Father's using Defloration in the Bible?

"Quennel Gale"

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.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/fathers_rape.htm

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:

Fathers sticking their fingers into their daughters' vaginas before marriage in the Bible:

The sections of this article are:

1- My personal note and experience with this issue.
2- Males in the Bible did it to females.
3- Fathers sticking their fingers into their daughter's vaginas before marriage in the Bible.
4- Fathers have full control over their daughters.
5- Why would fathers do that?
6- The entire Bible is corrupted anyway according to its Theologians!
7- Rebuttals.
8- Conclusion.

My personal note and experience with this issue:

When I was young, I did hear about this sick tradition, that fathers would stick their fingers covered in a cloth into their daughters' vaginas few hours before their daughters' weddings and display the cloth before everyone to prove that she was a virgin.

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.

I heard that it was practiced among some people in the Middle East in the very old days, especially in the southern part of Egypt, and Iraq, Iran and Morocco. I wasn't sure exactly who these people were, because Egypt has Muslims, Christians and Jews in it. The southern part certainly is mixed with all these religions. So it's quite possible that even some Muslims practiced it, even though there is nothing about this sick tradition mentioned in any Islamic doctrine.

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.

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.

Males in the Bible did it to females:

Before we get into the fathers and daughters issue, it is important first to know that some males in the Bible did it to females. Let us look at the following information:

"There were, of course, others who might examine accused brides. Dwyer, 63, notes the role of doctors in modern Morocco. In pre-modern times this role was performed by midwives (see Westermarck, Marriage Ceremonies in Morocco, 229f.; Marcus, p. 324. M. Friedman, Ribbui Nashim Beyisra'el [Tel Aviv: Mosad Bialik etc., 1986], 169-170, 263). According to the Midrash Hagadol, Isaac himself examined Rebekah digitally before their marriage (Midrash Hagadol to Genesis 24:67 [ed. M. Margulies; Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1967, 411]; according to Pirke Rabbi Eliezer, chap. 16, p. 38a, the examination consisted of digital defloration [ref. courtesy of my colleague, Prof. Judah Goldin]). 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)." () [Note #13, read toward the end of the note]

To protect Mr. Jeffrey H. Tigay's article from vanishing one day on the internet as many valuable articles did before, I have copied his entire article on my site at: www.answering-christianity.com/accused_brides.htm .

Now let’s begin to analyze his evidence to see if both he and Mr. Tigay are truthful.

"There were, of course, others who might examine accused brides. Dwyer, 63, notes the role of doctors in modern Morocco. In pre-modern times this role was performed by midwives (see Westermarck, Marriage Ceremonies in Morocco, 229f.; Marcus, p. 324. M. Friedman, Ribbui Nashim Beyisra'el [Tel Aviv: Mosad Bialik etc., 1986], 169-170, 263).

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.

According to the Midrash Hagadol, Isaac himself examined Rebekah digitally before their marriage (Midrash Hagadol to Genesis 24:67 [ed. M. Margulies; Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1967, 411];

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.

http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/gospels/gosjames.htm

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.

Anyway, let us look the "digital defloration" key words in his quote:

Digital: "\Dig"i*tal\, a. [L. digitals.] Of or performance to the fingers, or to digits; done with the fingers; as, digital compression; digital examination." ()

Defloration: "\Def`lo*ra"tion\, n. [LL. defloratio: cf. F. d['e]floration.] 1. The act of deflouring; as, the defloration of a virgin. --Johnson." ()

Also, Defloration mean: "1. The act of deflowering.
2. Rupture of the hymen, typically in sexual intercourse." ()

So in other words, digital defloration means inserting a finger or thumb into a female's vagina. So when Salome himself did digital defloration to Mary (Jesus' mother), and Isaac "himself" did digital defloration to Rebekah, it means that both mentioned men had inserted their fingers into the mentioned female' vaginas.

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!!

Fathers sticking their fingers into their daughters in the Bible:

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.

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:

de·flow·er (d-flour) tr.v. de·flow·ered, de·flow·er·ing, de·flow·ers

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.

E-mail me Quennel Gale at queball20@yahoo.com

  1. Home Back Home
  2. New Articles Back to New Section.