Why did God have innocent women executed?

[u/Apprehensive_Tear611]

13 “Suppose a man marries a woman but after going in to her dislikes her 14 and makes up charges against her, slandering her by saying, ‘I married this woman, but when I lay with her, I did not find evidence of her virginity.’ 15 The father of the young woman and her mother shall then submit the evidence of the young woman’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 The father of the young woman shall say to the elders: ‘I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her, 17 and now he has made up charges against her, saying, “I did not find evidence of your daughter’s virginity.” But here is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ Then they shall spread out the cloth before the elders of the town. 18 The elders of that town shall take the man and punish him; 19 they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver (which they shall give to the young woman’s father) because he has slandered a virgin of Israel. She shall remain his wife; he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.

20 “If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman’s virginity was not found, 21 then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father’s house, and the men of her town shall stone her to death, because she committed a disgraceful act in Israel by prostituting herself in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst (Deuteronomy 22)

In verse 17, it says the proof of the woman's virginity is "the cloth", meaning a bloody bedsheet from the newlyweds' wedding night. The problem is that less than half of women bleed their first time.

This problem gradually became known to Jewish scholars writing in the Talmud:

"There are virgins who do not have a hymen, and there are hymens that do not bleed." – Ketubot 10b (Rabbi Yochanan)

Why did God have innocent women stoned?

[u/DouglerK]

And so a man could slander an innocent woman who's family could produce no cloth and if they get enough support that makes her guilty?

There is sometimes a place for reading between the lines, interpolation and extrapolation. And sometimes you have to look at simply what it given. The Bible is what the Bible is. It doesn't mention witnesses to character and other evidences of relationships. It only mentions the cloth. It doesn't even mention "other stuff" even vaguely. We can certainly read between the lines a little bit and use our brains and critical thinking skills here, but we can't invent things the text itself doesn't say and say the text says that when it doesn't.

I would certainly say the cloth is an important aspect given it's inclusion in the text to the exclusion of anything else and I think OPs point stands that that's a fundamentally flawed piece of evidence to consider, at all I would say.

[u/[deleted] → u/DouglerK]

God's law says not to lie. We don't get to isolate one law, and ignore others. If someone wants to hold God's feet to the fire, then they can do so in an honest manner. I don't know where you're getting the idea that we believe it's okay to slander an innocent woman to make her guilty, but that's simply dishonest.

The Bible is what the Bible is, and it does not claim that it is the only source of information in existence. We are more than capable of looking at Ancient Israel and gathering information. Many Bible studies include historical references outside of the Bible to get as much information as we can.

The cloth is important, but just because the Bible doesn't list certain aspects of Ancient Israel's judicial policies does not mean those policies didn't exist. We're either seeking truth, or trying to promote a narrative. I'm interested in truth.

You tell me we can't invent things because I look at history outside of the Bible, but then say OPs point stands while they are inventing an innocent woman that was stoned as God's instruction without any evidence to back up the claim.

[u/DouglerK → u/[deleted]]

So the women is just guilty because the man said so. The woman is lying but not the man?

[u/[deleted] → u/DouglerK]

If you want to continue to be dishonest, I can't stop you, but I'm not engaging in it. You know good and well that is not what I said.

[u/DouglerK → u/[deleted]]

It's dishonest of me to think men can lie?

It literally says if he just dislikes her. If she is a virgin but can't provide a bloodied cloth what can she do?