Deut 25:11-12
11 If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, 12you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.
2006-09-21 14:16:43 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Spots Fox: Please enlighten me! I didn't write it...it's a modern translation in millions of bibles...Please tell me how I should interpret this verse. BTW-Let's chat sometime...I'll bet you $1,000 that I know more about your bible than YOU.
2006-09-21 14:27:30 · update #1
Why do the christians get so angry about a simple question??? It's your book, not mine.
2006-09-21 14:29:21 · update #2
the old testament is irrelevant> the NEW testament is all that matters now> Jesus is the way to eternal life>
2006-09-21 14:19:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
That's a great question and accurately stated.
First, we must understand that the time of Deuteronomy was much different than it is now. People weren't always as civilized as we are today. They were mostly civilized but in some ways very different. There's proof by looking at us versus even 100 years ago, very different.
If it was common that when a woman of that time did "seize by private parts", do we know how she normally proceeded from there? No. What if she used force and violence enough to seriously and permanently injure the man? I'd want to have the option of defending myself.
Also consider, it was probably more a deterrent than a punishment.
2006-09-21 21:36:15 · answer #2 · answered by Tom C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Strict justice was enforced by the law of talion or retaliation, like for like, where injuries were deliberately inflicted. (De 19:21) There is at least one recorded instance of the execution of this penalty. (Jg 1:6, 7) But the judges had to determine on the basis of the evidence whether the crime was deliberate or was due to negligence or accident, and so forth. An exception to the law of retaliation was the law dealing with a situation in which a woman tried to help her husband in a fight by grabbing hold of the privates of the other man. In this case, instead of her reproductive organs being destroyed, her hand was to be amputated. (De 25:11, 12) This law demonstrates God's regard for the reproductive organs. Also, since the woman was owned by a husband, this law mercifully took into consideration the right of the husband to have children by his wife.
2006-09-21 21:20:32 · answer #3 · answered by rangedog 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I wish people would understand that Dueteronomy was written for an ancient people living in an ancient world. Actually, since, in most other cultures around at the time, the woman would have been killed out of hand for even touching a man who was not her husband, it is possible that this particular law actually was more compassionate than the neighbor's....just a thought.
Consider even today, the difference between women in Christianity, and women in Islam...
Amazing, isn't it?
2006-09-21 21:45:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it were your testicals being crushed, I think you would cut off her hand yourself; unless you are a freak and enjoy the pain.
Anyhow, people like you never take the time at hand when this was written. To understand the severity of this verse is to see the reason in the following verses.
Deut. 25:5-9 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. However, if a man does not want to marry his brother's wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, "My husband's brother refuses to carry on his brother's name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me." Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, "I do not want to marry her," his brother's widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, "This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother's family line."
Neither a man nor a woman of this period would want to live without heirs. It has everything to do with destroying a couple's means of support beyond a time when they could fend for themselves properly. (It is also probable, given the context of the previous verses, that the "brothers" fighting here are actually brothers in a physical sense, and are fighting over the very issue of Deut. 7-10. If this is the case, then the wife's actions are even more in sense with the context, and that would mean that this is not just any old fight -- and, it is probable in that case that a rescue attempt is not forbidden in principle where a continuation of heirs is not at stake!) And thus is it appropos that a hand be lost -- for it matches equally the loss of ability to provide descendants to be one's "hands" in old age.
2006-09-21 21:32:16 · answer #5 · answered by parepidemos_00 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its entirely possible this was a metaphor back in the day and we lost the meaning completely. (something max muller would say)
Further, there is a ton of other weird stuff in Deut, hopefully noone really does any of it nowadays.
Finally, no. Ha. I do not agree with this at all as stated there...
2006-09-21 21:21:56 · answer #6 · answered by wilburrr 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
lol, that was taking out of context and it isn't what the bible says....you can't always believe those translations. Here is what the King James version says:
11-When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: 12-Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.
2006-09-21 21:40:04 · answer #7 · answered by Led*Zep*Babe 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What do you mean by agree???
Do we agree that it is in the Bible... sure...
Do we agree that you are quoting it to us... sure...
Do we agree that you have no idea what it means... you bet...
Do we agree that you can make the Bible say whatever you want by just taking a few verses and quoting them out of context... yes...
Do we agree that it is there for a reason... yup
Do we agree that you should get an education and learn about the Bible so you don't look so stupid when asking dumb questions... Indubitably
2006-09-21 21:22:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
She should not intervene to rescue her husband...cutting off her hand seems barbaric and to show NO pity would imply NO spiritualism. Guess the answer would have to be NO!
2006-09-21 21:25:42 · answer #9 · answered by tamara.knsley@sbcglobal.net 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I have read this, and that is what the law was then,so I guess it was right for the time in which it was given, now a days the man she grabbed would just knock the fire out of her.
2006-09-21 21:23:57 · answer #10 · answered by littlecwoman 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The others did not research the answer. Its in the Quran.
And, no one should cut her hand off for rescuing her towel head.
2006-09-21 21:35:10 · answer #11 · answered by ronin 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