nmm
You are assuming a lot here.
I don't see how I am.
There is nothing in the scripture that talks about what her state was, or what she claimed to be, at the time of her engagement.
She was found to not be a virgin when he went to her. He was expecting that she was a virgin. She must have been or pretending to be a virgin when she was engaged. You know that.
Her husband would have no way of knowing whether she had premarital sex before or after she became engaged.
Yes he could, she claims it or lets him think it. It is her that proves it. She can speak, she has a tongue. She can prevent her death if she doesn't pretend to be a virgin.
She could have lied about being a virgin at the time of her engagement as well as at the time of her marriage.
I mentioned that. She testifies to being a virgin if she lies. It is her own fault. A woman knows she better not lie about being a virgin when she enters engagement because of this law. I don't think you realize that I have explained all this.
Therefore, in practical terms, a girl who had engaged in premarital sex before becoming engaged would face the same penalty as one who had committed "quasi-adultery" (to use your term).
You have proven no such thing. If she claimed she was not a virgin at engagement there is no precedent for her being stoned to death. The precedent for stoning is a virgin fiance having sex with another man. That is when the law prescribes death and it does so specifically. SHE TESTIFIES TO being a virgin upon engagement. If she lies it is her fault. If someone admitts to having gay sex would they be stoned to death? Yes? What if they were just lying? DONT LIE!
1. The text does say that she was “promiscuous” (NIV).
In the KJV it is just the deragatory "whore" adjective. This is applied to a woman who commits adultery also. The NIV softens the language at times to be less offensive.
The only solution that I can think of that makes sense to me is that it is the combining of premarital sex with fraud against one’s intended mate (and thus breach of what should be a lifelong trust) that makes the crime so heinous. Neither fraud nor premarital sex alone would merit the death penalty, but combining the two under circumstances such as these elevated the level of evil being perpetrated.
That is far more speculative and completely lacking precedent. My solution had precedent and could be proven. She testifies to virginity at her engagement because her husband thought she was when they got married. She is submitting the evidence that she committed the "quasi-adultery" which specifcally requires the death sentence.
Of course, if premarital sex is not at all sinful, then we are dealing with a simple case of fraud, and the scripture makes no sense.
Wrong. I didn't say premarital sex is not sinful at all. You are just ingoring the fact that she had sex while engaged to another man. I am saying that she was guilty of pre-marital sex in which she was another man's virgin fiance. The OT specifically prescribes death for that offense and in this case the offense is proven by the girl.
Another line of reasoning comes to mind: if premarital sex is not sinful, why was it not customary for engaged persons to have sex with each other prior to marriage?
I am looking for a specific scripture that will help with that question. You forget the flipside to that coin. If premarital sex IS sinful why is it not called a sin. That is what I want to know. My catechism uses this type of funny logic too, no scripture saying premarital sex is a sin.
It would take more than that to fight off:
I’m sure that young people back then had raging hormones just as much as in modern times.
Here is the problem, you are now (back to previous quote) speculating without grounds and I can't respond but to speculate without grounds. I don't want to elaborate on this speculation though because there is no point.
There may be many things that are not sins that are not customary and generally considered not profitable. If the man has sex with the virgin she is now not a virgin. What if he decides to back out? The custom was that a man take his bride after their wedding.
Now you have to marry off a nonvirgin. I hate to sound like the 'liberals' but the lack of precedent leads me to assume many opinions were cultural. I think that in fact they are. For example, muslim men have some cultural fantasies. Virginity is highly prized in the muslim world. When a muslim man is richly rewarded in heaven, among other things, he is to get 70 virgins. Not just any virgins, these virgins are magical virgins. They constantly are revirginized after he devirginizes them. So he gets to spend eternity devirginizing these 70 magical virgins.
Me personally, I dont want to take a woman's virginity. The thought of it is a turn off to me. So I would have gotten one(ten) of the "bargain babes" if I were in ancient Israel. And I would have been happy to do it. Of course I may have been culturally induced into wanting the virgins.
Once you are engaged, why refrain from having sex, if it is not sinful?
Why do a lot of things that are not sinful? The guy could decide he doesn't want to marry her. How do you know it didn't happen anyways?
And why, for that matter, should there be any virtue attached to being a virgin at the time of marriage, or any stigma attached to having an illegitimate child?
Why so much virtue attached to not getting married at all if getting married is not a sin?
and also, AHHA! Dealing with illigitimate children. The scripture I was looking deals with this subject. That scripture says that if a man and a woman unmarried have sex and the man "spills" his seed into her the man must take a ram (i think a ram) and make the atonement with the priest. And that was it. It was no more condemned than if someone accidentally touches a dead body. It doesn't say what to do if he doesn't spill his seed into her. But do you see the symbolism that it deals with? Unmarried and he spills his seed into her = illigitimate child.
Here is where I am going with this. As far as I can tell, a man(even married) was allowed to have concubines. I don't have the scriptures for this right now but I am looking. That scenario would apply in this instance.
Why should a man care whether he married a virgin?
If he wants someone that does not sin he is going to be looking for a long time. Premarital sex itself is not called a sin. Why does he want a virgin? Why does a muslim want an eternal virgin?
He wants a virgin BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT HE PAID FOR.