If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.
can u explain this
This statement appears to be describing a specific scenario or rule related to accusations and determining guilt or innocence. Here is a breakdown of the situation described:
1. Accusation: If someone accuses a person of something (the specific nature of the accusation is not mentioned in this statement), the accused person will need to face a test to prove their innocence.
2. Leap into the river: To determine guilt or innocence, the accused must go to the river and leap into it. The purpose of this action is not explicitly stated, but it seems to be a test of some sort.
3. Outcome 1 - Sinking: If the accused person jumps into the river and sinks, meaning they do not manage to stay afloat and swim to safety, it is considered proof of guilt. In this case, the accuser will take possession of the accused person's house.
4. Outcome 2 - Escaping unhurt: If the accused person jumps into the river and manages to escape unharmed, indicating their innocence, the accuser who brought the accusation will be put to death. The accused person will then take possession of the house that belonged to the accuser.
Essentially, this statement describes a test where the accused person must jump into a river to determine their guilt or innocence. If they sink, they are deemed guilty and lose their house to the accuser. If they escape unhurt, their innocence is proven, and they gain ownership of the accuser's house.