posted
Let us look at the following Verses in the Bible:
"If a man takes a wife and, after laying 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 [how do you think they would do that?] 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 [the father would literally stick his two fingers covered with a piece of cloth into his daughter's vagina before she gets married and keep that bloody cloth for as long as his daughter is married] with before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 22:13-18)"
Here is a more clear translation from Hebrew Resources: "The girl's father and mother shall produce the evidence of the girl's virginity before the elders of the town at the gate. And the girl's father shall say to the elders, "I gave this man my daughter to wife, but he had taken an aversion to her; so he has made up charges, saying, 'I did not find your daughter a virgin.' But here is the evidence of my daughter's virginity!" And they shall spread out the cloth before the elders of the town. (From the New JPS translation, Deuteronomy 22:15-17)"
The New JPS translation of Deuteronomy 22:15-17 makes it even more clear about having the parents of the girl displaying the bloody piece of cloth before the elders of the town.
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)"
Posts: 2342 | From: Its not where I'm from but where Im going | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Throughout history, people have noticed a great difference between the personality of God in the Old Testament (OT) and the personality of God in the New Testament (NT). These differences are so striking that a Christian sect called the Marcionites, the sect of Christian who developed the first version of the New Testament, believed the God of the Old Testament was a Satanic personality. A close comparison of the description of God by Jesus and the description of God in the Old Testament will demonstrate why they believed this.
God of Jesus: "God is love." (1 John 4:16) God of Moses: "Kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man" (Num. 31:17)
God of Jesus: "Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me." (Mark 9:37) God of Moses: "Put to death men and women, children and infants" (1 Sam. 15:2-3)
God of Jesus: "Love does no harm to its neighbor" (Rom. 13:10) God of Moses: "He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded." (Josh. 10:40)
God of Jesus: "[The devil] was a murderer from the beginning." (John 8:44) God of Moses: "Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children" (Ezek. 9:6)
God of Jesus: "Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour." (1 Peter 5:8) God of Moses: "Like a lion I will devour them." (Hosea 13:8)
God of Jesus: "Anyone who does not love his brother [is of the devil]." (1 John 3:10) God of Moses: "Go back and forth killing your brother and friend and neighbor" (Exod. 32:27)
God of Jesus: "[The devil] is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44) God of Moses: "Put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours." (1 Kings 22:23)
God of Jesus: "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy." (John 10:10) God of Moses: "Pursue, kill and completely destroy them." (Jer. 50:21)
God of Jesus: "He who does what is sinful is of the devil" (1 John 3:8) God of Moses: "Do not leave alive anything that breathes" (Deut. 20:16)
God of Jesus: "God so loved the world.." (John 3:16) God of Moses: "I will wipe humankind ..from the face of the earth." (Gen. 6:7)
God of Jesus: "Love your enemies" (Luke 6:27-28) God of Moses: "Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them." (Num. 25:16-17)
God of Jesus: "For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone" (James 1:13) God of Moses: "[He] tempted Abraham" (Gen. 22:1)
Comparing certain descriptions of God in the Old Testament with certain descriptions of God of the New Testament is like comparing Jesus to Charles Manson. As seen in the Bible verses above, some of the Old Testament descriptions of God have a number of characteristics that certainly appear to be satanic. Of course, most descriptions of God in the Old Testament portray a Father of infinite love. The ridiculous Bible verses portraying God as a satanic figure only shows how some writers of the Old Testament were merely creating God in their own image.
Near Death Experience accounts agree with the teachings of Jesus about a God of unconditional divine love. This love is merciful, non-judgmental, compassionate, and unlimited in forgiveness.
The Bizarre Nature of Some Biblical Descriptions of God
Any serious study of the Bible reveals that there are some descriptions of God in the Bible that show God as having very serious personality problems. These personality problems show how some writers of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, viewed God more in human terms than divine. The following verses show why.
WORD OF WARNING: The following Bible verses are graphic and incorrectly portray a God that mass-murders innocent babies, dashes babies to pieces, rips open pregnant women, has children become human sacrifices, has wild animals devour children, has parents cannibalize their children, orders the genocide entire nations, causes abortions and orders people to kill their brothers and neighbors, just to name a few. These verses have the potential to cause serious psychological and emotional damage to young children should they read them. I strongly recommend that adults refrain from allowing children to read the following Bible verses. This website is not responsible for any psychological damage that may occur to children who reads the Bible. Viewer discretion is strongly advised.
"God" slaughtered innocent babies because of Pharaoh's stubbornness: "At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well.” (Exod. 12:29)
"God" had babies dashed to pieces and pregnant women ripped open: "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." (Hosea 13:16)
"God" wanted children to be murdered as human sacrifices: "I let them become defiled through their gifts - the sacrifice of every firstborn - that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord.” (Ezek. 20:26)
"God" threatened to have innocent children be devoured by wild animals: “I will send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children, destroy your cattle and make you so few in number that your roads will be deserted.” (Lev. 26:22)
"God" threatened to have children cannibalized: "If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters.” (Lev. 26:27-29)
"God" ordered the genocide of women, children and babies: "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”” (1 Sam. 15:2-3)
"God" aborted fetuses and murdered children in answer to the prophet Hosea's prayer: "Give them, O Lord – what will you give them? Give them wombs that miscarry .... Ephraim is blighted, their root is withered, they yield no fruit. Even if they bear children, I will slay their cherished offspring." (Hosea 9:14-16)
"God" murdered a baby because of David's adultery: “Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan replied, "The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the Lord show utter contempt, the son born to you will die." (2 Sam. 12:13-14)
"God" ordered people to kill their brothers, friends and neighbors: “Then he said to them, "This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.'" (Exod. 32:27)
People who accuse me of taking these Bible verses out of context, must state the context which justifies "God" to slaughter a multitude of innocent babies and children. Such obviously false portrayals of God is highly dishonoring to God. The murder of children at Columbine caused a tremendous national outcry for justice. The slaughter of 50 grade school children in England several years ago caused a worldwide outcry. Shouldn't the horrible atrocities attributed to so-called "God" cause the same reaction? Shouldn't we abandon the idea of believing in an infallible Biblical interpretation of scripture?
