to collect blood of a lamb and spread it on the garment saving their daughter. Just like a
Rahab lied to save then others. We know lying out of love to protect someone is not bad. We know Jesus was against stoning a woman. We know God hates human sacrifice. So the parents would collect the garment, put blood on it and then bring it before the priests.

so why would god say that? It’s to protect women. Yahweh inspired mankind through their paradigm. It’s why in Joshua the sun moves while the earth stays still. God wanted to reach mankind in a way they could understand .

I have never found the Bible to be wrong about anything sir.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLT63 and Stan B

Michiah-Imla

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2020
6,142
3,277
113
Northeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I think you have me on ignore, but maybe someone will quote me so you’ll see my contribution @Skovand1075

ancient Jewish people believed…

The holy scriptures didn’t come from the minds of “ancient Jewish people” influenced by their own beliefs.

That’s a huge error on your part already.

Killing a 16 year old just because she was molested as a kid

#1. The scriptures don’t have this scenario in view.

#2. Any female molested or raped would remain in her father’s or brother’s house unmarried as “damaged goods” so to speak. Tamar was raped by Amnon and as a result:

“…Tamar remained desolate in her brother Absalom's house.” (2 Samuel 13:20)

We know Jesus was against stoning a woman.

Nope.

He was against a sinner stoning a sinner.

“…He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” (John 8:7)
 

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,420
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
[QUOTE="Michiah-Imla, post: 1417559, member: 9352" = I think you have me on ignore, but maybe someone will quote me so you’ll see my contribution @Skovand1075



The holy scriptures didn’t come from the minds of “ancient Jewish people” influenced by their own beliefs.

That’s a huge error on your part already.



#1. The scriptures don’t have this scenario in view.

#2. Any female molested or raped would remain in her father’s or brother’s house unmarried as “damaged goods” so to speak. Tamar was raped by Amnon and as a result:

“…Tamar remained desolate in her brother Absalom's house.” (2 Samuel 13:20)



Nope.

He was against a sinner stoning a sinner.

“…He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” (John 8:7)[/QUOTE
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michiah-Imla

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,001
4,800
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I'm not sure of the point of this thread.........o_O

The point seems to be to bash the Bible as he has answered his own question.

Is the Bible wrong about virgins? Deuteronomy 22:13-21 ... But it’s simply not true that all virgins bleed the first time. This is wrong.

Appeal to Strawman. The Bible does not say what you claim. The NLT put is ‘When I married this woman, I discovered she was not a virgin.’ You are making the weaker claim that blood from a hyman rupture applies to all deflowered woman. You are confusing EFFECT with CAUSE.

Therefore, the Biblical starting point is certainty; she is not a virgin. Your starting point is uncertainty; the absence of blood may or may not indicate her sexual history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLT63

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Jun 30, 2019
1,879
938
113
62
Port Richey, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Claim one.
It says that if a man does not find evidence of his newly wed virgin wife then her parents are given the chance to collect evidence themselves and bring it before the priest or else the woman is to be stoned to death.
Question one:
Under Levitical Law, what is the penalty for "adultery" or "fornication" in that country at that time?
If a woman (or a man) were to be found guilty of the crime of "adultery" or "fornication", what would be the prescribed sentence?

So it seems that your real complaint is: "The way of the Lord is not fair." (Ezekiel 18 & Ezekiel 33).
The response is, what it has always been: "And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." [Joshua 24:15 NKJV]
 

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Jun 30, 2019
1,879
938
113
62
Port Richey, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
He was against a sinner stoning a sinner.
Particularly in a case where a woman was "caught in the act" of adultery ... apparently with herself since the other half of "in the act" was not standing next to her. The LAW required two credible eye-witness testimonies to the act to establish the fact as a matter of Law ... essential in a capital case. This "kangaroo court" did not meet God's prescribed standard since even the facts themselves were not credible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLT63 and marks

Skovand1075

Active Member
Jul 13, 2022
331
79
28
35
Alabama.
www.instagram.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Question one:
Under Levitical Law, what is the penalty for "adultery" or "fornication" in that country at that time?
If a woman (or a man) were to be found guilty of the crime of "adultery" or "fornication", what would be the prescribed sentence?

So it seems that your real complaint is: "The way of the Lord is not fair." (Ezekiel 18 & Ezekiel 33).
The response is, what it has always been: "And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." [Joshua 24:15 NKJV]
It seems Jesus also thought it was wrong.

after all when it came time to stone the adulterous woman, Jesus stopped it.

so a better question would be which ones best represented what God desired.

the prophets who said stone then to death or the messiah who said don’t.

this is not the only thing either. Look at divorce.

Matthew 19:8
New American Standard Bible

8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.

So we know God hates divorce.


Malachi 2:16
New American Standard Bible

16 “For I hate divorce,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with violence,” says the Lord of armies. “So be careful about your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.”

So we know god hates divorce but allowed it because of the hardness of humans hearts. Jesus fulfilled it.

We also know God hates animal sacrifices.

Hoses 6:6
For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

Jesus also highlighted that in Matthew 9:13
Now go and learn what this means: ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, RATHER THAN SACRIFICE,’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

So do you think Yahweh wanted to stone adulterous people or that he always disagreed with it but permitted it because of their evil hearts?

Do you think Yahweh really wanted the Jews to murder kids and women for some land, or that he wanted them to realize the kingdom of god is in our hard hearts?

so do you believe that all virgin women bleed their first time?
 

Skovand1075

Active Member
Jul 13, 2022
331
79
28
35
Alabama.
www.instagram.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Particularly in a case where a woman was "caught in the act" of adultery ... apparently with herself since the other half of "in the act" was not standing next to her. The LAW required two credible eye-witness testimonies to the act to establish the fact as a matter of Law ... essential in a capital case. This "kangaroo court" did not meet God's prescribed standard since even the facts themselves were not credible.

that’s for those caught in the act. If they were caught there would be no need for a test. This is for those who were not caught, but were accused of it and had to be tested….. I mean that is what it says correct?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy