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.
We can’t break his toys-only he can break his toys.
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.
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.
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.
: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.
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.)
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.
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.”
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.
Oh yes. Didn’t mean to imply people were poking eyes out left and right :).
Lobohan:
Better than trying to spit-shine a threadshit.
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.
[double post]
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?
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.
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!
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