The Gospel of Blood Versus the Gospel of Love
The early followers of Jesus believed that the traditional Jewish sacrifices were no longer necessary so they proclaimed that Jesus was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. They believed that the murder of Jesus was a ransom which God paid to free humanity held hostage by Satan. This made good sense in those days; but now, thousands of years later, it's pure nonsense to most people. Jesus himself was against such sacrifices (Mark 12:32-34) (Matt. 12:6-7). Suppose you were God and you had your son tortured and killed as a human sacrifice in order to be pleased and satisfied. Would you really be pleased with this? Or suppose you required people to cut the throats of thousands of innocent animals and let them bleed to death in order to be satisfied? Would you be satisfied with your behavior? Wouldn't you instead be horrified?
There are many reasons why the death of Jesus resulted in a greater good; but the idea of appeasing an angry God to release hostages through a human sacrifice of innocent people and animals should be seen to be utterly ridiculous to everyone.
Question: Why did God need animal and human sacrifices as described in the Old Testament?
Answer: Some writers of the Hebrew Bible believed that God was a tribal deity - a national god. Cults that were based on animal and human sacrifices existed throughout the world at that time as it did in early Hebrew culture. At the center of these ancient cults was the idea of the blood sacrifice to angry gods - the innocent for the guilty. They did this because they thought it would appease them. Scholars of ancient religions have discovered that the early Hebrews incorporated many of their religious concepts from the tribal cults living around them. A God of infinite love, mercy and forgiveness was completely unheard of in those days. Today, the idea that God needs animal or human sacrifices to forgive people is repulsive to the intelligent mind and compassionate heart. Perhaps one of the reasons why Jesus came to the earth was to stop the barbaric ritualistic slaughter of thousands of animals. It is barbaric and incredibly unjust to punish the innocent for the guilty. Jesus revealed that God is not interested in sacrifices.
Question: If people don't know about this ransom will God have them burn forever in hell?
Suppose God does not hold such people accountable and allows them into heaven. Then this would create another absurd situation where it would be better to never know the gospel and be guaranteed a place in heaven, than to know the gospel and face the possibility of going to hell. It would be very bizarre if this was God's plan of redemption. It would also be very bizarre for people to believe that this plan of redemption is true.
The concept that God loves and saves only those who know about and gives mental and verbal assent to God is extremely ludicrous at best and dangerous at worst. Its corresponding concept that God hates and damns those who do not know about or give mental and verbal assent to God is also extremely ludicrous at best and dangerous at worst. Even if we assume that God loves everyone, including those whom "God" has thrown into hell, then this would be a very strange way for God to express his love for everyone. It is also a very strange thing for people to believe. Such absurdities lead to erroneous ideas of God demanding people to "love me or I will fry you."
If it is God's will that everyone go to heaven (1 Tim. 2:3-4) and nobody can thwart God's will (Job 42:2, Dan 4:35), but everyone does not go to heaven (Rev. 21:8), then the literalist has to explain why God isn't powerful enough to save everyone. If God isn't powerful enough to save everyone, then this contradicts other Bible verses that state God is all powerful and wills to save everyone. This contradiction cannot be explained using a literal interpretation of these scriptures.
It should be common sense that a God of infinite love would never allow even one soul to be eternally tormented in hell. The twisted dogma of eternal damnation was derived from a literal interpretation of the highly symbolic parables of Jesus and the dream symbolism of the Book of Revelation (see also Daniel's dream). For this reason, a literal interpretation of an infallible Bible has to be wrong - even dangerous. A serious study of NDE reports clearly reveal that scriptures should be interpreted in a spiritual manner rather than a literal interpretation.
Question: why would God want Jesus to take his own life?
The following list contains the important reasons gleaned from near-death accounts, the Bible, and mystical teachings of Christianity:
(1) The human sacrifice of Jesus was a sublime way to symbolize and emphasize the major point of Jesus' teachings which is to practice unconditional love through self-sacrifice, self-deprecation, and self-denial by crucifying your lower beastly nature of humanity: self-gratification, self-indulgence, self-centeredness, self-righteousness, self-importance, self-condemnation, selfishness, and humanity's constant clamoring for SELF (i.e., the ego, the "false god", the "devil").
(2) Through the human sacrifice of Jesus, his teachings proliferated drew worldwide attention. The incredible injustice of his execution combined with his life-changing teachings made Jesus one of the greatest martyrs the world has ever known.
(3) Through his sacrifice, Jesus demonstrated that his testimony is highly credible because of his willingness to die such an extremely horrible execution for the sake of his testimony and teachings. A liar would not suffer this much and die for the sake of a lie. A lunatic would not be able to say the profound that Jesus said; nor would a lunatic be as stable as Jesus was. The only option left for us is that Jesus was who he said he was. There is no other option.
(4) Through his life and death, Jesus fulfilled a large number of Hebrew prophecies which drew a large number of Jews to his cause to build the foundation of his church.
(5) Through his death, Jesus was able to return to heaven in order to continue his ministry at a later time. His return to Earth from heaven would satisfy a large number of prophecies demonstrating him to be the Hebrew Messiah and a great teacher for the world. Should his return be spiritual instead of literal, it may represent the so-called "Christ Consciousness" ruling the collective consciousness of humanity.
(6) Through his death, Jesus was able to visit his disciples in spirit. Their testimony of Jesus' ability to overcome death provided the world with strong circumstantial evidence for life after death. His visitations with his disciples in spirit are remarkably similar to modern reports of after-death visitations.
(7) Through his death, Jesus was better able to serve humanity through the outpouring ministry of the Christ Consciousness (i.e., Holy Spirit) which Jesus taught about and manifested in his life. The outpouring of the Christ Consciousness resulted in the spreading of his teachings throughout the world.
(8) In a sense, the bloody horror of what happened to Jesus had a similar affect as the bloody horror of the September 11 terrorist attacks. It was seared into the very global consciousness of the world - especially Americans. Like the Phoenix rising from the ashes, it inspired a chain-reaction of God-like actions from heroes demonstrating what is best within humanity. It also brought to Americans a unity of heart and mind unknown since Pearl Harbor and demonstrated how such a wonderful good can overcome a horrible tragedy. The same can probably be said about the horror of having such a beautiful person as Jesus be unjustly slaughtered.
