The "Cultural Context" Excuse

[Huggy Bear]

1) Yes, that probably might not have been the better "Sovereign Citizen" points to bring up to compare their crazy beliefs to yours. It's certainly arguable. The point is, I've heard Sovereign Citizens look at words, take idiosyncratic definitions, and latch on to those definitons in contexts where they don't work, and they still make more sense than the arguments you have used in this thread.
2) It's one thing to say a word has a specific meaning. I'm not arguing that, in extrabiblical Hebrew texts, "Nasha" may be used to mean "seduce." It's another thing to say that it has that specific meaning in an instance where that context plainly isn't there, and, in fact, points to a different, more regularly used, meaning. Your constantly bringing up that "seduce" is one translation for that word is a red herring when the context for actual, sexual, seduction IS. NOT. THERE.

Earlier in the thread you quoted the Babylonian Talmud as a source, and I quote:

Note, I'm sure if I were to write a story about such a scenario, it would threaten willing suspension of disbelief, but then there's the trial:

• A jury of at least 23 judges had to cross-examine both of the witnesses, and if any of the evidence one person gave contradicted the other, even on something as minor as someone's eye color, it was thrown out.
  
• A majority of at least 13/23 had to be in favor of conviction, but, if they have a unanimous verdict in favor of execution, well, let's just let this quote from the Talmud explain it: "If the Sanhedrin unanimously find [the accused] guilty, he is acquitted. Why? — Because we have learned by tradition that sentence must be postponed till the morrow in hope of finding new points in favour of the defence"
  

In the end, if a court executed two people over a span of 70 years, people were more likely to consider something wrong with the court than anything else.

More information can be found in the Talmud, specifically the Sanhedrin Tractate. This can be extremely difficult going, but it's probably worth it.

*emphasis mine*

Since you clearly acknowledge the Talmud as an acceptable source, how about this passage from the website contained in your above post.

From the Yebamoth Tractate: http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_103.html

There, one can well see the reason, since he might possibly mention to him the name of his idol; what evil, however, could be involved here? — That of infusing her with sensual lust. For R. Johanan stated: When the serpent copulated with Eve, he infused her with lust. The lust of the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai, came to an end, the lust of the idolaters who did not stand at Mount Sinai did not come to an end.

There is no ambiguity to the word "copulate", it means sexual intercourse.

*edit*
Forgot to provide link.