Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


( 21 comments — Leave a comment )
Sep. 19th, 2009 07:31 am (UTC)
You are made of awesome!
Sep. 19th, 2009 08:32 am (UTC)
Sep. 19th, 2009 09:39 am (UTC)
If a man rapes an unpledged virgin, then his punishment is a fine and to marry her. (Deut. 22:28-29)
Sep. 19th, 2009 11:57 am (UTC)
But but but....they took that out of its proper historical/cultural context!

Not like all that stuff about them gays, that's still relevant.
Sep. 19th, 2009 12:40 pm (UTC)
That's pretty funny. Was this protest outside a church?
Sep. 19th, 2009 01:30 pm (UTC)
I wonder what version that is a quote from. It's not the KJV.

This wikipedia description of that section is closer; "The procedure to be followed if a man suspects that his new wife is not a virgin: if the wife's parents are able to prove that she was indeed a virgin then the man is fined; otherwise the wife is stoned to death."

The first part of the purported quote, "A marriage is shall be considered valid only", is not part of Deut22:13-21 in the KJV.

It's a subtle, but important, difference.

(No, I'm not a bible scholar; I don't believe in that god. But if people are going to quote from it then they should be accurate and properly cite their references :-))
Sep. 20th, 2009 12:01 am (UTC)
Despite that it's still the best-known English version, I wouldn't consider the KJV reliable for much of anything, anyhow. The KJV has a lot of extra lines that do not have any equivalent in any previous version of the bible, and are full of questionable translations which reflect the bigotry and biases of 1600s England. Yeah, it's not like any version of it is "perfect", it's just that the KJV is believed to have been screwed around with *deliberately*, to make it more palatable to King James, rather than just being translation errors.
Sep. 20th, 2009 12:32 am (UTC)
So the question remains; what version _is_it a quote from?

Personally, analogheretic's statement that it's too short to a valid quote sounds right to me. It's not a quote, it's an interpretation. It opens the door to a simple defense ("no, that is not what those verses say; you're lying") and so weakens the position.
Sep. 20th, 2009 05:21 am (UTC)
My ancient Hebrew is quite rusty, but looking here, I see no reference to the valditiy of the marriage -- only the consequences of the man claiming, falsely or thruthfully, that his wife was not a virgin on wedding night. I can't attest to the accuracy of the text (my printed copy is missing), but presumably, this isn't a translation from KJV back to Hebrew.
Sep. 19th, 2009 02:34 pm (UTC)
Chiming in as one of the scholars...
Don't forget that a large portion of stuff ended up on the cutting room floor as the KJV was being "assembled" (read: edited to suit the Church and the Council of Trent). There's no mention of Lillith, for example... and the story of the unicorn and the Flood was left out ('cept they botched that one because you can still find the reference to the unicorn in Deuteronomy, and, no: it was not talking about a rhinoceros), and don't even get me started on how they botched the story of Cain and Abel and skewed hundreds of years of thought on sacrifice and fatricide and God's relationship to His first creations...

*deeeeep breath*

But still in all: YAY! i love it when protest is witty. And even if it is a paraphrase and suchlike-- that never stopped the fundies, did it? Word.

Sep. 19th, 2009 02:34 pm (UTC)
oh, and...
Sep. 19th, 2009 02:42 pm (UTC)
Sep. 19th, 2009 03:37 pm (UTC)
And it leaves out the whole 'you're required to marry your brother's wife if he dies and you are not already married to more than 4 women' clause. Widows != virgins, but are legal to marry.
Sep. 20th, 2009 05:24 am (UTC)
As above, non-virgins are legal to marry; they just don't survive long beyond the experience.

Which, combined with the law you cite, makes me suspect a fiendish plot to get rid of widows.
Sep. 19th, 2009 04:09 pm (UTC)
oh. my. god. *squeeeee* you are wonderful! *hugs!*
Sep. 19th, 2009 08:15 pm (UTC)
I love this and am adding it to my stockpile of wiseass answers to the crazies who wander the streets of my neighborhood here in South Carolina.

I already know the comeback. I've heard it before when I asked about the other silly rules regarding behavior and appearance outlined in the Old Testament (particularly Leviticus). It is this: "When Jesus died for our sins, he undid all those rules that we had to follow."

My answer to them was always the obvious... "Oh, then I guess the 10 Commandments are moot." At which point the person(s) throws a hissy fit and walks off.
Sep. 19th, 2009 10:08 pm (UTC)
LOL...my husband was just having this very debate with some fundies recently, and I believe he said exactly the same thing about the 10 commandments being moot!
Sep. 19th, 2009 11:32 pm (UTC)
My answer to that is to quote Matthew 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." The Bible explicitly says that Jesus did not undo those rules. :)
Sep. 20th, 2009 04:43 pm (UTC)
Love, love, love it!

I read the Bible in its entirety, but it was very long ago. I need to do a re-read, I think.
Sep. 20th, 2009 03:23 pm (UTC)
I love that it's in my hometown of Boston and that I would have been carrying that yellow sign in the background if I was still back there :)
Sep. 20th, 2009 10:32 pm (UTC)
( 21 comments — Leave a comment )