(9) Arthur Yensen once stated that Jesus also came to stop the age-old practice of slaughtering innocent animals as scapegoats for human beings in the name of God. I certainly have to agree with Mr. Yensen. Killing animals for nourishment is one thing, but killing them for the purpose of removing the guilt of people's misdeeds is infantile and abhorrent in my opinion. Spiritually mature people pay their own debts and seek the forgiveness of those they offended. Blaming a devil for your shortcomings and having an innocent one killed to pay your debts is for the spiritually immature.
(10) Betty Eadie mentioned the following as a reason for Jesus' death: "Life on earth is our opportunity to learn unconditional love as Jesus taught it, to serve and sacrifice personal welfare in behalf of others. Part of Jesus' mission was to die for us ... ours is to live as he did." (Betty Eadie)
I am sure there are other reasons for the human sacrifice of Jesus. It is very easy for the horror of the tragedy to be so strong as to "blind" us from the subtler and deeper ramifications of Christ's crucifixion. For thousands of years, the human sacrifice motif has dominated the more spiritual reasons for Christ's death in a manner that has helped to proliferate these same spiritual influences.
"Love is the answer. Any questions?" - Kevin Williams
Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back in the biblical times, It was very important that a wife be a virgin when she was married. The father does not have to stick his fingers in the daughter's vagina to say that she is a virgin. When he entered her, blood she have come out on the sheets of the bed.
Posts: 384 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why did you delete your post?..Do you own a cloth Undercover?
quote: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)"
..LOL
-------------------- 'Abdullah bin 'Umar said, "Allah's Apostle (صلى الله عليه و سلم) took hold of my shoulder and said, "Be in this world as if you were a stranger or a traveller." Posts: 2342 | From: Its not where I'm from but where Im going | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by caringforwomen: Back in the biblical times, It was very important that a wife be a virgin when she was married. The father does not have to stick his fingers in the daughter's vagina to say that she is a virgin. When he entered her, blood she have come out on the sheets of the bed.
Excuse me read the scriptures. That's what father's did..the perverts. It's clear in Deuteronomy 22.
They were freaks and they did it because some other freak would have sex with their daughters and then say she wasn't a virgin and throw the girl back..father had to have proof their daughters were virgins in case some cat who had sex with their child said.."Naw man, your daughter is not a virgin!"
Posts: 2342 | From: Its not where I'm from but where Im going | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was not referring to a father having sex with his daughter. I was saying that when the husband entered her and breached her and her cherry pops, then there will be blood on sheets to prove that she is a virgin. After the couple's love-making, then the father could use that sheet.
Posts: 384 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sands your finger rubbish is not in King James Version and this is NO DIFFERENT to NOW in Egypt where the bedsheet is displayed for all the village to see the bllod stains.
you say you quote from the Talmud? Talmud = Jews HADITH. See how they corrupt it?
This is the King James Version of those verses: 13If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
16And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
22If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
-------------------- If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's no sense making them. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
My quote clearly states where it i.e. the translation came from: (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 22:13-18)"
Excuse me but KJV is simply that ie. King James Version there are more than 100,000 versions of the Bible.
Posts: 2342 | From: Its not where I'm from but where Im going | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: Who cares if it is from the KJV?.LOL..
well you should.
There is not much point trying to push your corrupted version if its corrupted and not actually true is there? Truth is what you said WAS in the books isnt, so either you are mistaken or you are as low as undercover and lying.
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: Who cares if it is from the KJV?.LOL..
well you should.
There is not much point trying to push your corrupted version if its corrupted and not actually true is there? Truth is what you said WAS in the books isnt, so either you are mistaken or you are as low as undercover and lying.
I don't. Everyone doesn't read KJV bible anyway..ask the Catholics if they read KJV? KJV is not the only authorized version of the bible Ayisha.
And like I said:
My quote clearly states where it i.e. the translation came from: (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 22:13-18)"
Excuse me but KJV is simply that ie. King James Version there are more than 100,000 versions of the Bible.
Posts: 2342 | From: Its not where I'm from but where Im going | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 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," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 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 (this is actually where sands added parts that are not really there )before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [b] and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
-------------------- If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's no sense making them. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay Ayisha knowledgable one.. Explain the cloth for the masses then..please.
-------------------- 'Abdullah bin 'Umar said, "Allah's Apostle (صلى الله عليه و سلم) took hold of my shoulder and said, "Be in this world as if you were a stranger or a traveller." Posts: 2342 | From: Its not where I'm from but where Im going | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
13"(H)If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, 14and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, 'I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,'
15then 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"The girl's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her;
17and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.
18"So (I)the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him,
English Standard Version: 13"If any man takes a wife and(H) goes in to her and then hates her 14and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, 'I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,' 15then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate. 16And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her; 17and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, "I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity." And yet this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.' And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city. 18Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip[b] him,
New International Version Uk 13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 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,
15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate.
16 The girl's father will say to the elders, I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her.
17 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,
18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him.
You see what YOU posted is not in ANY version, you have added words that are not there.
-------------------- If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's no sense making them. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: Okay Ayisha knowledgable one.. Explain the cloth for the masses then..please.
As I said in the post above it is the same as here and now in Egypt. The bedsheet is displayed from the bedroom balcony for people to see she was a virgin. This also can raise problems as not all girls bleed the first time anyway. This has been discussed here before though. It is an ancient practice that is still in use in African and Middle Eastern countries. I would have thought you would have known that.
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My My anyones knows that word in parenthesis are not the actual words but explaining the text.
Now like I said since you felt the need to open your mouth and defend the post. Explain what is the cloth then and how it was obtained?
Posts: 2342 | From: Its not where I'm from but where Im going | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: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)"
-------------------- 'Abdullah bin 'Umar said, "Allah's Apostle (صلى الله عليه و سلم) took hold of my shoulder and said, "Be in this world as if you were a stranger or a traveller." Posts: 2342 | From: Its not where I'm from but where Im going | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christians follow the gospels, not the old testament.
The Old Testament law was abrogated by Jesus. “Eye for an eye” gave way to “turn the other cheek.” Totally loving God and one’s neighbor became supreme law (Matt 22:38-40). Furthermore, Jesus’ “Sunna”-as in “What would Jesus do?”-is characterized by altruism.
Show me where any of those Old-Testament laws are being followed today. Quote where Jesus specifically commands that such man-made tribal laws be followed. Quote us where the Jews are following such laws today.
As compared to Quranic verses that are being followed Each day, Every day.
Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
I would like to hear from some Christians Insha Allah.. Undercover posted something that didn't even come close or make any kind of sense.
-------------------- 'Abdullah bin 'Umar said, "Allah's Apostle (صلى الله عليه و سلم) took hold of my shoulder and said, "Be in this world as if you were a stranger or a traveller." Posts: 2342 | From: Its not where I'm from but where Im going | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Undercover: Christians follow the gospels, not the old testament.
The Old Testament law was abrogated by Jesus. “Eye for an eye” gave way to “turn the other cheek.” Totally loving God and one’s neighbor became supreme law (Matt 22:38-40). Furthermore, Jesus’ “Sunna”-as in “What would Jesus do?”-is characterized by altruism.
So Undercover..you position is..Throw out the OLD (testament) and only keep the NEW (Testament). Do I understand you correctly?
Posts: 2342 | From: Its not where I'm from but where Im going | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: Jews say different from you Ayisha:
quote: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)"
And I already explained to you that the Talmud is not the scriptures, it is the same as the Muslims Hadith and not anything to do with God's words. 'see how they write the books with their own hands' just as muslims do now with tafsir and hadith.
If you are going to argue scriptures at least get the right Book to argue with.
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not going to debate with you. You didn't hear me call or see me write that the Talmud are scriptures.
Knowledgeable Jewish people know what the position of the Talmud is in their deen just like Muslims know the position of ahadeeth in our deen.
Posts: 2342 | From: Its not where I'm from but where Im going | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: I'm not going to debate with you. You didn't hear me call or see me write that the Talmud are scriptures.
Knowledgeable Jewish people know what the position of the Talmud is in their deen just like Muslims know the position of ahadeeth in our deen.
yes you did say the scriptures:
quote:Excuse me read the scriptures. That's what father's did..the perverts. It's clear in Deuteronomy 22.
They were freaks and they did it because some other freak would have sex with their daughters and then say she wasn't a virgin and throw the girl back..father had to have proof their daughters were virgins in case some cat who had sex with their child said.."Naw man, your daughter is not a virgin!"
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: Knowledgeable Jewish people know what the position of the Talmud is in their deen just like Muslims know the position of ahadeeth in our deen.
exactly sands, and Quran tells you about what they did so now the knowledgeable scholars of Islam are doing the same.
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: Sands your finger rubbish is not in King James Version and this is NO DIFFERENT to NOW in Egypt where the bedsheet is displayed for all the village to see the bllod stains.
Ahh but one is idiosyncratic to certain people from the rural areas of Egypt. The act that occurs in some rural areas in Egypt it is a woman relative who takes the bed sheet to show relatives.
The other is perversion stated in 'holy scriptures'. Completely and entirely different from the cultural traditions in certain villages of Egypt.
Posts: 2418 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: Sands your finger rubbish is not in King James Version and this is NO DIFFERENT to NOW in Egypt where the bedsheet is displayed for all the village to see the bllod stains.
Ahh but one is idiosyncratic to certain people from the rural areas of Egypt. The act that occurs in some rural areas in Egypt it is a woman relative who takes the bed sheet to show relatives.
The other is perversion stated in 'holy scriptures'. Completely and entirely different from the cultural traditions in certain villages of Egypt.
No Exiled its the same. the 'perversion' you are referring to is sands own words and not IN the scriptures. Now it may be the womans mother that does it, she is a relative of the girl. Then it may have been the father or the mother or any other relative. The practice is the same and comes from the same place.
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: Sands your finger rubbish is not in King James Version and this is NO DIFFERENT to NOW in Egypt where the bedsheet is displayed for all the village to see the bllod stains.
Ahh but one is idiosyncratic to certain people from the rural areas of Egypt. The act that occurs in some rural areas in Egypt it is a woman relative who takes the bed sheet to show relatives.
The other is perversion stated in 'holy scriptures'. Completely and entirely different from the cultural traditions in certain villages of Egypt.
No Exiled its the same. the 'perversion' you are referring to is sands own words and not IN the scriptures. Now it may be the womans mother that does it, she is a relative of the girl. Then it may have been the father or the mother or any other relative. The practice is the same and comes from the same place.
So you are saying that's where the Copt's got if from? And the Muslims maintained such from the days before they converted to Islam. Posts: 2418 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: Sands your finger rubbish is not in King James Version and this is NO DIFFERENT to NOW in Egypt where the bedsheet is displayed for all the village to see the bllod stains.
Ahh but one is idiosyncratic to certain people from the rural areas of Egypt. The act that occurs in some rural areas in Egypt it is a woman relative who takes the bed sheet to show relatives.
The other is perversion stated in 'holy scriptures'. Completely and entirely different from the cultural traditions in certain villages of Egypt.
No Exiled its the same. the 'perversion' you are referring to is sands own words and not IN the scriptures. Now it may be the womans mother that does it, she is a relative of the girl. Then it may have been the father or the mother or any other relative. The practice is the same and comes from the same place.
No Ayisha..the perversion is from the Talmud i.e. the Jews. The scriptures confirm the practice and the Talmud even goes into minute detail on the dimensions of the "Cloth". It was a practice that those freaks did and they admit it. You are the one in denial..LOL
Posts: 2342 | From: Its not where I'm from but where Im going | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: Sands your finger rubbish is not in King James Version and this is NO DIFFERENT to NOW in Egypt where the bedsheet is displayed for all the village to see the bllod stains.
Ahh but one is idiosyncratic to certain people from the rural areas of Egypt. The act that occurs in some rural areas in Egypt it is a woman relative who takes the bed sheet to show relatives.
The other is perversion stated in 'holy scriptures'. Completely and entirely different from the cultural traditions in certain villages of Egypt.
No Exiled its the same. the 'perversion' you are referring to is sands own words and not IN the scriptures. Now it may be the womans mother that does it, she is a relative of the girl. Then it may have been the father or the mother or any other relative. The practice is the same and comes from the same place.
So you are saying that's where the Copt's got if from? And the Muslims maintained such from the days before they converted to Islam.
Yes Exiled, this is where it came from and Muslims have carried on the cultural tradition the same way as they have carried on the cultural tradition of FGM and the same way they have carried on the ORDER given in the covenant with God and Abraham regarding male circumcision.
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands:
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha:
quote:Originally posted by Exiled:
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: Sands your finger rubbish is not in King James Version and this is NO DIFFERENT to NOW in Egypt where the bedsheet is displayed for all the village to see the bllod stains.
Ahh but one is idiosyncratic to certain people from the rural areas of Egypt. The act that occurs in some rural areas in Egypt it is a woman relative who takes the bed sheet to show relatives.
The other is perversion stated in 'holy scriptures'. Completely and entirely different from the cultural traditions in certain villages of Egypt.
No Exiled its the same. the 'perversion' you are referring to is sands own words and not IN the scriptures. Now it may be the womans mother that does it, she is a relative of the girl. Then it may have been the father or the mother or any other relative. The practice is the same and comes from the same place.
No Ayisha..the perversion is from the Talmud i.e. the Jews. The scriptures confirm the practice and the Talmud even goes into minute detail on the dimensions of the "Cloth". It was a practice that those freaks did and they admit it. You are the one in denial..LOL
No sands, dont try to twist it.
I have posted 3 I think, different versions of the Torah (OT) verse that you quoted. It says exactly the same in each and it says nothing at all about fathers fingers as you put.
I have explained what the Talmud is, check it if you dont beleive me.
The Torah is what God gave Moses, the Talmud is their tafsir and hadith. It is not from God, it is from man, just as tafsir and hadith are from man and YOU are doing the same mistake that the Jews did that you are warned about in Quran.
As you can see the Talmud changes the Torah, it changes the meaning, but they say the same as you do about it explaining the Torah, the same as you say tafsir and hadith 'explain' Quran.
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: Okay Ayisha knowledgable one.. Explain the cloth for the masses then..please.
As I said in the post above it is the same as here and now in Egypt. The bedsheet is displayed from the bedroom balcony for people to see she was a virgin. This also can raise problems as not all girls bleed the first time anyway. This has been discussed here before though. It is an ancient practice that is still in use in African and Middle Eastern countries. I would have thought you would have known that.
Yeah but Ayisha two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that this disgusting pracitice is still performed in Egypt doesn't make it ok. I still don't understand why this verse is in the bible.
Posts: 4446 | From: Egyptian in Sydney | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: Okay Ayisha knowledgable one.. Explain the cloth for the masses then..please.
As I said in the post above it is the same as here and now in Egypt. The bedsheet is displayed from the bedroom balcony for people to see she was a virgin. This also can raise problems as not all girls bleed the first time anyway. This has been discussed here before though. It is an ancient practice that is still in use in African and Middle Eastern countries. I would have thought you would have known that.
Yeah but Ayisha two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that this disgusting pracitice is still performed in Egypt doesn't make it ok. I still don't understand why this verse is in the bible.
Sorry 7ayat I dont understand what '2 wrongs' you mean?
Im not sure what 'disgusting practice' you mean either.
we are in 2008 and men in certain countries/cultures/religions still 'need' or insist on, a virgin bride. If the bride is found to be not a virgin then he can divorce her and this is also in Islam. It was/is a cause for shame to the bride and her family, ALL their family and this still goes on NOW in these countries. One way to 'prove' she was a virgin is to show the blood from the bedsheet after the wedding night, which they were doing for thousands of years before.
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ayisha, by two wrongs, I mean the fact that it was in the Bible, and that it is practiced in Egypt. Why do you keep referring to the fact that it's practiced in Egypt, does that justify , the fact that it's in the Bible?
Secondly, yes I know that virginity is important in Islam, but no where does it tell fathers to stick their fingers inside their daughters to "check". Besides, as you must know many women don't have hymens, and many women't don't bleed in general. So what happens then?
Posts: 4446 | From: Egyptian in Sydney | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
7ayat I keep referring to Egypt as most of us here have Egypt in common, it is EgyptSearch and it is still practiced here.
If you read all the thread you will see that the fathers fingers bit is NOT in the Bible, thats the arguement in question. THAT practice is NOT carried out.
I agree as many women dont bleed and with reconstructive surgery nowdays can have the hymen replaced anyway, but back then a few thousand years ago they didnt know that.
Im not saying it is 'right' by todays standard of course its not, but this was practiced for thousands of years to prove virginity and is still practiced now in many countries and cultures. I dont mean the fathers fingers bit as that is NOT in the Book anyway.
-------------------- If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's no sense making them. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
In this article we want to investigate the claims of answering-christianity.com. We thank Osama Abdallah for reposting this link, even though we already read it.
Apparently he thinks that repeating the same material over and over again would somehow make his argument stronger, no matter how shallow his evidence truly is. In his article he believes that the bible sanctions a practice known as defloration or sticking a person’s fingers in the vaginal area of a woman.
Now many Christians would wonder what the purpose of such an article is. We must say that Osama Abdallah has nothing better to do than to think about sexual explicit information and then attempt to justify his fantastical interpolations with the Bible. He begins by saying:
So basically his personal experience on this issue comes from “what he heard”. How can you call this an experience if you actually never experienced what you claimed? Osama has a very bad habit of using words in wrongful context without comprehending their meaning. “Hearing something secondhand” isn’t the same as experiencing it.
Now because this alleged practice was adhered to by Jews, Christians, and Muslims Osama has a problem here. His problem is namely that this practice was one of culture and tradition more than religion. Knowing this glaring obstacle he has attempted to justify the Muslim action by claiming that “well it isn’t mentioned in Islamic doctrine so Islam doesn’t sanction it”. It should be noted that Jerusalem isn’t mentioned in Islamic doctrine either but Osama and other Palestinians are quick to appeal the temple mount as an Islamic holy place. Hence, this hypocrisy isn’t going to convince us. Now let’s begin to analyze his evidence to see if both he and Mr. Tigay are truthful.
