Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Stoning

Expand Messages
  • Ryck
    ... I happen to be in Saudi right now (probably be here a couple of weeks). I m trying to learn Spanish, so I found a News program produced in Spain. ... LOL!
    Message 1 of 22 , Mar 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In jehovahswitnessesgathering@yahoogroups.com, "Darrell"
      <dldavis007@...> wrote:

      >>
      I happen to be in Saudi right now (probably be here a couple of
      weeks). I'm trying to learn Spanish, so I found a News program
      produced in Spain.
      >>

      LOL!

      Isn't that a little weird? What I mean is, wouldn't it be a little
      unusual, say, to go to Japan in order to learn French? :)

      I'm impressed that there is international offering in the Saudi
      media, however.

      >>
      One segment in the program dealt with Children and Stoning. I'm not
      sure exactly what they were talking about, because my Spanish is not
      that good, but one scene showed a young girl (about 10 years old)
      standing in a hole up to about her mid-waist. This was obviously
      just a reenactment, because the hole was not filled in with dirt.
      Standing around the girl were about 8 boys of the same age, with
      stones in each hand. A paper bag with cut-outs for eyes was placed
      over the young girls head.
      >>

      I'm not aware of any culture, current or past, where of stoning of
      children participated solely by other children.

      I doubt the validity of what you saw. I'm not saying you didn't see
      it. But remember it was a dramatizationa rather than actual news
      footage. It may even have been a work of fiction -- you are not sure
      of what you were seeing.


      >>
      Seeing the girls tear filled eyes thorough the cut-outs in the paper
      bag made a very striking image. I couldn't help but remember this
      post and the recent news of a young woman that was scheduled to be
      stoned in Iran.
      >>

      Dramatic effect, I'm sure. But the two cases are different.



      >>
      Obviously, no one here approves of such a practice (at least I hope
      they don't), but I'm wondering how you all justify the idea that a
      loving and just God would command his people to institute this
      punishment for those found guilty of various sins such as infidelity?
      >>

      The Bible doesn't detail the whole process of stoning. What we do
      know is that stoning was not a mob justice affair. It had to be
      judicial process first with witnesses testifying and the matter
      spoken about by both sides in the open public. And it had to be
      officially authorized, had to be a capital punishment affair, and had
      to be done outside of the city.

      Furthermore, according to Mosaic Law, you need at least two witnesses
      to testify in a capital case. If you had less than this then
      execution was impossible. If the witnesses requirement was met then
      those witnesses had to be the first to throw the stones. Then
      everyone joined in.

      The idea that the witnesses being also the executioners no doubt made
      them very sure about what they are saying and not offer false
      testimony. Because the penalty of a lying witness in stoning was
      capital punishment by stoning as well!


      >>
      Though this practice was carried out long ago, by God's people, as
      commanded by God, we should not let the remoteness of the act
      diminish the cruetly and injumanity of such a practice.
      >>

      Back then people were compelled to be part of the judicial system
      from beginning to end. Now a lot of the judicial system in insular,
      removed, separate. Executions are done by officials, hidden away, and
      as efficiently as possible. All you know is that the criminal's life
      is over.

      No one likes the job. But when captital public is done in public view
      with public participation it does makes the law personal than a
      theory, and helps everyone appreciate the value of keeping one
      neighbor's wholeness by not violating your neighbor's wholeness.

      Obviously, no one likes what needs to be done. But somebody has to do
      it if there are those that presume to prey on the rights of others
      rather than respect them; and just knowing that it is wrong is not a
      deterrent to the would-be criminal.

      Remember that the USA has the highest prison population in the world -
      and rising. There are over 2 million US citizens in jail and the
      jails are overpopulated as it is. Simply putting people into jail
      isn't working, especially that most that leave jail are back in jail
      again.

      A lot of people out there are getting hurt out there by increasing
      criminal activity. Criminals are getting bolder and more law savvy.
      And what deterrents to crime that are left are gradually losing their
      intended effect.

      So which is really better? And who is really living in horror and
      fear?

      My two cents.


      .r.
    • Ryck
      ... We all know that Jesus told Thomas that he that has seen him has also seen the Father: John 14:8 Philip said to him: Lord, show us the Father, and it is
      Message 2 of 22 , Mar 2, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In jehovahswitnessesgathering@yahoogroups.com, alanna garth
        <pokealanna@...> wrote:

        >>
        We all know that Jesus told Thomas that he that has seen him has also
        seen the Father: John 14:8 Philip said to him: "Lord, show us the
        Father, and it is enough for us."

        9 Jesus said to him: "Have I been with YOU men so long a time, and
        yet, Philip, you have not come to know me? He that has seen me has
        seen the Father [also]. How is it you say, `Show us the Father'?

        Well, the WTS has felt fit to say that he who has seen them has seen
        Jesus. Take a look a paragraph 10 of the June 1, 1982 WT...page 23:

        [snip]
        >>

        Hi Alanna

        I'm online in the group's website. According to Yahoo your post was
        branched off as a reply to Darrell.

        I'm wondering what does this reply to Darrell's stoning observation
        have to do with Darrell's stoning observation???


        .r.
      • alanna garth
        Sorry Ryck I don t know how to start a new post. Thats why I changed the subject line. How do i start a new post? ...
        Message 3 of 22 , Mar 3, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Sorry Ryck
          I don't know how to start a new post.
          Thats why I changed the subject line.
          How do i start a new post?
          --- Ryck <odracyr@...> wrote:

          > --- In jehovahswitnessesgathering@yahoogroups.com,
          > alanna garth
          > <pokealanna@...> wrote:
          >
          > >>
          > We all know that Jesus told Thomas that he that has
          > seen him has also
          > seen the Father: John 14:8 Philip said to him:
          > "Lord, show us the
          > Father, and it is enough for us."
          >
          > 9 Jesus said to him: "Have I been with YOU men so
          > long a time, and
          > yet, Philip, you have not come to know me? He that
          > has seen me has
          > seen the Father [also]. How is it you say, `Show us
          > the Father'?
          >
          > Well, the WTS has felt fit to say that he who has
          > seen them has seen
          > Jesus. Take a look a paragraph 10 of the June 1,
          > 1982 WT...page 23:
          >
          > [snip]
          > >>
          >
          > Hi Alanna
          >
          > I'm online in the group's website. According to
          > Yahoo your post was
          > branched off as a reply to Darrell.
          >
          > I'm wondering what does this reply to Darrell's
          > stoning observation
          > have to do with Darrell's stoning observation???
          >
          >
          > .r.
          >
          >
          >
          >



          ____________________________________________________________________________________
          Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
          http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
        • Ryck
          ... Sorry Ryck I don t know how to start a new post. Thats why I changed the subject line. How do i start a new post? ... No problem. Just looked funny. :D If
          Message 4 of 22 , Mar 3, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In jehovahswitnessesgathering@yahoogroups.com, alanna garth
            <pokealanna@...> wrote:

            >>
            Sorry Ryck
            I don't know how to start a new post.
            Thats why I changed the subject line.
            How do i start a new post?
            >>

            No problem. Just looked funny. :D

            If you are doing this online at the group's website, click on the POST
            link just under the MESSAGES link. That starts a brand new post using
            your Subject as the head of the thread.

            Hope this helps.

            .r.
          • Jim
            ... Congrats and better you then me :P
            Message 5 of 22 , Mar 4, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In jehovahswitnessesgathering@yahoogroups.com, donn reese
              <tlkreese@...> wrote:
              >
              > Doing ok, just getting older. I'm going to be a grandpa in October.
              >


              Congrats and better you then me :P
            • Darrell
              Ryck, Deuteronomy 22:13-24 clearly states that a woman found not to be a virgin upon her wedding should be stoned to death. It also clearly states that
              Message 6 of 22 , Mar 5, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Ryck,

                Deuteronomy 22:13-24 clearly states that a woman found not to be a
                virgin upon her wedding should be stoned to death. It also clearly
                states that infidelity is punishable by death.

                Do you feel that those who where found guilty and punished
                accordingly back in the OT times were deserving of such extreme
                punishment?

                Sincerely,

                Darrell

                --- In jehovahswitnessesgathering@yahoogroups.com, "Ryck"
                <odracyr@...> wrote:
                >
                > --- In jehovahswitnessesgathering@yahoogroups.com, "Darrell"
                > <dldavis007@> wrote:
                >
                > >>
                > I happen to be in Saudi right now (probably be here a couple of
                > weeks). I'm trying to learn Spanish, so I found a News program
                > produced in Spain.
                > >>
                >
                > LOL!
                >
                > Isn't that a little weird? What I mean is, wouldn't it be a little
                > unusual, say, to go to Japan in order to learn French? :)
                >
                > I'm impressed that there is international offering in the Saudi
                > media, however.
                >
                > >>
                > One segment in the program dealt with Children and Stoning. I'm
                not
                > sure exactly what they were talking about, because my Spanish is
                not
                > that good, but one scene showed a young girl (about 10 years old)
                > standing in a hole up to about her mid-waist. This was obviously
                > just a reenactment, because the hole was not filled in with dirt.
                > Standing around the girl were about 8 boys of the same age, with
                > stones in each hand. A paper bag with cut-outs for eyes was placed
                > over the young girls head.
                > >>
                >
                > I'm not aware of any culture, current or past, where of stoning of
                > children participated solely by other children.
                >
                > I doubt the validity of what you saw. I'm not saying you didn't see
                > it. But remember it was a dramatizationa rather than actual news
                > footage. It may even have been a work of fiction -- you are not
                sure
                > of what you were seeing.
                >
                >
                > >>
                > Seeing the girls tear filled eyes thorough the cut-outs in the
                paper
                > bag made a very striking image. I couldn't help but remember this
                > post and the recent news of a young woman that was scheduled to be
                > stoned in Iran.
                > >>
                >
                > Dramatic effect, I'm sure. But the two cases are different.
                >
                >
                >
                > >>
                > Obviously, no one here approves of such a practice (at least I hope
                > they don't), but I'm wondering how you all justify the idea that a
                > loving and just God would command his people to institute this
                > punishment for those found guilty of various sins such as
                infidelity?
                > >>
                >
                > The Bible doesn't detail the whole process of stoning. What we do
                > know is that stoning was not a mob justice affair. It had to be
                > judicial process first with witnesses testifying and the matter
                > spoken about by both sides in the open public. And it had to be
                > officially authorized, had to be a capital punishment affair, and
                had
                > to be done outside of the city.
                >
                > Furthermore, according to Mosaic Law, you need at least two
                witnesses
                > to testify in a capital case. If you had less than this then
                > execution was impossible. If the witnesses requirement was met then
                > those witnesses had to be the first to throw the stones. Then
                > everyone joined in.
                >
                > The idea that the witnesses being also the executioners no doubt
                made
                > them very sure about what they are saying and not offer false
                > testimony. Because the penalty of a lying witness in stoning was
                > capital punishment by stoning as well!
                >
                >
                > >>
                > Though this practice was carried out long ago, by God's people, as
                > commanded by God, we should not let the remoteness of the act
                > diminish the cruetly and injumanity of such a practice.
                > >>
                >
                > Back then people were compelled to be part of the judicial system
                > from beginning to end. Now a lot of the judicial system in insular,
                > removed, separate. Executions are done by officials, hidden away,
                and
                > as efficiently as possible. All you know is that the criminal's
                life
                > is over.
                >
                > No one likes the job. But when captital public is done in public
                view
                > with public participation it does makes the law personal than a
                > theory, and helps everyone appreciate the value of keeping one
                > neighbor's wholeness by not violating your neighbor's wholeness.
                >
                > Obviously, no one likes what needs to be done. But somebody has to
                do
                > it if there are those that presume to prey on the rights of others
                > rather than respect them; and just knowing that it is wrong is not
                a
                > deterrent to the would-be criminal.
                >
                > Remember that the USA has the highest prison population in the
                world -
                > and rising. There are over 2 million US citizens in jail and the
                > jails are overpopulated as it is. Simply putting people into jail
                > isn't working, especially that most that leave jail are back in
                jail
                > again.
                >
                > A lot of people out there are getting hurt out there by increasing
                > criminal activity. Criminals are getting bolder and more law savvy.
                > And what deterrents to crime that are left are gradually losing
                their
                > intended effect.
                >
                > So which is really better? And who is really living in horror and
                > fear?
                >
                > My two cents.
                >
                >
                > .r.
                >
              • Ryck
                ... Deuteronomy 22:13-24 clearly states that a woman found not to be a virgin upon her wedding should be stoned to death. It also clearly states that
                Message 7 of 22 , Mar 6, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In jehovahswitnessesgathering@yahoogroups.com, "Darrell"
                  <dldavis007@...> wrote:

                  >>
                  Deuteronomy 22:13-24 clearly states that a woman found not to be a
                  virgin upon her wedding should be stoned to death. It also clearly
                  states that infidelity is punishable by death.
                  >>

                  No, Deuteronomy 22:13-24 clearly states several things.

                  22:13-19 -- If a man charges that the woman he married was not a
                  virgin but proof of her virginity is provided, not only is he heavily
                  fined but he will be barred for the rest of his life from ever
                  divorcing her.

                  22:20-21 -- I think this is the one you mean. Didn't you read it
                  carefully? Punishment is applied if the woman passed herself off as a
                  virgin when she was not.

                  >>
                  Do you feel that those who where found guilty and punished
                  accordingly back in the OT times were deserving of such extreme
                  punishment?
                  >>

                  Different culture, Darrell. Someone from OT times would probably
                  wonder what extreme punishment over 55 million unborn babies deserved
                  via abortion each year?

                  .r.
                • alanna garth
                  I concur with Ryck on this. ... ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and
                  Message 8 of 22 , Mar 6, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I concur with Ryck on this.
                    --- Ryck <odracyr@...> wrote:

                    > --- In jehovahswitnessesgathering@yahoogroups.com,
                    > "Darrell"
                    > <dldavis007@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > >>
                    > Deuteronomy 22:13-24 clearly states that a woman
                    > found not to be a
                    > virgin upon her wedding should be stoned to death.
                    > It also clearly
                    > states that infidelity is punishable by death.
                    > >>
                    >
                    > No, Deuteronomy 22:13-24 clearly states several
                    > things.
                    >
                    > 22:13-19 -- If a man charges that the woman he
                    > married was not a
                    > virgin but proof of her virginity is provided, not
                    > only is he heavily
                    > fined but he will be barred for the rest of his life
                    > from ever
                    > divorcing her.
                    >
                    > 22:20-21 -- I think this is the one you mean. Didn't
                    > you read it
                    > carefully? Punishment is applied if the woman passed
                    > herself off as a
                    > virgin when she was not.
                    >
                    > >>
                    > Do you feel that those who where found guilty and
                    > punished
                    > accordingly back in the OT times were deserving of
                    > such extreme
                    > punishment?
                    > >>
                    >
                    > Different culture, Darrell. Someone from OT times
                    > would probably
                    > wonder what extreme punishment over 55 million
                    > unborn babies deserved
                    > via abortion each year?
                    >
                    > .r.
                    >
                    >
                    >



                    ____________________________________________________________________________________
                    Be a better friend, newshound, and
                    know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
                  • Jim
                    ... heavily ... a ... deserved ... I second this reply.
                    Message 9 of 22 , Mar 6, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In jehovahswitnessesgathering@yahoogroups.com, "Ryck"
                      <odracyr@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > --- In jehovahswitnessesgathering@yahoogroups.com, "Darrell"
                      > <dldavis007@> wrote:
                      >
                      > >>
                      > Deuteronomy 22:13-24 clearly states that a woman found not to be a
                      > virgin upon her wedding should be stoned to death. It also clearly
                      > states that infidelity is punishable by death.
                      > >>
                      >
                      > No, Deuteronomy 22:13-24 clearly states several things.
                      >
                      > 22:13-19 -- If a man charges that the woman he married was not a
                      > virgin but proof of her virginity is provided, not only is he
                      heavily
                      > fined but he will be barred for the rest of his life from ever
                      > divorcing her.
                      >
                      > 22:20-21 -- I think this is the one you mean. Didn't you read it
                      > carefully? Punishment is applied if the woman passed herself off as
                      a
                      > virgin when she was not.
                      >
                      > >>
                      > Do you feel that those who where found guilty and punished
                      > accordingly back in the OT times were deserving of such extreme
                      > punishment?
                      > >>
                      >
                      > Different culture, Darrell. Someone from OT times would probably
                      > wonder what extreme punishment over 55 million unborn babies
                      deserved
                      > via abortion each year?
                      >
                      > .r.
                      >


                      I second this reply.
                    • Darrell
                      ... heavily ... a ... I love how you turned that to your advantage. I guess you can read after all. I will have to remember in the future, not to give you so
                      Message 10 of 22 , Mar 6, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In jehovahswitnessesgathering@yahoogroups.com, "Ryck"
                        <odracyr@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > --- In jehovahswitnessesgathering@yahoogroups.com, "Darrell"
                        > <dldavis007@> wrote:
                        >
                        > >>
                        > Deuteronomy 22:13-24 clearly states that a woman found not to be a
                        > virgin upon her wedding should be stoned to death. It also clearly
                        > states that infidelity is punishable by death.
                        > >>
                        >
                        > No, Deuteronomy 22:13-24 clearly states several things.
                        >
                        > 22:13-19 -- If a man charges that the woman he married was not a
                        > virgin but proof of her virginity is provided, not only is he
                        heavily
                        > fined but he will be barred for the rest of his life from ever
                        > divorcing her.
                        >
                        > 22:20-21 -- I think this is the one you mean. Didn't you read it
                        > carefully? Punishment is applied if the woman passed herself off as
                        a
                        > virgin when she was not.
                        >

                        I love how you turned that to your advantage. I guess you can read
                        after all.

                        I will have to remember in the future, not to give you so many
                        scriptures at once without spoon feeding you the exact meaning of
                        each.

                        Let's see now;

                        Not a Virgin = death by stoning.

                        After all of your posturing, we still agree.

                        > >>
                        > Do you feel that those who where found guilty and punished
                        > accordingly back in the OT times were deserving of such extreme
                        > punishment?
                        > >>
                        >
                        > Different culture, Darrell. Someone from OT times would probably
                        > wonder what extreme punishment over 55 million unborn babies
                        deserved
                        > via abortion each year?
                        >

                        That's great Ryck, your using one atrocity to ignore another. Great
                        emotional appeal though.

                        Now would you mind answering the question?

                        Sincerely,

                        Darrell
                      • Jim
                        ... a ... clearly ... as ... Did you need to be so condesending?
                        Message 11 of 22 , Mar 6, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In jehovahswitnessesgathering@yahoogroups.com, "Darrell"
                          <dldavis007@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > --- In jehovahswitnessesgathering@yahoogroups.com, "Ryck"
                          > <odracyr@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > --- In jehovahswitnessesgathering@yahoogroups.com, "Darrell"
                          > > <dldavis007@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > >>
                          > > Deuteronomy 22:13-24 clearly states that a woman found not to be
                          a
                          > > virgin upon her wedding should be stoned to death. It also
                          clearly
                          > > states that infidelity is punishable by death.
                          > > >>
                          > >
                          > > No, Deuteronomy 22:13-24 clearly states several things.
                          > >
                          > > 22:13-19 -- If a man charges that the woman he married was not a
                          > > virgin but proof of her virginity is provided, not only is he
                          > heavily
                          > > fined but he will be barred for the rest of his life from ever
                          > > divorcing her.
                          > >
                          > > 22:20-21 -- I think this is the one you mean. Didn't you read it
                          > > carefully? Punishment is applied if the woman passed herself off
                          as
                          > a
                          > > virgin when she was not.
                          > >
                          >
                          > I love how you turned that to your advantage. I guess you can read
                          > after all.
                          >
                          > I will have to remember in the future, not to give you so many
                          > scriptures at once without spoon feeding you the exact meaning of
                          > each.
                          >
                          > Let's see now;
                          >
                          > Not a Virgin = death by stoning.
                          >
                          > After all of your posturing, we still agree.
                          >
                          > > >>
                          > > Do you feel that those who where found guilty and punished
                          > > accordingly back in the OT times were deserving of such extreme
                          > > punishment?
                          > > >>
                          > >
                          > > Different culture, Darrell. Someone from OT times would probably
                          > > wonder what extreme punishment over 55 million unborn babies
                          > deserved
                          > > via abortion each year?
                          > >
                          >
                          > That's great Ryck, your using one atrocity to ignore another. Great
                          > emotional appeal though.
                          >
                          > Now would you mind answering the question?
                          >
                          > Sincerely,
                          >
                          > Darrell
                          >


                          Did you need to be so condesending?
                        • Darrell
                          ... Yes, I thought it was appropriate, considering that Ryck twisted my simple statement and reference to make it appear that I didn t understand what I had
                          Message 12 of 22 , Mar 6, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > Did you need to be so condesending?
                            >

                            Yes, I thought it was appropriate, considering that Ryck twisted my
                            simple statement and reference to make it appear that I didn't
                            understand what I had read.

                            My main point in providing the statement and the reference was to
                            show that the Bible establishes stoning as punishment in certain
                            cases. I provided the reference as a courtesy so everyone would know
                            that I wasn't making this stuff up. I didn't feel it was necessary to
                            discuss the minute details just to make my point.

                            Ryck's little venture into the semantics just to belittle me was
                            uncalled for and just plain childish.

                            Then to top it off he cleverly avoids answering the question with
                            some emotional appeal that gets others in the group concurring with
                            his reply. I still haven't figured out why everyone was so happy with
                            his non-answer.

                            Maybe I've hit upon a touchy issue and everyone would be happy if it
                            would just go away. Perhaps Ryck's answer was good enough for those
                            who don't want to consider the implications of a God who would
                            establish such a cruel means of justice.

                            Sincerely,

                            Darrell
                          • Ryck
                            ... Let s see now; Not a Virgin = death by stoning. After all of your posturing, we still agree. ... No, after your posturing we don t agree. Read my reply
                            Message 13 of 22 , Mar 8, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In jehovahswitnessesgathering@yahoogroups.com, "Darrell"
                              <dldavis007@...> wrote:


                              >>
                              Let's see now;

                              Not a Virgin = death by stoning.

                              After all of your posturing, we still agree.
                              >>

                              No, after your posturing we don't agree. Read my reply again. It was
                              for a woman who passed herself off as a virgin when she wasn't. If
                              the woman is not a virgin and the man who marries her knew that, no
                              problem.


                              >>
                              That's great Ryck, your using one atrocity to ignore another. Great
                              emotional appeal though.

                              Now would you mind answering the question?
                              >>

                              I did answer the question -- using the same level of emotional appeal
                              you did.

                              Have a nice day.

                              .r.
                            • Darrell
                              ... Why do you continue to argue this point? Are you so desperate to avoid the question that you find it necessary to continue harping on this? The exact
                              Message 14 of 22 , Mar 11, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > No, after your posturing we don't agree. Read my reply again.
                                > It was for a woman who passed herself off as a virgin when
                                > she wasn't. If the woman is not a virgin and the man who
                                > marries her knew that, no problem.

                                Why do you continue to argue this point?

                                Are you so desperate to avoid the question that you find it necessary
                                to continue harping on this?

                                The exact reason for the punishment was not that relevant to my
                                question to begin with. Whether she was stoned to death for not being
                                a virgin, or for passing herself off as a virgin when she was not, is
                                really kind of pointless considering the gravity of the punishment.
                                Your petty arguments about this point are rather amusing though.

                                By the way, the second half of Deut 22:21 does a good job of
                                explaining why she is to be stoned to death. I think it does such a
                                good job, that I will let it speak for itself:

                                "She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous
                                while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among
                                you."



                                The other point you make about it not being a problem if the man
                                already knew before he marries her is so far off base I'm not even
                                sure why you bring it up.

                                Not only does Deut 22:21 (above) show that Israeli women are expected
                                to be virgins at marriage, but also notice that the first two verses
                                concerning the matter establish the situation. Which by the way never
                                addresses the issue of a man that already knows the woman he is
                                marrying is not a virgin.

                                Again, let's let the verses speak for themselves:

                                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,"



                                > I did answer the question -- using the same level of emotional
                                appeal
                                > you did.
                                >

                                I'm still waiting for an answer.

                                Sincerely,

                                Darrell
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.