Difference between revisions of "Translations:Is the premarital unchastity case of Deut. 22:13 an example of the justice system assuming guilt until a defendant proves her innocence?/10/en"

Latest revision as of 02:00, 1 December 2020

Information about message (contribute)

This message has no documentation. If you know where or how this message is used, you can help other translators by adding documentation to this message.

Message definition (Is the premarital unchastity case of Deut. 22:13 an example of the justice system assuming guilt until a defendant proves her innocence?)

The phrase "the thing is true" shows that the husband's charge was established by eyewitnesses as "true" (in the sense of legal testimony which has not been rebutted). The lack of signs of virginity would not qualify as any sort of "witness" -- it is merely an absence of evidence. Therefore, we can infer that two or more actual eyewitnesses to the girl's guilt were brought by the husband. The phrase "evidences of virginity are not found" shows that there was no exculpatory evidence to defend against the eyewitness testimony.

The phrase "the thing is true" shows that the husband's charge was established by eyewitnesses as "true" (in the sense of legal testimony which has not been rebutted). The lack of signs of virginity would not qualify as any sort of "witness" -- it is merely an absence of evidence. Therefore, we can infer that two or more actual eyewitnesses to the girl's guilt were brought by the husband. The phrase "evidences of virginity are not found" shows that there was no exculpatory evidence to defend against the eyewitness testimony.

TranslationThe phrase "the thing is true" shows that the husband's charge was established by eyewitnesses as "true" (in the sense of legal testimony which has not been rebutted). The lack of signs of virginity would not qualify as any sort of "witness" -- it is merely an absence of evidence. Therefore, we can infer that two or more actual eyewitnesses to the girl's guilt were brought by the husband. The phrase "evidences of virginity are not found" shows that there was no exculpatory evidence to defend against the eyewitness testimony.

The phrase "the thing is true" shows that the husband's charge was established by eyewitnesses as "true" (in the sense of legal testimony which has not been rebutted). The lack of signs of virginity would not qualify as any sort of "witness" -- it is merely an absence of evidence. Therefore, we can infer that two or more actual eyewitnesses to the girl's guilt were brought by the husband. The phrase "evidences of virginity are not found" shows that there was no exculpatory evidence to defend against the eyewitness testimony.