This part of his quote talks about "accused brides". Accused of what? Namely fornication before marriage. Now if Osama Abdallah is correct and the bible sanctions deflowering then
1. Where is the bible verse here? 2. Why is it talking about modern times instead of biblical times? 3. How can virgins be accused brides if deflowering was for anyone? 4. If virgins weren’t accused then deflowering wouldn’t be necessary would it?
Basically from reading the quote carefully we only see that at best “deflowering” could only be for accused brides not everyone. We must also note that Morocco is a Muslim country so why are Muslims adhering to this practice? Notice that no bible verse as a basis can be used to justify this action.
Notice what this quote says:
According to the Midrash Hagadol
Osama Abdallah thinks that the Midrash Hagadol is the Bible! LOL!!! Here is what Genesis 24:67 says:
Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife, and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.
There is no way possible to garner the idea of defloration here. Such a practice can only be justified by outside biblical information. Osama can’t use the bible and claim that this practice is justified. Basically his entire argument rests upon how others interpolated the bible to fit their own agenda. Osama has a very bad habit of using hypocrisy. Notice his claims against the Bible:
The Gospel of Mark:
"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1488)"
&So, in reality, we don't really know whether Mark was the sole author of this Gospel or not. And since The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus, then how are we to know for sure that the current "Gospel of Mark" wasn't written by some pro of Mark? - http://www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm
Here, he claims that we shouldn’t trust certain books in the Bible because they were allegedly 150-300 years later but wait he goes and appeals to the Midrash! Look at when the Midrash was composed: MIDRASH:
In Judaism, a large collection of writings that examine the Hebrew Bible in the light of oral tradition. Midrashic activity reached its height in the 2nd cent. AD with the schools of Ishmael ben Elisha and Akiba ben Joseph. The Midrashim are divided into two groups: Halakhah, which clarify legal issues; and Haggadah, nonlegal writings intended simply to enlighten. The Midrashim are extensively quoted in the Talmud. ( Source)
So, in one place Abdallah says its wrong to use material compiled 200 years after it is written but in another instance this hypocrite says that it is perfectly fine to use legends, composed in the 2nd century A.D., DEALING WITH GENESIS WHICH PROCEEDED IT BY OVER 2000 YEARS! HOW FOOLISH CAN YOU GET!!!
according to Pirke Rabbi Eliezer, chap. 16, p. 38a, the examination consisted of digital defloration [ref. courtesy of my colleague, Prof. Judah Goldin]).
But in his paper Osama says:
some males in the Bible did it to females.
But what does his quote say:
according to Pirke Rabbi Eliezer
Osama Abdallah thinks that a Rabbi is the bible!! LOL!!! Need we say more?
According to the aprocryphal Book of James, sec. 19-20, Mary was likewise examined digitally for virginity by Salome (New Testament Apocrypha, ed. E. Hennecke & W. Schneemelcher, 385; ref. courtesy of Prof. Tikva Frymer-Kensky and my colleague Prof. Robert A. Kraft)."
Osama's folly knows no bounds. He is even willing to quote from the apocryphal to prove his point, even though his paper claims to be based on information from the Bible!! It is obvious that neither Mr.Tigay nor Mr. Abdallah have actually read the apocryphal book of James for it says nothing to what they claim: XIX. I And behold a woman coming down from the hillcountry, and she said to me: Man, whither goest thou ? And I said: I seek a midwife of the Hebrews. And she answered and said unto me: Art thou of Israel ? And I said unto her: Yea. And she said: And who is she that bringeth forth in the cave ? And I said: She that is betrothed unto me. And she said to me: Is she not thy wife? And I said to her: It is Mary that was nurtured up in the temple of the Lord: and I received her to wife by lot: and she is not my wife, but she hath conception by the Holy Ghost.
And the midwife said unto him: Is this the truth? And Joseph said unto her: Come hither and see. And the midwife went with him.
2 And they stood in the place of the cave: and behold a bright cloud overshadowing the cave. And the midwife said: My soul is magnified this day, because mine eyes have seen marvellous things: for salvation is born unto Israel. And immediately the cloud withdrew itself out of the cave, and a great light appeared in the cave so that our eyes could not endure it. And by little and little that light withdrew itself until the young child appeared: and it went and took the breast of its mother Mary.
And the midwife cried aloud and said: Great unto me to-day is this day, in that ! have seen this new sight. 3 And the midwife went forth of the cave and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, a new sight have I to tell thee. A virgin hath brought forth, which her nature alloweth not. And Salome said: As the Lord my God liveth, if I make not trial and prove her nature I will not believe that a virgin hath brought forth.
XX. 1 And the midwife went in and said unto Mary: Order thyself, for there is no small contention arisen concerning thee. Arid Salome made trial and cried out and said: Woe unto mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God, and lo, my hand falleth away from me in fire. And she bowed her knees unto the Lord, saying: O God of my fathers, remember that I am the seed of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob: make me not a public example unto the children of Israel, but restore me unto the poor, for thou knowest, Lord, that in thy name did I perform my cures, and did receive my hire of thee. 3 And lo, an angel of the Lord appeared, saying unto her: Salome, Salome, the Lord hath hearkened to thee: bring thine hand near unto the young child and take him up, and there shall be unto thee salvation and joy. 4 And Salome came near and took him up, saying: I will do him worship, for a great king is born unto Israel. And behold immediately Salome was healed: and she went forth of the cave justified. And Io, a voice saying: Salome, Salome, tell none of the marvels which thou hast seen, until the child enter into Jerusalem.
As you can see, no such act of defloration took place here. No such conclusion can be reached by reading the text itself. One can only interpolate this idea back in to make it fit. The text shows that Salome wanted to bring Mary to trial because of here own unbelief. What made Salome believe Mary wasn't defloration but the healing power of the child Jesus healing her hand!! This is incredible and any attempt to appeal to this book must be rejected as false in defense of defloration. Osama Abdallah claims that defloration is in the bible but the only information he seems to have is the apocraphyl, the Midrash and modern culture practices common even among Muslims. None of these are the bible! Such misinformation is inexcusable.
Both the apocryphal and the text of Genesis don’t support any case of defloration. Gen 24:47 just says:
Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. Isaac brought Rebecca to the tent of his mother and they got married. That’s all what happen.
In the book of James, the text doesn’t show anywhere in which Salome, (whom Osama misinterprets as being a man. He can’t tell a woman from a man!!) examined Mary. She accused Mary and then later proceeded to begin a trial due to her disbelief of the “virgin birth”. These two stooges don’t even read the material in which they base their arguments on!!
The New JPS translation of Deuteronomy 22:15-17 makes it even more clear about having the parents of the girl displaying the bloody piece of cloth before the elders of the town.
I want to bring back something to your attention. Notice what Osama said earlier:
When I read Deuteronomy 22:13-18 in the Bible, as it is explained in details further in the article, I merely lost my mind! I was in great shock! The Bible matched exactly what I heard about when I was young.
Notice that he claimed that THE BIBLE MATCHED THIS PERFECTLY. If this is true then how come he interpolated this into the text:
[the father would literally stick his two fingers covered with a piece of cloth into his daughter's vagina before she gets married and keep that bloody cloth for as long as his daughter is married]
Now if the Bible matched perfectly to what he claimed then how come he has to add the brackets into the text to make the reader think that defloration is mentioned in this verse? This is the fallacy of begging the question in which “you assume defloration is being mention so you add brackets to coerce the reader to believe this before actually letting the text speak for itself”. Now let's look at the definition of defloration closely:
def·lo·ra·tion (dfl-rshn) n.
1.The act of deflowering. 2.Rupture of the hymen, typically in sexual intercourse.
Defloration is the act of rupturing the hymen during sexual intercourse. Therefore the man can't stick his hand into the woman's vagina according to Mr. Abdallah. How can you have sexual intercourse and then stick your hand and a cloth at the same time in a woman's vagina. Make no sense does it? Then again most of Osama’s material makes no sense. Here is the definition of deflowering:
1.To take away the virginity of (a woman). 2.To destroy the innocence, integrity, or beauty of; ravage.
Deflowering dealing with sex is physically taking away a woman's virginity through sexual intercourse unless Osama is saying that having sex can be done with a cloth now. I'm sure the sexual educators and the medical doctors would love to hear this. Deflowering can't be after sexual intercourse and Mr. Abdallah's statement itself disproves his point, look at the first words of Deuteronomy 22:13-18
If a man takes a wife and, after laying with her
What do we see at the beginning of this topic.
1. The man presenting the cloth after laying with his wife. According to Osama deflowering happens with the finger before intercourse. But according to what deflower means it doesn't:
1. Taking away the virginity, hence having sex to do this. 2. rupturing the hymen through sexual intercourse
This process occurs during sexual intercourse What does the verse say:
AFTER SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.
The verse he refers to clearly says "AFTER LAYING WITH HER". Osama has tried to invent a theory by saying that you can have sex your hand to check a woman's virginity. Here is what a virgin is
A person who hasn't experience sexual intercourse.
Can sexual intercourse be done with a finger? NO.
Sexual-Pertaining to, affecting, or characteristic of sex, the sexes or the sex organs and their functions. Having a sex organ.
Is a finger a sex organ? That is what Osama Abdallah is trying to promote now. Hence he must invent theories to justify his false claim. The rest of Osama’s paper is utter nonsense. He claims that this article deals with issues from the bible but all he does is quote the Talmud, which isn’t the Bible. Hence we only wanted to deal with the relevant issues of defloration AND THE BIBLE. We care nothing about the Talmud, a collection of contradictory legends of 2nd and 3rd century Jews. If we adhere to Osama's insane explanation on defloration, the biblical characters would take the virginity of their daughters, when accused by someone, before they get married!! Hence, this process would make them non-virgins in an attempt to prove that they are virgins!!! Muslim apologetics are truly pathetic to say the least.
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: Okay Ayisha knowledgable one.. Explain the cloth for the masses then..please.
As I said in the post above it is the same as here and now in Egypt. The bedsheet is displayed from the bedroom balcony for people to see she was a virgin. This also can raise problems as not all girls bleed the first time anyway. This has been discussed here before though. It is an ancient practice that is still in use in African and Middle Eastern countries. I would have thought you would have known that.
Yeah but Ayisha two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that this disgusting pracitice is still performed in Egypt doesn't make it ok. I still don't understand why this verse is in the bible.
The pattern with Ayisha is becoming apparent with each passing day. If anyone dares mention or question anything in the manner that Sands just did then she will say -well they do it in Egypt.
If someone mentions the Lot's incest in the Bible she will say - well prophet Muhammad (saw) married a child.
The fact is while this is practiced by some ignoramuses in Egypt. The source of it is in so-called 'holy scriptures'.
What sands mentioned about the finger is mentioned in Talmud. I think there is some validity to it's perverse nature because it is a fact when blood does not appear, a woman will stick a finger inside the vagina to see if their is any kind of minuscule amount of blood.
Furthermore there are instances where some families do exactly as in Talmud and have a woman stick a finger before a husband 'enters his wife' and the woman later goes to the waiting families to the sound of zogroota.
If there is no blood - they have sit downs and they have talks that sometimes involves the omdah.
The reality is that such a practice is minimal and practiced mainly in upper Egypt only.
Stigmatizing Egypt for what is written is so-called 'holy books' is pathetic attempt to detract from the question "Is this act sanctioned in some Holy books"?
Posts: 2418 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If someone mentions the Lot's incest in the Bible she will say - well prophet Muhammad (saw) married a child."
Lot is not the standard of morality for Christians you dimwit, but Muhammad IS for Muslims.
NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE IS LOT CALLED A PROPHET. The fact that the Quran declares him a prophet does not mean Christians or Jews have to consider him a prophet as well. His image in the Holy Scriptures is rather ambiguous.
Firstly, the Bible records what humans are like - and we are sinful. Lot sinned in many ways, one of them being that he failed to organise husbands for his daughters. This then led to his daughters sinning the way they did. However this account was not written for us to imitate; we are never told to imitate this type of behaviour, in fact we are commanded not to do it:
No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD. (Leviticus 18:6)
Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness. (Leviticus 18:7)Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Exiled: The pattern with Ayisha is becoming apparent with each passing day. If anyone dares mention or question anything in the manner that Sands just did then she will say -well they do it in Egypt.
If someone mentions the Lot's incest in the Bible she will say - well prophet Muhammad (saw) married a child.
The fact is while this is practiced by some ignoramuses in Egypt. The source of it is in so-called 'holy scriptures'.
What sands mentioned about the finger is mentioned in Talmud. I think there is some validity to it's perverse nature because it is a fact when blood does not appear, a woman will stick a finger inside the vagina to see if their is any kind of minuscule amount of blood.
Furthermore there are instances where some families do exactly as in Talmud and have a woman stick a finger before a husband 'enters his wife' and the woman later goes to the waiting families to the sound of zogroota.
If there is no blood - they have sit downs and they have talks that sometimes involves the omdah.
The reality is that such a practice is minimal and practiced mainly in upper Egypt only.
Stigmatizing Egypt for what is written is so-called 'holy books' is pathetic attempt to detract from the question "Is this act sanctioned in some Holy books"?
Now wait a minute Exiled, I explained why I said Egypt and it is nothing to do with 'stigmatizing' Egypt so dont twist my words as its clear here for anyone to read what I did say, you obviously haven't bothered to read what I said or you would know I am not talking about the fathers fingers bit that sands added to the Torah. Why is it all of a sudden the showing of the bedsheet is such an appauling thing? It has been discussed before and we KNOW it was an acceptable historical practice that is still being used in many countries, cultures and religions, not just Egypt.
Sands added the bit he says is Talmud, it has been made clear talmud is NOT Torah. I have fully explained it but if you want to turn a blind eye to what I actually DID say then thats up to you, carry on as you are and both you and sands are becoming increasingly like undercover you have both obvioulsy been reading too many of his/her posts.
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"carry on as you are and both you and sands are becoming increasingly like undercover"
Frankly I feel very insulted to be compared to a scum such as exiled. And frankly I am getting tired of you mentioning me in every post of yours. Can you tell me what's your problem?
Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Exiled: The pattern with Ayisha is becoming apparent with each passing day. If anyone dares mention or question anything in the manner that Sands just did then she will say -well they do it in Egypt.
If someone mentions the Lot's incest in the Bible she will say - well prophet Muhammad (saw) married a child.
The fact is while this is practiced by some ignoramuses in Egypt. The source of it is in so-called 'holy scriptures'.
What sands mentioned about the finger is mentioned in Talmud. I think there is some validity to it's perverse nature because it is a fact when blood does not appear, a woman will stick a finger inside the vagina to see if their is any kind of minuscule amount of blood.
Furthermore there are instances where some families do exactly as in Talmud and have a woman stick a finger before a husband 'enters his wife' and the woman later goes to the waiting families to the sound of zogroota.
If there is no blood - they have sit downs and they have talks that sometimes involves the omdah.
The reality is that such a practice is minimal and practiced mainly in upper Egypt only.
Stigmatizing Egypt for what is written is so-called 'holy books' is pathetic attempt to detract from the question "Is this act sanctioned in some Holy books"?
Now wait a minute Exiled, I explained why I said Egypt and it is nothing to do with 'stigmatizing' Egypt so dont twist my words as its clear here for anyone to read what I did say, you obviously haven't bothered to read what I said or you would know I am not talking about the fathers fingers bit that sands added to the Torah. Why is it all of a sudden the showing of the bedsheet is such an appauling thing? It has been discussed before and we KNOW it was an acceptable historical practice that is still being used in many countries, cultures and religions, not just Egypt.
Sands added the bit he says is Talmud, it has been made clear talmud is NOT Torah. I have fully explained it but if you want to turn a blind eye to what I actually DID say then thats up to you, carry on as you are and both you and sands are becoming increasingly like undercover you have both obvioulsy been reading too many of his/her posts.
I not only find such verses appalling. I find them unjust to women because some women as repeatedly stated simply do not bleed. Such verses could literally endanger a woman’s life. How cruel and unjust is it to ask a woman proof of her virginity – especially with the reality that there is no proof - this is what I find appalling.
This is traumatizing when people believe such. It is actually horrifying if a woman has to dwell if she will bleed or not.
Just seems very cruel.
Posts: 2418 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love that Exiled has a heart and lots of empathy. His mamma must have done a good job.
Posts: 407 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's your problem?...don't you see a compliment for what it is? Dang...I thought I was hypersensitive!
I like your pro women positions, that's all. The psychobabble in me tells me that might be because you like/liked your mamma and therefore, women in general. Am I right?
I don't wanna ever have a go at a guy who said something profound I reflected on over the holidays: you said something like your belief and faith tells you to not anger or disparage those that believe as Ayisha nor those that believe as Sands. A true Islamic attitude indeed. I liked that.
OK, I've kissed your butt enuf for one morning.
Posts: 407 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by humanist: What's your problem?...don't you see a compliment for what it is? Dang...I thought I was hypersensitive!
I like your pro women positions, that's all. The psychobabble in me tells me that might be because you like/liked your mamma and therefore, women in general. Am I right?
I don't wanna ever have a go at a guy who said something profound I reflected on over the holidays: you said something like your belief and faith tells you to not anger or disparage those that believe as Ayisha nor those that believe as Sands. A true Islamic attitude indeed. I liked that.
OK, I've kissed your butt enuf for one morning.
I thought you were messing with me because just earlier you accused me of being Sands. I have nothing against Sands and Salafis at all even if they prefer to accept the most stringent interpretations and sources of Islam.
I also have nothing against Ayisha also even if she believes in the scriptures that accuses Prophet Lut (as) of incest and Prophet David(as) of other crimes.
I will however make it a point that the Quran says otherwise and that is what I believe. When one book slanders Prophets of God and the other one calls them righteous.
Something is wrong.
Anyhow I thought you were having a go at me because of something actually dumb. So delete the PM i sent you
posted
Exiled i dont understand you at all sometimes. I agree it is not a brilliant way to prove a girl is a virgin but you cannot say this practice is not still used and not used also as part of islam by many countries. Marrying a virgin woman is one thing the majority of Muslim men want.
Yes it is disregarding women, but many hadith also do that and the scholars uphold all of them NOW, the subject we are discussing is thousands of years before Muhammed!!
In Quran Allah said 'this day I have PERFECTED your religion' 5:03, so it wasnt perfect before, it was 'in progress'.
-------------------- If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's no sense making them. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
And the Muslims maintained such from the days before they converted to Islam.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic