Home | Be a Christian | Devotionals | Join Us! | Forums | Rules | F.A.Q.


Go Back   Christian Forums > Theology (orthodox Christians only) > Theology (orthodox Christians only) > Christian Apologetics
Register BlogsPrayersJobsArcade Calendar Mark Forums Read

Christian Apologetics A forum to discuss the systematic defense of the Christian belief system with other Christians.

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Unread 20th June 2011, 10:14 AM
Jaws13's Avatar
Urban Nomad. Literally.

Gender: Male Faith: Christian Party: US-Others Country: United States Member For 5 Years Commander
 
Join Date: 2nd November 2007
Location: Freezing, America
Posts: 14,543
Blessings: 1,557,223
My Mood Cynical
Blog Entries: 1
Reps: 462,794,282,735,194,176 (power: 462,794,282,735,215)
Jaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond repute
Jaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by tyronem View Post
You missed the next bit, to Lay Hold of someone is to Vulgarly Seduce them
I didn't miss that bit, I ignored it because it is not in the text, it is not in the Hebrew, and you have no evidence supporting your claim. Until you do, your claim is worthless.
You also missed that the verses that specifically pertain to rape use a different Hebrew word to "Force Her" If this verse pertained to rape it would state "Force Her"
There is nothing in the passage that would suggest it isn't rape.

H7901
שׁכב
shâkab
BDB Definition:
1) to lie down
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to lie, lie down, lie on
1a2) to lodge
1a3) to lie (of sexual relations)
1a4) to lie down (in death)
1a5) to rest, relax (figuratively)
1b) (Niphal) to be lain with (sexually)
1c) (Pual) to be lain with (sexually)
1d) (Hiphil) to make to lie down
1e) (Hophal) to be laid
Part of Speech: verb

1d is the only one that makes sense given that she's being grabbed. 29 specifically says he violated her. The Hebrew for that is quite clear and has no uses that indicate it isn't rape.


It has been a long established fact that this verse specifically applies to seduction.
Established by who? Which theologian, which commentary?

Edit --->

This of course can be applied to conclusive reasoning through a simple question.

What confirms to the loving grace of God more:?

1.) A Woman forced to marry her rapist

2.) A Man and Woman who had consensual sex prior to marriage required to marry each other, and he may never divorce her for treating her in this manner.

I would think that reason and logic will prevail and option 2 is the only viable answer.
Thank you for ignoring what I posted completely and again failing to cite your source. I think this conversation isn't going anywhere until you can cite sources and address the information I provided you. The verse isn't about a woman simply marrying her rapist, but about the man being forced to provide for the person he violated all the days of his life. It was meant as a deterrence for the man and compensation for the woman.
__________________
Originally Posted by CaliforniaJosiah
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr">
"Offense" is something TAKEN. No one MAKES anyone feel anything. IF we are offended by something, we CHOSE to be offended by it...

But I think that OFTEN, people confuse discussion with fighting. Disagreeing is not personal, it is not an attack, it is not disrespectful or flaming, it is not offensive per se. It ONLY means, "I disagree." Nothing more. Nothing less. It suggests NO emotional response whatsoever.

NO ONE is mandated to agree with anyone.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!

  #42  
Unread 20th June 2011, 05:44 PM
Regular Member

Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Member For 3 Years
 
Join Date: 8th June 2011
Posts: 292
Blessings: 1,027,860
Reps: 1,628,314,391,625,475 (power: 0)
Traveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond repute
Traveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by BlueLightningTN
How do you guys deal with the fact that the Old Testament taught that girls had to marry their rapists?
The OT never says that girls have to marry their rapists, only that the rapist had to pay restitution and that marriage was one way to do that.

Out of curiousity, what would you rather happen to the woman?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Unread 20th June 2011, 06:47 PM
Jase's Avatar
Contributor

31 Gender: Male Faith: Messianic Party: US-Democrat Country: United States Member For 5 Years Steward
 
Join Date: 21st February 2003
Posts: 7,485
Blessings: 77,515,327
My Mood Lonely
Reps: 216,390,250,992,884,000 (power: 0)
Jase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond repute
Jase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond reputeJase has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Traveller and Wiley View Post
The OT never says that girls have to marry their rapists, only that the rapist had to pay restitution and that marriage was one way to do that.
Incorrect. Every single translation says the girl must marry her rapist and that he may never divorce her. It was punishment for the man so that he had to take care of his rape victim for the rest of her life. The 50 shekels the rapist must pay to the father is the restitution, because women were property.

It doesn't say it's optional to marry her.

Out of curiousity, what would you rather happen to the woman?
How about the man is tried for his crime, and no harm comes to the woman like it says in the preceeding verse if a woman screams in a field.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Unread 20th June 2011, 06:49 PM
Regular Member

Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Member For 3 Years
 
Join Date: 8th June 2011
Posts: 292
Blessings: 1,027,860
Reps: 1,628,314,391,625,475 (power: 0)
Traveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond repute
Traveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Jase View Post
Incorrect. Every single translation says the girl must marry her rapist and that he may never divorce her.
Actually, it says that he must marry the girl, but then says that there are other means of restitution available if the father of the girl decides against marriage.

It was punishment for the man so that he had to take care of his rape victim for the rest of her life.

It doesn't not say it's optional to marry her.

How about the man is tried for his crime, and no harm comes to the woman
And what happens to the woman after that?

Last edited by Traveller and Wiley; 20th June 2011 at 07:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Unread 20th June 2011, 07:22 PM
Presbyterian Baptist with Pentecostal leanings

Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Country: New Zealand Member For 3 Years
 
Join Date: 19th June 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 423
Blessings: 33,914
Reps: 60,950,744,715,990,224 (power: 60,950,744,715,994)
tyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond repute
tyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Jaws13 View Post
I didn't miss that bit, I ignored it because it is not in the text, it is not in the Hebrew, and you have no evidence supporting your claim. Until you do, your claim is worthless.

There is nothing in the passage that would suggest it isn't rape.
You are not paying attention. To "Lay Hold" of someone is to vulgarly seduce them. That is the clear definition given in a 1600's Dictionary for a Bible that was written as the literal translation of Hebrew in the 1600's

The authors of the KJV were very deliberate in their choosing of wording.

You also ignored the FACT that in the rape verses "Force Her" is used and in this verse it is NOT used. What more proof exists beyond the simple Hermeneutics of this do you want.

Originally Posted by Jaws13 View Post

H7901
שׁכב
shâkab
BDB Definition:

1d) (Hiphil) to make to lie down

1d is the only one that makes sense given that she's being grabbed. 29 specifically says he violated her. The Hebrew for that is quite clear and has no uses that indicate it isn't rape.
Not an appropriate Hebrew word for rape

Originally Posted by Jaws13 View Post
Established by who? Which theologian, which commentary?
How many do you want?

Meredith Kline: “The seducer of an unbetrothed virgin was obliged to take her as wife, paying the customary bride price and forfeiting the right of divorce” (Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy, p. 111).

Matthew Henry: “. . . if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him” (Commentary on the Whole Bible, ad loc.).

J. A. Thompson: “Seduction of a young girl. Where the girl was not betrothed and no legal obligations had been entered into, the man was forced to pay the normal bride-price and marry the girl. He was not allowed, subsequently, to send her away (Deuteronomy: Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p. 237).
In Israel’s Laws and legal Precedents (1907), Charles Foster Kent (professor of Biblical Literature at Yale University) clearly distinguished between the law pertaining to rape in Dt. 22:25-27 and the law pertaining to seduction in Dt. 22:28-29 (pp. 117-118).

Keil and Delitzsch classify Deuteronomy 22:28-29 under the category of “Seduction of a virgin,” comment that the crime involved was ‘their deed” – implying consent of the part of both parties – and liken this law to that found in Exodus 22:16-17 (Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 3, p. 412).

John Calvin: “The remedy is, that he who has corrupted the girl should be compelled to marry her, and also to give her a dowry from his own property, lest, if he should afterwards cast her off, she should go away from her bed penniless” (Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, vol. 3, pp. 83-84.

J. C. Connell: “Although she consented, it was still his responsibility to protect her from lifelong shame resulting from the sin of the moment by marrying her, not without payment of the regular dowry” (“Exodus,” New bible Commentary, ed. F. Davidson, p. 122).

Adam Clarke: “This was an exceedingly wise and humane law, and must have operated powerfully against seduction and fornication; because the person who might feel inclined to take advantage of a young woman knew that he must marry her, and give her a dowry, if her parents consented” (The Holy Bible . . . with a Commentary and Critical Notes, vol. 1, p. 414).

Alan Cole: “If a man seduces a virgin: . . . he must acknowledge her as his wife, unless her father refuses” (Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p. 173).

James Jordan: “the punishment for the seducer is that he must marry the girl, unless her father objects, and that he may never divorce her (according to Dt. 22:29)” (The Law of the Covenant, p. 148).

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.: “Exodus 22:16-17 takes up the problem of the seduction of a maiden who was not engaged . . .. Here the seducer must pay the ‘bride-price’ and agree to marry her” (Toward Old Testament Ethics, p. 107).[16]


Originally Posted by Jaws13 View Post
Thank you for ignoring what I posted completely and again failing to cite your source. I think this conversation isn't going anywhere until you can cite sources and address the information I provided you. The verse isn't about a woman simply marrying her rapist, but about the man being forced to provide for the person he violated all the days of his life. It was meant as a deterrence for the man and compensation for the woman.
If you want an understanding of the Bible you must apply the question I asked you to every interpretation you undertake.

IS this in the nature of GOD, would a good, righteous, loving, holy God require a woman marry the man that forcibly raped her and terrorized her, and physically and psychologically damaged her?

The answer is of course NO.

The word is not Violated, it is Humbled, below is a definition of what Humbled means:

made humble; subdued in status; made to feel less proud or important
humiliate, embarrass, shame; subdue, abase


Otherwise your view point In the words of of a prominent scoffer of the word of God is expressed as such.

"In fact the easiest way to get a wife in the OT was to rape her then she has to be your wife"

Your position is untenable.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Unread 20th June 2011, 09:07 PM
Jaws13's Avatar
Urban Nomad. Literally.

Gender: Male Faith: Christian Party: US-Others Country: United States Member For 5 Years Commander
 
Join Date: 2nd November 2007
Location: Freezing, America
Posts: 14,543
Blessings: 1,557,223
My Mood Cynical
Blog Entries: 1
Reps: 462,794,282,735,194,176 (power: 462,794,282,735,215)
Jaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond repute
Jaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond reputeJaws13 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by tyronem View Post
You are not paying attention.
No, you are not paying attention. You don't come into a thread implying that you are the ultimate authority on the translation of a Bible verse without evidence to back your position and expect to be taken seriously.

To "Lay Hold" of someone is to vulgarly seduce them. That is the clear definition given in a 1600's Dictionary for a Bible that was written as the literal translation of Hebrew in the 1600's
Prove it.
The authors of the KJV were very deliberate in their choosing of wording.
So were the authors of the ESV, HCSB, LITV, NAS, and NRSV:

Deu 22:28

(ESV) "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,

(HCSB) If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered,

(KJV) If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

(LITV) If a man finds a virgin girl, not being betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they be found;

(NASB) "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,

(NRSV) If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act,

29:

(ESV) then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

(HCSB) the man who raped her must give the young woman's father 50 silver shekels, and she must become his wife because he violated her. He cannot divorce her as long as he lives.

(KJV) Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

(LITV) then the man lying with her shall give to the girl's father fifty pieces of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has humbled her. He may not put her away all his days.

(NASB) then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

(NRSV) the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman's father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.

ענה
anah (776a); a prim. root; to be bowed down or afflicted: - afflict (16), afflict him at all (1), afflicted (22), affliction (1), disturbed (1), do violence (1), force (1), humble (12), humbled (6), humbling (1), mistreat (1), oppressed (1), oppressors (1), ravish (1), ravished (2), silenced (1), submit (1), treated her harshly (1), violate (1), violated (5), weakened (1).

The evidence at hand does not fit with your information, at all.

You also ignored the FACT that in the rape verses "Force Her" is used and in this verse it is NOT used.
So what? There are different Greek words for 'sin', yet they're all translated as 'sin', same with love. This fact doesn't prove anything.

What more proof exists beyond the simple Hermeneutics of this do you want.
You haven't presented hermeneutics, you've presented a KJV-onlyist interpretation without any references.

Not an appropriate Hebrew word for rape
Context indicates very clearly that it was rape.

How many do you want?

Meredith Kline: “The seducer of an unbetrothed virgin was obliged to take her as wife, paying the customary bride price and forfeiting the right of divorce” (Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy, p. 111).

Matthew Henry: “. . . if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him” (Commentary on the Whole Bible, ad loc.).
You quotemined that one. Directly before that it reads:
If a damsel not betrothed were thus abused by violence, he that abused her should be fined, the father should have the fine, and,
Henry thinks it's talking about rape.

J. A. Thompson: “Seduction of a young girl. Where the girl was not betrothed and no legal obligations had been entered into, the man was forced to pay the normal bride-price and marry the girl. He was not allowed, subsequently, to send her away (Deuteronomy: Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p. 237).
In Israel’s Laws and legal Precedents (1907), Charles Foster Kent (professor of Biblical Literature at Yale University) clearly distinguished between the law pertaining to rape in Dt. 22:25-27 and the law pertaining to seduction in Dt. 22:28-29 (pp. 117-118).

Keil and Delitzsch classify Deuteronomy 22:28-29 under the category of “Seduction of a virgin,” comment that the crime involved was ‘their deed” – implying consent of the part of both parties – and liken this law to that found in Exodus 22:16-17 (Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 3, p. 412).

John Calvin: “The remedy is, that he who has corrupted the girl should be compelled to marry her, and also to give her a dowry from his own property, lest, if he should afterwards cast her off, she should go away from her bed penniless” (Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, vol. 3, pp. 83-84.

J. C. Connell: “Although she consented, it was still his responsibility to protect her from lifelong shame resulting from the sin of the moment by marrying her, not without payment of the regular dowry” (“Exodus,” New bible Commentary, ed. F. Davidson, p. 122).

Adam Clarke: “This was an exceedingly wise and humane law, and must have operated powerfully against seduction and fornication; because the person who might feel inclined to take advantage of a young woman knew that he must marry her, and give her a dowry, if her parents consented” (The Holy Bible . . . with a Commentary and Critical Notes, vol. 1, p. 414).

Alan Cole: “If a man seduces a virgin: . . . he must acknowledge her as his wife, unless her father refuses” (Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p. 173).

James Jordan: “the punishment for the seducer is that he must marry the girl, unless her father objects, and that he may never divorce her (according to Dt. 22:29)” (The Law of the Covenant, p. 148).

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.: “Exodus 22:16-17 takes up the problem of the seduction of a maiden who was not engaged . . .. Here the seducer must pay the ‘bride-price’ and agree to marry her” (Toward Old Testament Ethics, p. 107).[16]

None of this proves your claim that it isn't talking about rape. All it shows is that seduction is involved, which is obvious from the verse, as it is also obvious that force and violence are involved.
If you want an understanding of the Bible you must apply the question I asked you to every interpretation you undertake.
I seek the truth, not something that makes sense to my own understanding.

IS this in the nature of GOD, would a good, righteous, loving, holy God require a woman marry the man that forcibly raped her and terrorized her, and physically and psychologically damaged her?

The answer is of course NO.
The question is framed for the response that you want and completely ignores culture. Why should I pay it any mind?

The word is not Violated, it is Humbled, below is a definition of what Humbled means:

made humble; subdued in status; made to feel less proud or important
humiliate, embarrass, shame; subdue, abase
I've already detailed the word in every single one of its uses thoughout the OT and it is clearly talking about rape. Not consensual sex.

Otherwise your view point In the words of of a prominent scoffer of the word of God is expressed as such.

"In fact the easiest way to get a wife in the OT was to rape her then she has to be your wife"

Your position is untenable.
And your position has no evidence to it. Why, then, should I pay it any heed?
__________________
Originally Posted by CaliforniaJosiah
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr">
"Offense" is something TAKEN. No one MAKES anyone feel anything. IF we are offended by something, we CHOSE to be offended by it...

But I think that OFTEN, people confuse discussion with fighting. Disagreeing is not personal, it is not an attack, it is not disrespectful or flaming, it is not offensive per se. It ONLY means, "I disagree." Nothing more. Nothing less. It suggests NO emotional response whatsoever.

NO ONE is mandated to agree with anyone.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Unread 20th June 2011, 09:14 PM
a waterdrop going over niagra falls

37 Gender: Male Faith: Christian Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 8th March 2002
Posts: 1,210
Blessings: 69,896
Reps: 9,752,945,902,305,962 (power: 9,752,945,902,319)
papakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond repute
papakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond reputepapakapp has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Traveller and Wiley View Post
Actually, it says that he must marry the girl, but then says that there are other means of restitution available if the father of the girl decides against marriage.

It was punishment for the man so that he had to take care of his rape victim for the rest of her life.

It doesn't not say it's optional to marry her.



And what happens to the woman after that?
The op was missquoting. It actually says she has to marry her seducer. If you read the whole chapter you will see that rapists got killed. But this was covered in this thread months ago before it got necroed.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Unread 20th June 2011, 09:49 PM
Regular Member

Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Member For 3 Years
 
Join Date: 8th June 2011
Posts: 292
Blessings: 1,027,860
Reps: 1,628,314,391,625,475 (power: 0)
Traveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond repute
Traveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond reputeTraveller and Wiley has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by papakapp View Post
The op was missquoting. It actually says she has to marry her seducer. If you read the whole chapter you will see that rapists got killed. But this was covered in this thread months ago before it got necroed.
Yeah, I know. I just sent a PM to tyrone about this.

Unfortunately, I've been having this argument for so long that over time, I let the atheists redefine my understanding of this passage.

Tyrone's post made me see that. I'll try to do better next time.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Unread 21st June 2011, 01:10 AM
Senior Member

26 Gender: Male Faith: Christian Party: US-Libertarian Country: United States Member For 3 Years Messenger
 
Join Date: 9th May 2011
Location: On Life's Orb
Posts: 533
Blessings: 2,939,119
Reps: 263,515,101,622,601 (power: 0)
Sum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond repute
Sum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond reputeSum1sGruj has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by AlexBP View Post
In multiple cases in the Old Testament rapists were severely punished, often with death.
That is because a rapist would commonly not have enough money to compensate the father. 50 shekels of silver in those times was a ridiculous amount of money.

So really, it is not no absurd that a rapist would have to pay the bride price and be married to her for life. In those times, people were a little more vigilant with God's Law. If a rapist fails to competently adhere to the payment and lifelong marriage thereafter., well, you know..

It couldn't work under today's liberal laws, as there is no fear in punishment.

Last edited by Sum1sGruj; 21st June 2011 at 01:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Unread 21st June 2011, 01:18 AM
Presbyterian Baptist with Pentecostal leanings

Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Country: New Zealand Member For 3 Years
 
Join Date: 19th June 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 423
Blessings: 33,914
Reps: 60,950,744,715,990,224 (power: 60,950,744,715,994)
tyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond repute
tyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond reputetyronem has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Jaws13 View Post
No, you are not paying attention. You don't come into a thread implying that you are the ultimate authority on the translation of a Bible verse without evidence to back your position and expect to be taken seriously.

Prove it.

So were the authors of the ESV, HCSB, LITV, NAS, and NRSV:
Look at you, expecting to be taken seriously saying that the Bible says a woman must marry her rapist.

And guess what, they were WRONG

I provided you 10 verified reputable references that clearly state that this verse is clearly about SEDUCTION and NOT RAPE.


What your problem is, is quite simple, you have an issue with me saying that the other mistranslations are corrupt. That is why you are sticking with your untenable position.


Originally Posted by Jaws13 View Post
So what? There are different Greek words for 'sin', yet they're all translated as 'sin', same with love. This fact doesn't prove anything.
The OT was not written in Greek, it was written in Hebrew.

Originally Posted by Jaws13 View Post
You haven't presented hermeneutics, you've presented a KJV-onlyist interpretation without any references.
Actually I presented the only version I could find that has the correct translation. You of course think that I only have a KJV Bible and you would be wrong about that.

Originally Posted by Jaws13 View Post
Context indicates very clearly that it was rape.
What absolute Tripe, you can't of even read the chapter

22If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

22: Verse on ADULTERY

23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.


23-24 ADULTERY


25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
26But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
27For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

25-27 = RAPE

28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.


28-29 = DEALING WITH CONSENSUAL SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE

30A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt.
How many do you want?


30 = Dealing with a Son's sexual misconduct with his father's wife or lover

Clearly and absolutely without doubt these passages have dealt conclusively with the following subjects:

Adultery
Rape
Consensual Sex outside of Marriage
Sexual misconduct regarding the Son and his father's wives

I say again your position is untenable.


Originally Posted by Jaws13 View Post

None of this proves your claim that it isn't talking about rape. All it shows is that seduction is involved, which is obvious from the verse, as it is also obvious that force and violence are involved.

I seek the truth, not something that makes sense to my own understanding.
All of it proves this is not about rape, rape does not involve seduction, rape is the act of forcing a woman to have sex with you outside of her will. This includes drug rapes where a woman is incapable of coherent consent.


Originally Posted by Jaws13 View Post
The question is framed for the response that you want and completely ignores culture. Why should I pay it any mind?
What question would you have in it's place considering this is God's word and His Law, and His Law is the representation of His Righteousness, His Love, His Holiness and His Grace?

Would you rather I asked, "Is this what Satan would like to see happen?" or "Would a God that does not change make a Law relevant only on the basis of a demographic of human culture?"

I can apply my question to the entirety of the Bible, it's a sensible question that is entirely logical given the Bible is God's word.

I'm going to say this again to make sure you get it, your position is completely untenable because in a public debating hall filled with Christian rape victims, you would in short order be torn to bits for even suggesting a rape victim should marry her rapist.

Your position is not ethical,

Your position does not fit within God's Love as it is clearly defined in the Bible

Your position is entirely based upon poor translations

You have no reputable references whatsoever attributing this to rape, even though you demanded them from me.

Your position treats woman like property

Your position demeans rape victims to merely being paid prostitutes, only the money goes to the father (Who I assume from your dogmatic stance on this that you see him as some sort of pimp daddy) .

Your position entirely opens up woman to being raped in order to claim them as a bride against their will.

Tell me where a loving God is in any of that. He is not there, because He did not say a woman is to marry her rapist so that she can be provided for. That is why she has a father, and brothers, and maybe even a husband that loves her in the future.

Reply With Quote
Reply


Return to Christian Apologetics

Thread Tools
Display Modes


 
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:38 AM.