# Bible verses: 2 Kings 2:23-24; Numbers 5:11-31 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 25, 2013, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-verses-2-kings-2-23-24-numbers-5-11-31/664473 "2013-07-25T12:51:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-verses-2-kings-2-23-24-numbers-5-11-31/664473/161 "2013-07-30T17:28:30Z")
What’s this about herbs in the water? All I’m seeing that passage calling for is some dust. Which might make it a bit unpleasant to drink, but it’s not going to hurt you. Well, unless it hurts you via the curse, but if one’s going that route, one must assume that the supernatural agency bringing the curse is going to be just about it. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-verses-2-kings-2-23-24-numbers-5-11-31/664473/162 "2013-07-30T17:28:58Z")
> [@aNewLeaf](#): > > Yahweh kills humans all the time- the prohibition is on us murdering each other. (Self defense and some other situations are not murder.) We can’t break his toys-only _he_ can break his toys. ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-verses-2-kings-2-23-24-numbers-5-11-31/664473/163 "2013-07-30T17:35:00Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > That is a bit concerning. > > Even more surprising to me (and maybe a pro-life Christian can comment on this) is the implication that a miscarriage is an acceptable punishment for adultery. These seems like the kind of thing a pro-life God wouldn’t take part in. > Agreed. Considering the times this is actually a pretty good system, it seems to me. I have always found this verse useful in debating anti-abortion Christians for exactly that reason. It’s a real damper on the “god is against abortion according to the bible” argument. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-verses-2-kings-2-23-24-numbers-5-11-31/664473/164 "2013-07-30T17:58:05Z")
Kable: > [@](#): > > Did God really tell Moses that the curse would work? Yes. > [@](#): > > Does it work now? In theory, yes. In practice, no, because there is no Holy Temple, and no ritual purity. > [@](#): > > Did it ever work? If you believe the Torah and Talmud, it must have. Obviously, we have no first-hand testimony of it. > [@](#): > > Why didn’t God give Moses a test for an unfaithful husband? Because by Torah law, a married man was allowed be with women other than his wife (as long as they are not otherwise forbidden to him), but a married woman was not allowed to be with a man other than her husband. However, it might please you to know that according to the Talmud, only a husband who was absolutely faithful to his wife could use the “waters” mechanism to prove his wife’s guilt. (if you want the scriptural basis for that, I’ll have to look it up later) > [@](#): > > Is there any good way to spin the above? Certainly. It’s not merely a punishment for the guilty, but an actual reward for the innocent - if she were infertile prior to this, and she goes through the test and is cleared, she will become capable of bearing children. In fact, the Talmud indicates that it would be acceptable for a couple with fertility problems to stage a “suspicion” in order for the woman to take the test, be proven innocent, and gain fertility. In addition, the procedure is a powerful lesson in marital harmony. As part of the ritual, the text of that Torah portion - which includes the divine name of G-d - is written on a parchment, which is then erased in the water. This indicates that G-d considers peace between husband and wife to be so important that he is willing to have his holy name (which he commanded not be used in vain) erased in order to achieve that, something that all married people should bear in mind next time some minor disappointment causes them to get upset at their spouse. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-verses-2-kings-2-23-24-numbers-5-11-31/664473/165 "2013-07-30T18:33:53Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > Kable: > > Yes. > > In theory, yes. In practice, no, because there is no Holy Temple, and no ritual purity. > > If you believe the Torah and Talmud, it must have. Obviously, we have no first-hand testimony of it. > > Because by Torah law, a married man was allowed be with women other than his wife (as long as they are not otherwise forbidden to him), but a married woman was not allowed to be with a man other than her husband. > > However, it might please you to know that according to the Talmud, only a husband who was absolutely faithful to his wife could use the “waters” mechanism to prove his wife’s guilt. (if you want the scriptural basis for that, I’ll have to look it up later) > > Certainly. It’s not merely a punishment for the guilty, but an actual reward for the innocent - if she were infertile prior to this, and she goes through the test and is cleared, she will become capable of bearing children. In fact, the Talmud indicates that it would be acceptable for a couple with fertility problems to stage a “suspicion” in order for the woman to take the test, be proven innocent, and gain fertility. > > In addition, the procedure is a powerful lesson in marital harmony. As part of the ritual, the text of that Torah portion - which includes the divine name of G-d - is written on a parchment, which is then erased in the water. This indicates that G-d considers peace between husband and wife to be so important that he is willing to have his holy name (which he commanded not be used in vain) erased in order to achieve that, something that all married people should bear in mind next time some minor disappointment causes them to get upset at their spouse. The above is a valiant effort to spit-shine a turd. The passage is insane, primitive and superstitious. Squinting and searching for bright sides in goofy, primitive shit is why people are still basing life decisions on the ideas of men who thought tabernacle dust was magical. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-verses-2-kings-2-23-24-numbers-5-11-31/664473/166 "2013-07-30T18:51:02Z")
The most remarkable thing about this “adultery test” is that, taken literally, it would invariably return a negative result every time. Meaning that a jealous husband who has no proof of his wife’s adultery is provided with a religiously-sanctioned reason to quash his suspicions - given a husband’s rights over his wife in pre-modern societies, a pretty major concern for the wife, whose very life may well not have been safe from a jealous husband (indeed, many aren’t safe even in modern times). Seems a pretty neat psychological trick. Given that an iron age society wasn’t likely to have magically transformed itself into a progressive gender-equal democracy, this procedure actually appears surprisingly progressive way to ameliorate its inherent harshness towards women suspected of sexual infidelity. ---
**Author:** ![Find\_Friends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-verses-2-kings-2-23-24-numbers-5-11-31/664473/167 "2013-07-30T19:12:39Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > And will next week’s Bible study, like last week’s and this, also consist of a verse or passage about which the OP wishes the readership to conclude “This is utter bullshit”, and by extension, conclude the same to be true about the entire document and Christianity itself? :dubious: :dubious: yourself! Logically, the burden of proof would be on Christians to defend Christianity, not so-called “unbelievers” to defend themselves against each and every religious sales-pitch. So… Why **isn’t** fundamentalism, or for that matter, any kind of dogmatic Christianity bullshit? ETA: Nor does the fact that it isn’t supposed to be operative today a defense. ---
**Author:** ![Find\_Friends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-verses-2-kings-2-23-24-numbers-5-11-31/664473/168 "2013-07-30T19:22:02Z")
ETA: Nor is the fact that it isn’t supposed to be operative today (by Christian supersessionism) a defense. (Sorry, I missed the edit window for my second change and just assumed the first addition went out too.) ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Lowry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Sam\_Lowry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Lowry)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-verses-2-kings-2-23-24-numbers-5-11-31/664473/169 "2013-07-30T19:36:10Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > I have always found this verse useful in debating anti-abortion Christians for exactly that reason. It’s a real damper on the “god is against abortion according to the bible” argument. I’m curious, what do they say when you bring that verse up? I’m guessing nothing terribly convincing, but I’m curious to know. I would guess a significant number aren’t aware of the verse. The book of Numbers isn’t studied as often by most Christians compared to other books of the Bible, since it’s a big list of rules that’s hard to get through. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-verses-2-kings-2-23-24-numbers-5-11-31/664473/170 "2013-07-30T19:55:33Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > The most remarkable thing about this “adultery test” is that, taken literally, it would invariably return a negative result every time. Exactly right. Unless the ritual is worked, this is basically saying, “If this woman has committed adultery, God will now smite her right in the uterus! No? OK, she’s innocent.” ---
**Author:** ![yellowjacketcoder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/4bbf92/32.png) [@yellowjacketcoder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yellowjacketcoder)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-verses-2-kings-2-23-24-numbers-5-11-31/664473/171 "2013-07-30T20:07:49Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > And will next week’s Bible study, like last week’s and this, also consist of a verse or passage about which the OP wishes the readership to conclude “This is utter bullshit”, and by extension, conclude the same to be true about the entire document and Christianity itself? :dubious: > [@Trans Fat Og](#): > > :dubious: yourself! Logically, the burden of proof would be on Christians to defend Christianity, not so-called “unbelievers” to defend themselves against each and every religious sales-pitch. So… > > Why **isn’t** fundamentalism, or for that matter, any kind of dogmatic Christianity bullshit? > > ETA: Nor does the fact that it isn’t supposed to be operative today a defense. I’m an atheist. Have been for a long time. But I agree with Malacandra here - **Kable** is out of line. A true Bible study, trying to understand the meaning behind the words and the society the tales are set in, are something that can be interesting to believer and non-believer alike. Some of the back and forth in this thread is quite interesting - until someone decides to crap all over it by saying “well, it’s barbaric by modern standards”. Yes, you are so clever, a book written in the Bronze age will have barbaric items in it. The rest of us would never have guessed. I don’t know why the mods aren’t handing out warnings for threadshitting right and left, but that’s their call not mine. I, personally, as an atheist, am interested in serious discussion of various passages. I think it’s interesting the same way I think a serious discussion of a passage in _The Lord of the Rings_ is interesting, and I can find it interesting without believing in elves and orcs. But if someone comes by and says “See, it’s totally barbaric to expect a civilian to participate in warfare just because no soldiers want to destroy the ring!” I would find that annoying too. As an atheist, I think most of Christianity is, at best, mistaken. There is (probably) no God, no Holy Spirit, and Yeshua from Nazareth is a folk hero blown out of proportion. That doesn’t mean I don’t find a study of Christianity interesting and enlightening - if you don’t, fine, but don’t ruin it for the rest of us. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-verses-2-kings-2-23-24-numbers-5-11-31/664473/172 "2013-07-30T20:14:17Z")
> [@coffeecat](#): > > Just for the record, Judaism interprets “eye for an eye” to mean that the punishment must be in proportion to the crime, not as license to poke people’s eyes out. Oh yes. Didn’t mean to imply people were poking eyes out left and right :). ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-verses-2-kings-2-23-24-numbers-5-11-31/664473/173 "2013-07-30T20:26:44Z")
Lobohan: > [@](#): > > The above is a valiant effort to spit-shine a turd. Better than trying to spit-shine a threadshit. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-verses-2-kings-2-23-24-numbers-5-11-31/664473/174 "2013-07-30T20:41:03Z")
> [@yellowjacketcoder](#): > > I’m an atheist. Have been for a long time. But I agree with Malacandra here - **Kable** is out of line. > > A true Bible study, trying to understand the meaning behind the words and the society the tales are set in, are something that can be interesting to believer and non-believer alike. Some of the back and forth in this thread is quite interesting - until someone decides to crap all over it by saying “well, it’s barbaric by modern standards”. Yes, you are so clever, a book written in the Bronze age will have barbaric items in it. The rest of us would never have guessed. > > I don’t know why the mods aren’t handing out warnings for threadshitting right and left, but that’s their call not mine. > > I, personally, as an atheist, am interested in serious discussion of various passages. I think it’s interesting the same way I think a serious discussion of a passage in _The Lord of the Rings_ is interesting, and I can find it interesting without believing in elves and orcs. But if someone comes by and says “See, it’s totally barbaric to expect a civilian to participate in warfare just because no soldiers want to destroy the ring!” I would find that annoying too. > > As an atheist, I think most of Christianity is, at best, mistaken. There is (probably) no God, no Holy Spirit, and Yeshua from Nazareth is a folk hero blown out of proportion. That doesn’t mean I don’t find a study of Christianity interesting and enlightening - if you don’t, fine, but don’t ruin it for the rest of us. I agree - as a shout-out, I have had some very interesting arguments on Biblical topics with **cmkeller** - we disagree fundamentally on religion (he is and I’m not, as it were), but I like to think that, nonetheless, our arguments have been mutually interesting (I know I learn stuff that way, at least). The importance of the Bible to a non-believer lies in its influence on culture and history on the one hand, and what it can teach about past culture and history on the other. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-verses-2-kings-2-23-24-numbers-5-11-31/664473/175 "2013-07-30T20:43:43Z")
[double post] ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-verses-2-kings-2-23-24-numbers-5-11-31/664473/176 "2013-07-30T20:49:06Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > Lobohan: > > Better than trying to spit-shine a threadshit. Is this thread only for agreement with the text? You think there is _a good way to spin the above_. I think your attempt was feeble. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-verses-2-kings-2-23-24-numbers-5-11-31/664473/177 "2013-07-30T20:53:36Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Is this thread only for agreement with the text? You think there is _a good way to spin the above_. I think your attempt was feeble. Depth, texture, history, sociology-all this is just “spin” to you? If all you want is “The Bible sux! Prove me wrong!”, why not start something in The BBQ Pit? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-verses-2-kings-2-23-24-numbers-5-11-31/664473/178 "2013-07-30T20:54:57Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Is this thread only for agreement with the text? You think there is _a good way to spin the above_. I think your attempt was feeble. How about the “spin” I mentioned? The test as stated would never “work”, because it relies on a miracle for a postive result. Every single woman so tested would turn up ‘innocent’, without exception. There is a positive social value in “clearing”, with the sanction of the local diety, women whose husbands are jealous and who, under the customs of the age, had every right to do them harm. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-verses-2-kings-2-23-24-numbers-5-11-31/664473/179 "2013-07-30T20:58:29Z")
Water mixed with “dust from the tabernacle floor”? Dust from the floor of a room where animals are sacrificed? :eek: **Don’t drink that! It’s not safe!** ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-verses-2-kings-2-23-24-numbers-5-11-31/664473/180 "2013-07-30T21:00:21Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > How about the “spin” I mentioned? > > The test as stated would never “work”, because it relies on a miracle for a postive result. > > Every single woman so tested would turn up ‘innocent’, without exception. I don’t know that a water born disease requires a miracle. In fact I think drinking dirty water has been a known risk for a good long time. [Waterborne disease - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterborne_diseases) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-verses-2-kings-2-23-24-numbers-5-11-31/664473.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-verses-2-kings-2-23-24-numbers-5-11-31/664473.md?page=10)