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?/8/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?)

These witnesses provided by the husband would presumably claim to be witnesses to, or participants in, premarital fornication by the wife. The bloody cloth (assuming that's what it was) was considered a credible and sufficient defense by the girl and her father against the charge of lying about her virginity. Notice the two parts of verse 20:

These witnesses provided by the husband would presumably claim to be witnesses to, or participants in, premarital fornication by the wife. The bloody cloth (assuming that's what it was) was considered a credible and sufficient defense by the girl and her father against the charge of lying about her virginity. Notice the two parts of verse 20:

TranslationThese witnesses provided by the husband would presumably claim to be witnesses to, or participants in, premarital fornication by the wife. The bloody cloth (assuming that's what it was) was considered a credible and sufficient defense by the girl and her father against the charge of lying about her virginity. Notice the two parts of verse 20:

These witnesses provided by the husband would presumably claim to be witnesses to, or participants in, premarital fornication by the wife. The bloody cloth (assuming that's what it was) was considered a credible and sufficient defense by the girl and her father against the charge of lying about her virginity. Notice the two parts of verse 20: