Missing Mosaic Laws...

[Aryeh Jay]

.

 

[golgotha61]

There probably weren't bed sheets back then, as you've pointed out. What did people sleep in then? Their cloaks. That's backed up by scripture. They probably had intercourse on their cloaks instead of the dirty ground as well. Therefor their cloak would have the evidence of virginity on it.

If there is chicanery involved, then the blood could have been from another source, we’ve plowed this field already. It is the parents who are providing this evidence and not the groom or the daughter. In my estimation, logic points to Vasholz’ theory and I would put more weight on his credentials than on ours. We have no way of being certain one way or another, but doubt would indeed remove the charge that this proves that God did not author this law in favor of the authorship being attributed to Moses.

"Special sensitivity"? Really? I'm one of those rare people that thinks rape and child molestation are the worst things you can do to a person? Come on. I'm not talking about something frivolous like copyright law here.

We have already gone over the documented punishment for rape offenses and the fact remains that rape committed against a virgin is already addressed in the law. The rapist must marry the victim, his “mark” is on her (Malul 454). You already conceded that there was no way to argue for laws against child molestation.

Ask anyone to name the top ten most terrible things that you can do to another human, and those things will be on their list. They're not going to list vandalism, although that's covered in the Law. They're not going to list charging interest on a loan, although that's covered in the Law. Top three are going to be murder, rape, and molestation in the minds of the vast, vast, majority of people. So don't pretend there is this one law that I have a personal affinity for, we both know it is one of the, if not the, most harmful things one person can do to another person next to murder.

I don’t think that we need to enter into arguments that are born of an imagined pole. I think it best to consider what we know and not what we imagine, since this type or argumentation is rife with logical fallacies. What I know is that Scripture is God breathed and there is no verifiable evidence to prove otherwise. All the conjured up examples cannot prove that the doctrine of all Scripture being God breathed, is false.

This argument would mean that innocent women being raped and innocent children being molested is part of God's plan. A perfectly loving God wants these terrible atrocities to occur for some greater good. Do you think that is more likely than men wrote the Bible and were fallible?

You can't tell me that an omnipotent and omniscient God couldn't achieve His plan without all the rape and molestation that would have gone undeterred. If God "can't" then He's not omnipotent. So He must want it to happen this way.

I think that it is more likely that you cannot support an argument that would prove that God did not author all of the Bible. And I think that you are not being honest in your argumentation since you have again mentioned an act against children that you yourself have conceded that an argument for it is inarguable. What I am telling you is that to challenge God’s wisdom and to denigrate His Word’s source is wrong. To portend to know better than Him or to know His purpose when He has not revealed it to us is wrong. That is about as direct as I can be. I pray that you will submit to the authority of Scripture and stop trying to neutralize its magisterial position over our own thoughts and minds. Isaiah 55:8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD” (ESV).

ESV [English Standard Version]. Crossway Bibles. CD-ROM. Wordsearch, 2011.

Malul, Meir. "What is the Nature of the Crime of the Delinquent Daughter in Deuteronomy 22: 13-21? A Rejoinder to J. Fleishman's Suggestion." Vetus Testamentum 59.3 (2009): 446-459. Print.

 

[Moral Orel]

If there is chicanery involved, then the blood could have been from another source, we’ve plowed this field already.

Of course it could. That was my point all along, that the law proved nothing. But even if these imagined up virgin cloaks were real, and even if that was the test, then that test proved nothing. The only test that could be worth something is what the Halakha said to do, much much later, and that was to rely on witnesses. If the man suspected infidelity, he may find witnesses that saw her be unfaithful. If the father believes those witnesses are liars, he can present witnesses to show that they testified falsely. Judges would determine based on testimony who was most likely to be telling the truth. None of the systems are infallible, but the last one is the most likely to arrive at the truth. And that isn't the system laid out allegedly by God.

We have already gone over the documented punishment for rape offenses and the fact remains that rape committed against a virgin is already addressed in the law.

Right, so one type of person was protected from rape, sort of. And the reason that only one type of person was protected from rape casts doubt on how they viewed rape at all. But once this virgin is raped, she has to spend the rest of her days being raped. You think that sounds like something that comes from God? Kill him, sell all his stuff, and give it to the girl. More just, less harm, straight off the cuff.

You already conceded that there was no way to argue for laws against child molestation.

No, I conceded that I cannot prove that child molestation occurred by citing some specific Biblical story. But I showed ample evidence that it is a problem that would have occurred at any given time in human history and did occur stretching all the way back to ancient times.

I don’t think that we need to enter into arguments that are born of an imagined pole.

You accused me of having a special sensitivity to the matter. That argumentation was for the sake that it is not a special sensitivity to the matter. If we look at all the verses in the Bible that say harming innocents is one of the worst things you can do, and then look to modern day psychology to see just how harmful the acts described are, we can see that the Bible supports the position that those acts are terrible. However, since they weren't privy to psychology back then, they would need specific instructions on what not to do in order to know that they were causing such harm. The Bible lacks those specific instructions.

What I am telling you is that to challenge God’s wisdom and to denigrate His Word’s source is wrong.

What you are telling me is to swallow everything in the Bible as fact without evidence for it all and questioning it is a sin. How do I know that the Bible is 100% infallible if I don't question it first? Why would I think it is 100% infallible with problems like all the evil acts that were allegedly ordered by God or ignored by God in the OT and even the condoning of slavery all the way into the NT? If these problems can't be explained, then I should doubt the validity of the claim that the Bible is 100% infallibly God's word. And saying they can't be explained because we don't understand God does not explain them.

 

[Hawkins]

In a big picture, Mosaic law is to set aside a more explicit set of law for the Jews to obey. Before that God's requirements set for humans are written our hearts as reflected by our conscience and morality. However, as time goes by our hearts are 'hardened' that we failed to see clearly the original law in our hearts. In a sense, the Mosaic Law says that the Jews are redeemable even under the circumstance that they may be lost morally, as long as they can abide by the set of laws which are made more explicitly to them.

Laws for rape and molestation are not needed as long as that they are not common crimes among ancient Jews.