Can any one pls explain these verses from the bible, pls be respectful and give logical answers.?

Question

From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 22:13-18
If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her , 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,"
then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate.
The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her.
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,
and the elders shall take the man and punish him.
Deuteronomy 22:13-18 absolutely could not have referred to the husband covering his penis with the cloth and inserting it into his wife's vagina. The verse clearly talked about the cloth being in the parents' possession, and it clearly referred to having the evidence right before the wedding night.
How can you justify to your daughter or sister that it is Biblically and religiously OK to insert a finger (whether by male or female; it doesn't matter) into her vagina to test her virginity?
I mean, beside the woman's husband, who should really have the authority to touch her in her private like that, the husband doesn’t even have the authority if the wife doesn’t allow him.

remember to star the question so i cn receive as many answers as i can.

NIV-new international version

How can you justify to your daughter or sister that it is Biblically and religiously OK to insert a finger (whether by male or female; it doesn't matter) into her vagina to test her virginity?

this is the main question answer this , dont explain me the verse i know what it means.

if the sheet after consumating the marriage had been blood stained y would the man say i did not find proof of her virginity, it is after the groom says that the he didnt find proof of her being a virgin the parents had to show the cloth, if he saw the blood stained sheets why would he complain in the first place.

is the man who married her blind why would he complain if he saw the blood stained sheets himself, as i said logical answers plsss.

does the guy who married her not know that the parents would have the stained sheets with them in case he lies, why would he risk a punishment, if it was a common practice it would have been common knowledge that the girls parents would have the sheets. is the guy stupid.

According to the Talmud, the cloth should be "A cloth of less than 3 square finger-breadths. (From the Talmud, Eruvin 29b-30a and Succah 16a)", and before it is being used, it should be "soft, woolen and clean. (From the Talmud, Niddah 17a)"

is the thalmud a jewish book.

Answer 1

You are making some unfounded assumptions here.

The cloth in question are the bed sheets used on the first night of the marriage. There is nothing in this passage which says this evidence existed prior to the wedding night.

There is nothing in the passage about inserting Antone's finger.

The underlying assumption is that if this bride was really a virgin, she would have bled on the first occasion of having sex with her new husband. The girl's parents save the bedding for the purpose of dealing with such an accusation.

You said in your question the word "clearly" about things which aren't very clear to me.

Pastor Art

Answer 2

I'm Jewish, and here is my take on it.

First of all, we are not taught to do something in the Torah unless people were doing it. So, apparently there were men who were marrying women and finding they didn't like them. In order to get a divorce, one of the parties has to break the marriage contract made between the individuals.

Since the contract hadn't been broken, the man would claim the woman wasn't a virgin at the time of marriage and this would be a breaking of the contract.

The blood on the bedsheet has been used throughout history as a proof of virginity, but there is something hidden in the last part of the passage where the woman would be stoned as guilty of adultery if she wasn't a virgin. The problem is, that in order to be convicted of a capital crime (which the lack of virginity would be) there had to be 2 or 3 witnesses not related to the claiment or each other who were specifically looking for the crime to be committed, saw it and then testified exactly the same in all details about the crime.

As you can see it would be virtually impossible to get a stoning and it only happened maybe once every hundred years for any crime.

So, the husband would be left in a virtually impossible situation to prove that the woman wasn't a virgin. Everyone knows that women who ride camels often break their hymen. It can happen with any exercise to some women.

Now the man is left with a dilemma. He will no longer be able divorce this woman for any reason, and he has to give a great deal of wealth to the father. Meanwhile the woman has the option to divorce the man, go back to her father, and spend the husband's wealth.

Now, knowing the consequences, the man wouldn't be tempted to claim the woman wasn't a virgin at the time of marriage just to get out of a marriage to a woman he hated.

Shalom,
Gershon

Answer 3

its very important to understand the times and how things were back then....Virginity was one of the most important things, all the way up until about 1950s really, to be found to not be a virgin was punishiable by death, and if not, then ridicule, seclusion and banishment by society, (ever read any historical romance novels?) in most instances the bride and groom actually had what was called a public wedding night...in which it literally was exactly as it sounds...they would have sex together and consumate the marriage....in front of everyone, and at least the parents, and that how the clothe would have come into the parent's possession, this was not just a rule by the bible...this rule was actually followed just about everywhere.

you are not reading the text in the way it is suppose to be read....basically, this would be a situation where the man took a wife and for whatever reason has now found her lacking and is looking for a way out....so, if he wants a way out, he can claim her to not be a virgin, it would be up to the family to prove that she was....hence the need for public consumation, that is what they are talking about here....and then if he is proven wrong...he has to keep her, and if he is proven right...she is sent home. stop being so stubborn, and realize....not every question you have on the bible will ever be answered, we weren't there, historians weren't there. so all the know hows or why will never fully be answered, just as all the know hows and whys of science will every fully be answered.

Answer 4

Umm, what does a finger have to do with anything? The Bible mentions only a cloth as proof.

From what I understand, the cloth is the bed sheet, which in many cases, would be in the possession of the woman's parents (where the consummation may have taken place). And the proof would be the blood stain from the breaking of the hymen.

Now you are asking how could the man have missed the evidence of the bed sheet? Remember, he is slandering her out of spite, he's lying, he's trying to find any way he can to get out of the marriage, and he doesn't have just cause for doing so. And he may not have seen the blood stained sheets. Bed sheets were to be changed immediately, according to biblical law, upon such staining.

Answer 5

Aside from the other answers who pointed out that the parents would have kept the cloth from the wedding night, you have to remember that in Middle-Eastern culture it has always been *so very important* that the woman remains a virgin upon marriage. Don't ask me why, it's just been that way.

And, the only way for a woman to survive in those days was to have a husband who would provide for her. It was either that or prostitution.

I think this law was meant to prevent a man from divorcing his wife and essentially abandoning her simply because he was not satisfied with her. Remember, virginity was extremely important in Middle Eastern marriages. Since the woman would already have lost her virginity, she would have a very hard time finding another marriage parnter.

So I think this law was actually intended to *protect* the woman's rights.

Also, this was Old-Testament law for the Israelites. It doesn't apply to Gentiles or even necessarily to modern-day Jews. Please be careful about using Old-Testament texts as a challenge to Christian beliefs. Most of the O.T. laws don't apply to us today because they were for cultural and societal reasons, and because the old laws went out the window when Jesus came to earth and died for our sins (hence, why the second part of the Bible is called the NEW Testament).

-EDIT-
"is the man who married her blind why would he complain if he saw the blood stained sheets himself, as i said logical answers plsss."

It's called lying. If a man didn't like his wife for some reason, he could opt out of the marriage by claiming that she violated the marriage contract (by having sex with someone else before marriage). I believe this law was enacted to prevent that. And really, it's not so far-fetched. People have divorced over much smaller issues than that.

You really should check out the Jewish guy's answer below mine. He covered it a lot better than I did.

Answer 6

We are discussing a cultural value system from thousands of years ago. I am not sure if this is an accurate description from the Bible or not but if it is.. why are you asking for an explanation for something you clearly seem to know? And second... are you making an accusation or something because of your limited understanding of this issue?

Personally I never read anything like that in the Bible referring to the subject material that you have elaborated on. But then I am on the way out the door and do not have the time to look it up either. My suggestion: consult someone who knows the Bible well... like someone who graduated from a seminary or something. The average person won't know the heck your writing about.

Answer 7

The cloth with the hole in it for sex would go to the parents of the girl after they consumated the marriage as "proof" of her virginity. The man didn not put a cloth around his penis.. basically the first time they had sex was through a sheet so the only thing sticking through was the mans penis. any blood that came from the hymen breaking would get on the sheet and therefore prove that the woman was a virgin.

But as for your other argument that no woman should be molested by anyone to check her virginity. This was written in a time when doctors didnt really exist as you and I know them today.. Usually it was a priest or town elder, but someone would check the girls hymen to be sure that she was "pure". Women, in those times, were more of a commodity. They were used to bring families together. Love had nothing to do with who you married, it was all arranged by your father. Pretty crazy to think about, but its true.

Answer 8

When a young woman was given in marriage to a man, she was required to be a virgin, and so it is my understanding (and it has been a lot of years since I read this), on the morning after the night the marriage had been consummated, the young woman was required to walk through the street with the sheet of the bed in which the consummation had occurred. If her hymen had been intact, then there should have been some bleeding during intercourse.

The blood evidence sought was from the loss of her virginity, and it is this blood the writers of Deuteronomy refer to.

Answer 9

In the old days privacy wasn't a big issue..the marriage bed was prepared. After the intercourse, the parents of the girl got the bed sheet which was stained with blood, they locked it away. In some societies it was shown around the village. With royalty there was a group that watched the consummation.

Answer 10

In many cultures it is customary for the couple to consummate the marriage on a clean cloth, which is to catch the so-called evidence. And I suppose a clean cloth could be used by the girl herself to obtain proof after the fact.

But these are regulative laws for the Hebrew community, the way they understood God would have them live with each other. They are not the verbatim proclamations of God.