It's official, women are 1 notch above dogs in the Bible

Dirk1540 · Nov 3, 2015

I've been trying to put things in perspective for awhile and there is simply no way to sugar coat it it is amazing how low the value of women compared to men is. Deuteronomy has the ultimate 1, 2 punch. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 has absolutely zero concern for the opinion of the woman on the matter. If a man finds a 'War captive' woman attractive and desires her he can take her as his wife. WOW! Again not a word about what she wants.

The next chapter is even worse. If a women so much as has a promised link to a man, in other words even if she is not married to him but only pledged to be married to him a sexual affair would result in both of them being stoned. Now CLEARLY that harsh punishment is only in place because the man's pledged property has been violated...because, it continues, if a woman who is unmarried and unpledged is RAPED then the rapist must pay a fine. An even bigger WOW!!

The follow up is that the woman's father decides whether or not she will become the rapist's wife. She has zero say. I did ask a few people about this and I found their rationalization to be very lacking. The rationalization was 'What kind of father would allow his daughter to marry her rapist!' Well, sadly, they exist. Sadly there are fathers who literally are their daughter's rapist. And more sadly is that the father, even if he DID have reservations about such a marriage may STILL agree to it because a defiled single woman in those days would become a financial burden to him to raise (a financial headache). So even if a woman's father was less malicious than a father who would rape is own daughter, he may still grudgingly agree to the marriage for financial reasons.

I get the whole 'Relative to other nations women had it good thing' but it becomes very hard to cope with how God would not raise the bar higher than he did for women. It is simply accurate to say that raping a woman was not a huge deal to God...50 shekels was the penalty. ONLY if a woman had a connection to a guy was capital punishment involved.

Soyeong · Nov 3, 2015

Inheritance laws were much more important during that time and being able to produce a proper heir was important to the survival and economic stability of a community, which means that the virginity of a woman was of high value. A woman who wasn't a virgin would have a very difficult time getting married and would have found it difficult to survive on her own. Likewise, a woman whose husband just died in battle would have been in dire straights and it would have been to her great advantage to find someone who wanted to get married to her.

Being betrothed was a more serious process back then also. For instance, Joseph was betrothed to Mary, but when he found that she was with child he thought to divorce her quietly even though he hadn't married her yet. Raping a women hindered her economically, so having her rapist to marry her and take care of her was to her advantage. In arranged marriages, neither the man nor the woman had a say, but rather that was up to their parents, so that is a different cultural norm.

2PhiloVoid · Nov 3, 2015

Hi Dirk,

Dirk1540 said:
I've been trying to put things in perspective for awhile and there is simply no way to sugar coat it it is amazing how low the value of women compared to men is. Deuteronomy has the ultimate 1, 2 punch. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 has absolutely zero concern for the opinion of the woman on the matter. If a man finds a 'War captive' woman attractive and desires her he can take her as his wife. WOW! Again not a word about what she wants.

The next chapter is even worse. If a women so much as has a promised link to a man, in other words even if she is not married to him but only pledged to be married to him a sexual affair would result in both of them being stoned. Now CLEARLY that harsh punishment is only in place because the man's pledged property has been violated...because, it continues, if a woman who is unmarried and unpledged is RAPED then the rapist must pay a fine. An even bigger WOW!!

The follow up is that the woman's father decides whether or not she will become the rapist's wife. She has zero say. I did ask a few people about this and I found their rationalization to be very lacking. The rationalization was 'What kind of father would allow his daughter to marry her rapist!' Well, sadly, they exist. Sadly there are fathers who literally are their daughter's rapist. And more sadly is that the father, even if he DID have reservations about such a marriage may STILL agree to it because a defiled single woman in those days would become a financial burden to him to raise (a financial headache). So even if a woman's father was less malicious than a father who would rape is own daughter, he may still grudgingly agree to the marriage for financial reasons.

I get the whole 'Relative to other nations women had it good thing' but it becomes very hard to cope with how God would not raise the bar higher than he did for women. It is simply accurate to say that raping a woman was not a huge deal to God...50 shekels was the penalty. ONLY if a woman had a connection to a guy was capital punishment involved.

So ... you're ok with the slaughter of entire populations, but you balk at a captive women being taken as one's wife? Am I getting this straight here, or am I missing something?

2PhiloVoid

JackRT · Nov 3, 2015

In my humble opinion, patriarchy is the worst evil humanity has ever inflicted on itself.

com7fy8 · Nov 3, 2015

Abigail was not considered to be just a notch above a doggie.

May be you don't like doggies??? I'll "bet" there are ladies who appreciate their nice little doggies more than they value some number of men.

But David esteemed Abigail so much more than a dog . . . I offer, based on 1 Samuel 25.

But I can see how you might think the laws rated women so lowly. But those laws did not rate women versus men. But they included rules about how men and women were specialized in matters which were no indication of the worth of men and women . . . since there certainly were women who were much more real than men were. Also, if women were doing what is wrong, no they were not going to get treated well.

But someone like Abigail managed to get a lot of praise and honor.

So, the law did not decide who was superior or less than others.

Dirk1540 · Nov 4, 2015

Soyeong said:
Inheritance laws were much more important during that time and being able to produce a proper heir was important to the survival and economic stability of a community, which means that the virginity of a woman was of high value. A woman who wasn't a virgin would have a very difficult time getting married and would have found it difficult to survive on her own. Likewise, a woman whose husband just died in battle would have been in dire straights and it would have been to her great advantage to find someone who wanted to get married to her.

Agreed. But no clause added saying 'If the woman agrees'??? Could you imagine how horrible some of the soldiers would have been, it would be a total crap shoot, an attractive woman would be sought by many soldiers, so scary (for her).

Soyeong said:
Being betrothed was a more serious process back then also. For instance, Joseph was betrothed to Mary, but when he found that she was with child he thought to divorce her quietly even though he hadn't married her yet. Raping a women hindered her economically, so having her rapist to marry her and take care of her was to her advantage. In arranged marriages, neither the man nor the woman had a say, but rather that was up to their parents, so that is a different cultural norm.

I get it, we are talking about a time were these customs and this lifestyle was deeply ingrained into society. But isn't there a limit where God puts his foot down on their traditions? Since when does God sugar coat his rules to appease the norms of society? I'm probably going to start slipping into a different topic here but IMO the whole Bible seems to boil down to God wanting people who LOVE. The greatest 2 commandments...love God with all your heart, mind, and soul...and love your neighbors. I'm surprised that arranged marriages weren't an abomination to God. People marrying for love would seem to be the ultimate ideal based on how important love is in the Bible. Sometimes I just struggle so much to understand the lack of God putting his foot down on some traditions. Our generation is horrible in so many ways, there are so many things that they had over us (morally). But our generation also has some things that are so much better than them morally (marrying for love...well not always but at least that's the way marriage is set up to be today).

2PhiloVoid said:
Hi Dirk,

So ... you're ok with the slaughter of entire populations, but you balk at a captive women being taken as one's wife? Am I getting this straight here, or am I missing something?

2PhiloVoid

Yes actually. I believe that the concept of death is not looked at properly by most people, technically God takes everyone's life, everyone!! If you die of old age at 100 God just took your life. I'm actually shocked that more atheists don't complain about death in general, and aging in general. Having said that I am not entirely sure on my position yet on the whole 'Commanded genocide' thing. There are instances where there is good linguistic arguments to be made for hyperbole and a 'Driving out' more than a wiping out

But I also don't take it as an all or nothing thing I believe some commands were legit to wipe a people out however I believe that there were Nephilim offspring involved with the 'Giants' in the land, I believe these commands were similar to the flood (where the supernatural offspring ran rampant). So each side of the argument is IMO a very careful case by case basis.

But anyway, rape is worse than death. Yes I believe that a soldier being killed on a battlefield is not as bad as his widow later becoming a sex slave as part of the spoil.

com7fy8 said:
But someone like Abigail managed to get a lot of praise and honor.

So, the law did not decide who was superior or less than others.

It's great that she got praise and honor, yes God did have great things to say about women. But I just struggle to then understand why 50 shekels would have been the penalty for raping Abigail when she was young and single.

com7fy8 · Nov 4, 2015

Dirk1540 said:
It's great that she got praise and honor, yes God did have great things to say about women. But I just struggle to then understand why 50 shekels would have been the penalty for raping Abigail when she was young and single.

That would be if she was not engaged. If someone raped a woman who was engaged, the man got the death penalty > Deuteronomy 22:25-27. I consider that a lady like Abigail would have been engaged and not left on her own so some guy could rape her. Possibly, these laws were designed to make sure families took care of their women and got them engaged so loose rape could not happen. There was a purpose to the laws, I would say . . . not for punishing, but preventing.

Dirk1540 · Nov 6, 2015

For the record...I do not make some of my troubling posts to be a trouble maker. I don't like being a stumbling block, most Christians I know are not into research and critical analysis, so I will never be a stumbling block to them by dumping my troubling questions on them. Well there are very solid technical Christians in here so I like this site, it is a relief that I can feel free to take the gloves off and voice things that bother me without feeling like I'm gonna ruin someone's faith. Because people in here are qualified enough to not be rattled at tough objections.

Verv · Nov 7, 2015

In a legalistic society, the woman who was raped by a man totally won if she was 'forced' to marry him.

It would mean that she was now potentially his first wife, and any children that she had would be fully entitled to inheritance, and she woudl also be entitled to it. He would be forced to provide and care for her, and she could remain living at her father's home and never have to see him again while he has a ball and chain attached to him.

It makes sense if you read into it.

Another thing: Jewish tribal laws recorded by Ezekiel after the Babylonian captivity and inserted into the Old Testament as the word of Moses are potentially not true in their entirety, and while inspired by God I do not think that they ought to be necessarily interpreted as the will of God.

Dirk1540 · Nov 8, 2015

Verv said:
In a legalistic society, the woman who was raped by a man totally won if she was 'forced' to marry him.

It would mean that she was now potentially his first wife, and any children that she had would be fully entitled to inheritance, and she woudl also be entitled to it. He would be forced to provide and care for her, and she could remain living at her father's home and never have to see him again while he has a ball and chain attached to him.

It makes sense if you read into it.

Is this true? She can have the marriage forced on him but refuse to live with him? Your legal angle has some good points, I suppose that the woman is ruined by no longer having her virginity and if they stone the guy then they would take away the financial penalty on him that goes to her. I just had a hard time getting my mind wrapped around how easy it is to get stoned (if you pick up sticks on the sabbath) yet how a rapist would not be stoned.

Verv said:
Another thing: Jewish tribal laws recorded by Ezekiel after the Babylonian captivity and inserted into the Old Testament as the word of Moses are potentially not true in their entirety, and while inspired by God I do not think that they ought to be necessarily interpreted as the will of God.

I don't understand can you elaborate, which passages are in question as being redaction? I also don't understand why anyone would feel a need to inject Ezekiel passages into Moses because they are both inspired by the true God. Now I could understand someone trying to inject the Book of Judith into Moses, but I don't understand why anyone would bother moving Ezekiel over to Moses??

Verv · Nov 8, 2015

(1) In Islamic law and traditional societies, marriages are like contracts. Thus, if a man is legally forced to marry a woman, that means that the father can make some crazy demands in the marriage contract.

In Iran, women now get marriages where they demand a wedding gift of $100,000 USD. Oh man, how does that work when the average guy is perhaps only making $20,000 a year?

It's simple: the guy owes the woman $100,000. If he is good to her, she will never demand the $100,000; if he is bad to her, she will demand the $100,000; by Islamic legal law, if he cannot pay her $100,000 immediately, then they are divorced.

I am guessing what happened in Israel in the year 500 BC was similar. If you rape a girl, you have to legally marry her; her father demands that you pay him half of your land in the marriage contract, and all of your flocks of sheep; he never lets her go live with you. The woman becomes pregnant and claims its your kid from the rape; that kid is now heir to everything that you own legally...

It could play out in a thousand ways, and be exploited by the family fo the woman ridiculously.

(2) I believe much of the Old Testament was never recorded until the end of the Babylonian Captivity. It was written down by a figure known as Ezekiel. This is a common theory on the origins of the Old Testament, and many scholars reject that the Pentateuch is the original words of Moses.

Read the wikipedia about the interpretation of the Old testament and it will be illuminating.

Dirk1540 · Nov 8, 2015

(1) You are wetting my appetite with this legal angle, I like it lol. I do keep re-thinking to myself how the woman would be in a poor financial fate if the guy gets stoned (having lost her prized possession of virginity). Although your example are unfortunately Islam I understand your angle (common customs and times).

(2) I am familiar with documentary hypothesis. It is an involved study. It gets complicated by some factors, for starters the fact that written material absolutely will decay thru the centuries and must be rewritten, and some redaction will be unavoidable (and I don't even mean that in a deceitful way, think about an 'Updated' edition of a book from 1940, think about redaction merely for the purpose of renaming a locale that has since changed names). It gets complicated by a general misunderstanding among Christian apologists who do not grasp how many common aspects existed between the ancient cultures, their terminology, that hard to grasp balance of 'Same yet different.' I think most apologist bend over backwards to point out how different Israel was from neighbors (to a fault).

There came a point in time where I had to admit to myself that the idea of ancient cultures inventing history in such a way where they strained to avoid historic anachronisms is ridiculous. That they would try to fool readers in the future is absurd to me, for crying out loud archaeology didn't begin until the 19th century. What I'm saying is that I put strong credibility in non-anachronistic fine detail. I've read a fair amount on the issue and I am absolutely convinced that Genesis is an older record than Exodus (linguistically and historically). I believe that (in the NT especially, but OT as well) that the redaction that we do find falls way too short to claim a redaction norm, there are just way too many things that SHOULD HAVE also been redacted if the redaction argument were to hold water.

I always keep in mind that the Bible flat out tells us that Israel should be teeming with borrowed customs and beliefs with their neighbors, not just the fact that they constantly fell into apostasy and worshiped surrounding deities, but also the top of the pyramid factor that at the time of Babel everyone knew the same reality of God, how to worship that God, etc. So clearly the scattered nation's religions should be laced with common threads everywhere (as the evidence proves, religions all over the world who couldn't possibly have had interactions with each other strangely have common beliefs as if they did have interaction with each other).

Of course it gets deeper than this! I started a thread but it completely went nowhere, I think every Christian on Earth should read 'The Unseen Realm' by Michael Heiser. I can't stop raving about this book, talk about an even deeper understanding as to the origins of the relationships between ANE religions. Awesome book!!

Verv · Nov 8, 2015

That was a very illuminating post. As I am a student of other things and do not have the time right now to pursue the topic further on to classic Jewish legalism... You'd probabvly be just the fellow to get to the bottom of this.

The book recommendation, the Unseen realm... OK, I will try to read that soon. Unfortunately, I am a grad student and I have little time for anything else.

My opinions are still forming on this because I understand expert opinion and expert knowledge is required.

branchofthevine · Nov 8, 2015

To say that the Torah was only recorded after the exile is an extreme position, and one that is hard to square off with passages like 2 Kings 22 where in the reign of Josiah they find a book of the law, as well as many of the psalms attributed to David which mention the law as well. It just seems like a more plausible explanation that Israel had the law, but didn't acre about it as much as in the Second Temple Period.

That being said, right from the first chapter of the Torah women are given the same status as men, when God says "let us make humanity in our image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them." The thing is though, God usually operates within societal norms of whatever culture is around at the time, and isn't so interested in creating the perfect human system. So there were probably times within Israel's history where women were not treated so well, and in other instances they were treated pretty fairly. At least in the New Testament Jesus elevates women into a place of respect, which is seen from its beginning with the apostle Junia in Romans, and especially in 1 Peter. Peter's mention of the Christians as a priesthood included women and slaves, and elevates them to the same ranking as men within the Christian movement.

Even if women are not seen as equal to men in society, before Jesus there is no difference between the sexes, and I think that's pretty clear from Scripture.

Crowns&Laurels · Nov 10, 2015

Dirk1540 said:
I've been trying to put things in perspective for awhile and there is simply no way to sugar coat it it is amazing how low the value of women compared to men is. Deuteronomy has the ultimate 1, 2 punch. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 has absolutely zero concern for the opinion of the woman on the matter. If a man finds a 'War captive' woman attractive and desires her he can take her as his wife. WOW! Again not a word about what she wants.

The next chapter is even worse. If a women so much as has a promised link to a man, in other words even if she is not married to him but only pledged to be married to him a sexual affair would result in both of them being stoned. Now CLEARLY that harsh punishment is only in place because the man's pledged property has been violated...because, it continues, if a woman who is unmarried and unpledged is RAPED then the rapist must pay a fine. An even bigger WOW!!

The follow up is that the woman's father decides whether or not she will become the rapist's wife. She has zero say. I did ask a few people about this and I found their rationalization to be very lacking. The rationalization was 'What kind of father would allow his daughter to marry her rapist!' Well, sadly, they exist. Sadly there are fathers who literally are their daughter's rapist. And more sadly is that the father, even if he DID have reservations about such a marriage may STILL agree to it because a defiled single woman in those days would become a financial burden to him to raise (a financial headache). So even if a woman's father was less malicious than a father who would rape is own daughter, he may still grudgingly agree to the marriage for financial reasons.

I get the whole 'Relative to other nations women had it good thing' but it becomes very hard to cope with how God would not raise the bar higher than he did for women. It is simply accurate to say that raping a woman was not a huge deal to God...50 shekels was the penalty. ONLY if a woman had a connection to a guy was capital punishment involved.

A woman's 'desire' back then to be married with children, and otherwise in a stable household. The key thing you're neglecting from the entirety of all that is that the people in those times weren't well off like the modern world today. It was ancient, dangerous Middle-East. A woman either fell in with a marriage and family, preferably while still very young, or be without a paddle.

If a married woman was raped, the rapist was put to death, and if unmarried, not only did he have to pay a fine but he had to take care of her the rest of his life.
It's all about contextualization and historical perception. I could seriously pull out my tiny violin for women who take issue with it.

Jahrooshshalom · Nov 10, 2015

Shaving the head was a form of mourning in Biblical times. The translation you're using there to make your point is flawed. The woman would shave her head and prepared her own nails. And is she consented to be wife to that man who found her fair and took her into his house she would be his wife by consent.
If she did not consent after her mourning period and per those scriptures you didn't share, she could leave without suffering any consequence.

Dirk1540 said:
I've been trying to put things in perspective for awhile and there is simply no way to sugar coat it it is amazing how low the value of women compared to men is. Deuteronomy has the ultimate 1, 2 punch. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 has absolutely zero concern for the opinion of the woman on the matter. If a man finds a 'War captive' woman attractive and desires her he can take her as his wife. WOW! Again not a word about what she wants.

The next chapter is even worse. If a women so much as has a promised link to a man, in other words even if she is not married to him but only pledged to be married to him a sexual affair would result in both of them being stoned. Now CLEARLY that harsh punishment is only in place because the man's pledged property has been violated...because, it continues, if a woman who is unmarried and unpledged is RAPED then the rapist must pay a fine. An even bigger WOW!!

The follow up is that the woman's father decides whether or not she will become the rapist's wife. She has zero say. I did ask a few people about this and I found their rationalization to be very lacking. The rationalization was 'What kind of father would allow his daughter to marry her rapist!' Well, sadly, they exist. Sadly there are fathers who literally are their daughter's rapist. And more sadly is that the father, even if he DID have reservations about such a marriage may STILL agree to it because a defiled single woman in those days would become a financial burden to him to raise (a financial headache). So even if a woman's father was less malicious than a father who would rape is own daughter, he may still grudgingly agree to the marriage for financial reasons.

I get the whole 'Relative to other nations women had it good thing' but it becomes very hard to cope with how God would not raise the bar higher than he did for women. It is simply accurate to say that raping a woman was not a huge deal to God...50 shekels was the penalty. ONLY if a woman had a connection to a guy was capital punishment involved.

Dirk1540 · Nov 11, 2015

Crowns&Laurels said:
A woman's 'desire' back then to be married with children, and otherwise in a stable household. The key thing you're neglecting from the entirety of all that is that the people in those times weren't well off like the modern world today. It was ancient, dangerous Middle-East. A woman either fell in with a marriage and family, preferably while still very young, or be without a paddle.

I'm slow to catch on sometimes but I think I'm coming around on this...I strongly grasped on to the connection that 'Only if the BELOVED male was involved would someone be stoned, but if only the LOWLY female was involved then nobody would die.' I failed to read it thru financial hardship glasses, I think I get it now thanks everyone.

Jahrooshshalom said:
Shaving the head was a form of mourning in Biblical times. The translation you're using there to make your point is flawed. The woman would shave her head and prepared her own nails. And is she consented to be wife to that man who found her fair and took her into his house she would be his wife by consent.
If she did not consent after her mourning period and per those scriptures you didn't share, she could leave without suffering any consequence.

I'm ALL FOR people straightening out my ignorance I love it! My favorite ways to be corrected is to have someone expose a flawed translation I used (I love knowing proper translations), and to point out scriptures that I missed that led to an incomplete picture. Can you please elaborate for me so I have the total picture? Can you please list the scriptures that I neglected to share, and pick apart my flawed translation completely? Thank you!

Jahrooshshalom · Nov 11, 2015

Dirk1540 said:
I'm slow to catch on sometimes but I think I'm coming around on this...I strongly grasped on to the connection that 'Only if the BELOVED male was involved would someone be stoned, but if only the LOWLY female was involved then nobody would die.' I failed to read it thru financial hardship glasses, I think I get it now thanks everyone.

I'm ALL FOR people straightening out my ignorance I love it! My favorite ways to be corrected is to have someone expose a flawed translation I used (I love knowing proper translations), and to point out scriptures that I missed that led to an incomplete picture. Can you please elaborate for me so I have the total picture? Can you please list the scriptures that I neglected to share, and pick apart my flawed translation completely? Thank you!

Sure. Read all of Deuteronomy 21. I rather enjoy the Young's Literal Translation.

YHWH's Lion · Nov 14, 2015

Jahrooshshalom said:
Shaving the head was a form of mourning in Biblical times. The translation you're using there to make your point is flawed. The woman would shave her head and prepared her own nails. And is she consented to be wife to that man who found her fair and took her into his house she would be his wife by consent.
If she did not consent after her mourning period and per those scriptures you didn't share, she could leave without suffering any consequence.

Hi can you show me where you get this " And if she consented to be wife to that man who found her fair and took her into his house she would be his wife by consent.
If she did not consent after her mourning period and per those scriptures you didn't share, she could leave without suffering any consequence."

thx

Jahrooshshalom · Nov 14, 2015

I've already answered that twice.

Post 18 should help you.

It's official, women are 1 notch above dogs in the Bible

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads