Formal Debate - Does Yahweh Command Male Rapists to Purchase Their Voiceless...

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Does Yahweh Command Male Rapists to Purchase Their Voiceless, Female Victims?

1. There will be five alternating rounds with BlueLightningTN beginning.
   
2. BlueLightningTN will be taking the affirmative position and Jeremy E Walker will be opposing.
3. The time limit between posts will be one three days the time that they are approved and become visible. The post can be made earlier, of course.
   
4. The maximum length for each post. You can set a limit of say 500 words for each post in a round.
   
5. Quotes and outside references are allowed. Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% copyright rule.
6. Start date will be any time.
   
7. The Peanut Gallery thread is located here for non participants to discuss this debate: Peanut Gallery - Does Yahweh Command Male Rapists to Purchase Their Voiceless...
   
   
   

 

[BL2KTN]

I'll begin this debate by pointing everyone to an older, formal debate I did titled "The Bible is not the Inspired Word of God". I believe I comprehensively demonstrated in that debate that what Christians refer to as scripture, is in fact highly flawed works by ancient men, selected from a broad range of highly flawed works to be labeled the bible depending on whether it fit within the objectives of those who chose it.

The Bible is not the Inspired Word of God

It is with that understanding that we enter into this very unpleasant debate: Does Yahweh Command Male Rapists to Purchase Their Voiceless, Female Victims? The answer to this debate is a disturbing "yes". I hope from reading my previous debate you'll understand that Yahweh is a 3,000 year-old Canaanite war god... not the Creator of the Cosmos. However, my debate partner, Jeremy, believes that Yahweh is, in fact, the true God: perfect, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Jeremy actually requested this debate, pushing for it rather relentlessly, and so I think it will be interesting watching him defend Yahweh. Let us begin.

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29

The above passage is from Deuteronomy, a book of laws given by Yahweh to Moses to the Hebrew people - supposedly his chosen people. Now in the event that a young girl who has never had intercourse is raped by a man, what is Yahweh's decree that must occur? Well, the man, be he fifteen or twenty, thirty or seventy, must purchase the girl, be she eight or nine, twelve or fourteen, from her father. Her worth is fifty shekels of silver, for she is property like cattle or oxen. And then, in one of the worst decrees in any of the major religions, the rapist is required to marry his victim.

Think about that for a moment and let it sink in. The rapist is required to marry his victim.

^ Avoiding Male Lust, Living in a Bag

It is revolting, disgusting, abhorrent. However, this is the recourse Yahweh has chosen for nine year old girls raped by fifty year-old men. He must purchase her and they must marry. And as you read it again and again, look at that word "must". He must marry her. There are no clauses, no caveats. He must marry her.

How many rape victims do you think would want to marry their rapists? How much mental torture do you think that would create? How many sick men do you think would rape the "girl of their dreams" since he gets to marry her then? How many men do you think would hurry and rape a prepubescent girl so he didn't lose out?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

My opponent made 2 points:

1. The passage is speaking of rape.

2. The man is required to marry the woman he forcefully raped against her will regardless of her assent or dissent.

To:

1. The two words used in the Hebrew which is translated as "rape" in only a handful of English translations are taphas and shakab. The majority of English translations translate these two words into the phrase "lay hold of" or “seize” and not "rape" due to the fact that neither of the words conveys the notion of force as chazaq which is used only three verses earlier in v.25 where the man is said to be deserving of death for the capital crime of rape and the woman is said to be innocent because she “cried out” indicating that the act was against her will. The word taphas is used elsewhere to simply mean handle or deal with i.e. Jeremiah 2:8 and the word shakab is used elsewhere to signify a consensual act i.e. in Numbers 5:11-13 . We see that YHWH considers rape to be a capital crime, worthy of death vs.25-27. And we see that even if the act be consensual as indicated by the use of the phrase “they are caught” v.28, and the absence of the more stronger chazaq, and the absence of the woman “crying out”, the man must still make amends for he initiated the encounter and had sex with her BEFORE marrying her, thus potentially jeopardizing her chances of ever marrying in the future which would have serious implications for the woman’s socio-economic welfare.

Thus the vast majority of English translations do not render the Hebrew in this passage as “rape”.

2. What we find here is a law that states that if a man has had sex with a woman who is an unbetrothed virgin, he must be willing to marry the woman if her and her father consent. Ultimately the choice is theirs, NOT the man’s.

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).

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).

Adam Clarke sums up my position succinctly:

“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).

The law thus provides legislation to prevent unbetrothed women from being mistreated.

 

[BL2KTN]

Apparently I made only two points. In case you missed a few, let me see if I can summarize my first post into a better bullet list for your response:

1) Male rapists must marry their victims.
2) Age differences are not considered, nor the psyche of either individual.
3) The rapist purchases the victim, thus she is property.
4) This law encourages rape.
5) This law encourages sexual violence against young girls.

Now, let's hop to my rebuttal...

What we've got from Jeremy is a nice mess of explanations for how the original Hebrew doesn't mean rape. Instead, we're told it means "seize" or "lay hold of" as if these are typical terms for consensual sex. Anybody up for having their daughters "seized" or "laid hold of"? Exactly. And for all of Jeremy's effort, the author of Deuteronomy might have gotten off free had he not cooked his goose with a later phrase. Why is it absolutely rape? Look at this phrase:

"He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her."

He's gotta marry her because he - not she, not they - violated her. Some other translations have "shamed her" or "humiliated her". He did this. They didn't commit this act, she didn't commit this act, only he did. And thus his punishment for raping her is that he's gotta marry his victim. Oh, you'd think he would be punished severely and she would be treated kindly. But no, the answer Yahweh has is for the rapist to marry the victim.

This really shouldn't surprise anyone. While Jeremy is busy defending the honor of a 3,000 year-old Canaanite war god, we've got plenty more passages in the bible that speak to the horrible view of women in this compilation.

"Moses was angry with the officers of the army...

“Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." -- Numbers 31:14-17

Yikes -- they talk about Moses parting the waters, but you don't hear about him commanding soldiers to take virgins as sex slaves in church! But there it is... Moses says kill the non-virgins, take the virgins for yourselves (i.e. rape'em).

^ Parting the sea or welcoming sex slaves?

From the same chapter, a little later:

"The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys, and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man." -- Numbers 31:32-35

That's right, ladies... according to the bible you're plunder like sheep and cattle. Well, unless your vaginas look less "virginy," in which case you are less valuable than moo-cows.

Jeremy, why are women purchased and plundered by Yahweh and Moses' decrees?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

My opponent’s rebuttal is two-fold:

…we're told it means "seize" or "lay hold of" as if these are typical terms for consensual sex. …. Why is it absolutely rape?

Look at this phrase:

"He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her."

He's gotta marry her because he - not she, not they - violated her. Some other translations have "shamed her" or "humiliated her". He did this. They didn't commit this act, she didn't commit this act, only he did. And thus his punishment for raping her is that he's gotta marry his victim.

1. These terms are not typical terms found in a description of how a consensual sexual act is initiatedwhich was the point the author was trying to make!

The man instigated the encounter by taking the woman and seducing her into having sex. However, unlike in v.25-27, the woman is not said to be in the open-country or to have cried out as a display that this act was against her will. Nor is the man said to be discovered or caught, but rather, they are discovered.

We can envision a similar situation that is all too common today. Some lowlife young guy sees a girl he thinks is pretty and tells her whatever she wants to hear so that he can sleep with her. He may even grab her hand and say come on lets go behind this building or to my car! It will be fun! The man instigates, seduces, and encourages the woman to have sex, but the woman gives in and never resists. Thus, they are complicit and they are discovered. The act is consensual even though it was initiated and instigated by the man. If you think about it, this is how most consensual sex acts are initiated, i.e. by the man. The language is purposefully vivid to demonstrate that the woman was seduced and thus the seducer must be held accountable.

2. The Hebrew word anah simply means to make unclean or to defile. It is used in v.24 to describe how a man who committed adultery “defiled” his neighbor’s wife. Here the act is consensual just like in the verses in question.

So the context determines how anah is to be translated and can never be argued to describe the results of forced rape only. Similarly, in the context of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 anah is being used to convey the idea that the man has brought humiliation to the woman because he slept with her without marrying her first, something which would have been considered shameful to do.

The scenario in question is one where a man has seduced an unbetrothed virgin into having sex with him. Since the act was ultimately consensual, the man is not sentenced to death as he would have been if it had not been consensual. Once again, rape was a capital crime in Theocratic Israel. The man must marry, support and protect the woman for the rest of her life if she and her father consent. He must also pay the bride-price which was primarily a gift of compensation for the father who would be losing a daughter who would have to replace her with a hired worker. And even if the father did not consent, the man still had to pay because he jeopardized the socio-economic future of his daughter.

Thus this law sought to protect vulnerable women and simultaneously make provision for their future.

The rest of my opponent’s post is impertinent to the debate topic and thus can be dismissed.

 

[BL2KTN]

Time for the mid-way post and, in Jeremy's eyes, another two points...

Jeremy's entire position hinges on whether or not Deuteronomy 22:28-29 refers to "rape" or "seduction". With just the smallest amount of reasoning, it is obvious that it refers to rape, but Jeremy has now spent two posts trying to prove otherwise. Never mind that the word seduction is left out of this event's description, by golly it's going to mean seduction. The problem is what we've already seen and what we're not going to be mired down in for an entire debate: the man does a physical act to initiate the sexual encounter by seizing her or laying hold of her. He does not emotionally or verbally seduce her. He seizes her. Furthermore, he shames/violates/humiliates her. Not they, but he does this.

I'm willing to bet that Jeremy isn't a biblical scholar and doesn't speak ancient Hebrew. I don't either, although I have learned quite a bit about it... still I'm not fluent. So whenever there's conflict about a word's meaning, I like to go to the experts. The following list of hyperlinks are for bible translations which do not simply say "seize" or "lay hold of," but go ahead and call it "rape". To do so is a major thing for these experts - they almost certainly know how bad it is for Yahweh to command that rapists marry their victims. And yet, they have enough integrity to translate it the way they know it is written:

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Expanded Bible
New International Version
Gold's Word Translation
The Message Bible
Names of God Bible
New Century Version
New English Translation
New International Reader's Version

The rest of the biblical translations choose not to use the word "rape," but instead he "seizes her" or "takes hold of her." What part of "seizes her" sounds consensual?

Jeremy, do you know ancient Hebrew better than these nine major translations, translated by expert committees and panels?

Moving right along, Jeremy has said my points about the bible's view of women are impertinent. He's not going to respond to Moses ordering 32,000 rapes in a single day. He's not going to respond to why a specific type of women are considered plunder like cows and oxen, while another type are considered worthless and killed. He's not going to deal with why women are purchased and sold.

I guess then I'm curious... will Jeremy deal with why virgins must bleed or have rocks hurled at their heads until they die? Will he deal with it even though bleeding is not in any way a sign of virginity? Bleed or Die

Will Jeremy deal with the idea that a woman being raped should be beaten with rocks until she expires unless she screams loud enough for someone to hear? Will he explain why a loving god would invent such a rule, knowing full well that a rapist is unlikely to let his victim scream? Kill the Rape Victim

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

the man does a physical act to initiate the sexual encounter by seizing her or laying hold of her. He does not emotionally or verbally seduce her.

The law would cover all of the above scenarios whether the seduction or encounter be initiated through verbal or physical means.

He seizes her.

Correct. He grabs, takes hold of, takes by the hand etc. etc.

Furthermore, he shames/violates/humiliates her. Not they, but he does this.

Correct. The same word is used for a man who has consensual sex with his neighbor's wife. He has defiled her i.e. made her unclean etc.

I'm willing to bet that Jeremy isn't a biblical scholar and doesn't speak ancient Hebrew.

You are right on both accounts.

So whenever there's conflict about a word's meaning, I like to go to the experts.

So do I.

The following list of hyperlinks are for bible translations which do not simply say "seize" or "lay hold of," but go ahead and call it "rape". To do so is a major thing for these experts - they almost certainly know how bad it is for Yahweh to command that rapists marry their victims. And yet, they have enough integrity to translate it the way they know it is written:

Now my opponent claims that those who translate the bible into English are "experts with integrity!"

So I shall ask my opponent:

Are they speaking as experts with integrity when they make the claim in their prefaces that the Bible is God's words to humanity?

If so, why do you consistently argue against this? If these people are all of a sudden experts and full of integrity, why do you not trust them when they say the Bible is God's inspired word to mankind?

I digress.... let everyone observing this debate be the ones to decide on whether or not their is evidence of duplicity in your views.

Jeremy, do you know ancient Hebrew better than these nine major translations, translated by expert committees and panels?

I do not have to. All I have to do is reference the 37 other English translations on the very same website you used that do not use the word "rape" in this passage.

See how easy that is?


None of the other material my opponent supplied is relevant to the debate topic, as such it can be dismissed as a red herring.

And for those of you following the debate I ask you to ask yourself this question:

Have you ever grabbed or taken your spouse, your significant other, or your girlfriend or boyfriend and ran off to some secluded place to makeout? If so, you will understand, unlike my opponent, that just because the person who initiates a sexual encounter is said to "grab" their partner, it does not necessarily follow that the encounter is an instance of unconsensual rape.

 

[BL2KTN]

We're making some progress with Jeremy now. Let's look at what he has conceded:

1) That the encounter is initiated through a physical act, not anything else.
2) That the man shames/violates/humiliates the woman.

However, Jeremy is still unwilling to call this rape because he says:

Correct. The same word is used for a man who has consensual sex with his neighbor's wife. He has defiled her i.e. made her unclean etc.

But he's wrong:

"If a man is discovered having sexual relations with another man’s wife, both the man who had sex with the woman and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel." -- Deuteronomy 22:222

You'll see that there is no mention of the man shaming the woman. And, in fact, this verse may be far worse in that regardless of whether the sex is consensual or rape, the woman's going to die. In this case, the man also dies because he has damaged another man's property. Let's take a look at another example:

"If there is a young woman who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man encounters her in the city and has sex with her, you must take the two of them out to the gate of that city and stone them to death—the young woman because she did not cry out in the city and the man because he has violated his neighbor’s fiancée. You must purge the evil from you." -- Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Now here's a real doozy for you. If a woman is choked and raped, she's going to be beaten with rocks for the fact that she was raped. Let that sink in and then we'll continue...

... Okay, so here we have what happens if a man rapes another man's fiance/possession. And that is the key difference between the man being killed and the man purchasing the victim. If the victim is already another man's property then the rapist has to die. If the victim is not yet the property of another man besides her father, then the rapist has to buy her from daddy. That's it. In another verse it deals with what happens when the woman is raped and she screams but is too far away in a field; in that case she is not killed with rocks being thrown at her. So, Hebrew ladies, please remember that if you're going to be raped, you need to stay in town.

Now the ancient Hebrews were familiar with the laws found in Deuteronomy, and chances are they understood ancient Hebrew better than Jeremy. They're sort of like the modern translators of ancient Hebrew (believers and non-believers) that Jeremy doesn't trust. Here's how the ancient Hebrews applied the law:

"So they instructed the Benjamites, saying, “Go and hide in the vineyards and watch. When the young women of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, rush from the vineyards and each of you seize one of them to be your wife. Then return to the land of Benjamin. When their fathers or brothers complain to us, we will say to them, ‘Do us the favor of helping them, because we did not get wives for them during the war. You will not be guilty of breaking your oath because you did not give your daughters to them.’”

So that is what the Benjamites did. While the young women were dancing, each man caught one and carried her off to be his wife. Then they returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and settled in them." -- Judges 21:20-23

Uh-oh, there's that "seize" word again, and it doesn't look like they're using it to hold hands. Nope, they're ambushing the girls and carrying them off ('cause let's get real, these are like twelve year-olds). That's how the ancient Hebrews applied the laws of Deuteronomy in a real-life scenario... they couldn't find enough girls for the Benjamites, so they got together and concluded the best possible action was for the Benjamites to ambush, kidnap, and rape 'em some wives, pay the fathers, and voila, everybody was good to go. If you'll read the story before where I quoted, you'll be treated to a real tale of courage when the Hebrews murder an entire town except virgin girls cause they needed some wives.

All of this takes place without a hint of judgment from Yahweh. Moses can't get in the promised land because he hits a rock incorrectly, but you can rape thousands and make them your sex-slave wives; Yahweh won't utter a peep (its his law after all).

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Verse 23, NOT 22, is the verse I was alluding to when I said that the word anah is found in reference to a woman being shamed or made unclean during the act of consensual sex and that therefore the word does not necessarily imply forced unconsensual sex.

Now since there is no indication anywhere that this woman was choked or forced into having unconsensual sex in 23, I think the charge of eisegesis is appropriate. He is “reading into” the text, something not there.

23, is referring to a consensual act between an engaged woman and a man who are “within the city”. Here the woman DOES NOT cry out. The “not crying” out is indicative that the sexual act was consensual. She does not resist or call for help which would have been heard had she been in distress, but is complicit. Thus the act is adultery and a capital crime in Theocratic Israel.

23 expounds on the verse directly preceding it to show that there is more than one way for a man and woman to commit adultery. Reading any other meaning into the texts, i.e. the woman was really choked and that is why she did not scream is eisegesis. If a woman was choked and raped, the rapist would be killed and the woman would go unpunished.

I gave several reasons for maintaining 28,29 was not describing rape, not just one as my opponent claims. Primarily, the author used an entirely different word and word order was used in 28,29 than were used in 25 which describe a clear cut case of rape where the man is killed but the woman is to go unpunished.

Does the Judges passage help my opponent?

No.

The elders of the Benjamite tribe commanded this. No where do we see that God is pleased with this. My opponent omitted a crucial verse that came at the end of the same chapter he quoted from. The verse states that there was no king in Israel at this time and everyone did what was right in their own sight. Israel had abandoned God. In fact there was not even a king appointed by God ruling Israel at this time. The people were continually in and out of captivity from neighboring societies as a PUNISHMENT for their sinful waywardness. That is the whole theme of the book of Judges that my opponent seems to just neglect. These were not people who were following God’s laws at all! They were people doing whatever they wanted.

Thus this passage can hardly be used as some sort of ideal of how God wanted these men to treat women. In fact, at the beginning of the chapter in which my opponent has engaged in rampant eisegesis, it is clearly stated that the tribe of Benjamin had been CUT OFF from Israel because of its wickedness. If this was not a sign of God’s displeasure and judgment on wickedness and sin I do not know what is!

 

[BL2KTN]

Yahweh Commands Male Rapists to Marry Their Voiceless, Female Victims

In this debate I have shown that women in the bible are viewed as property (with a value of fifty shekels of silver no less), that they are considered plunder like cows and oxen (Numbers 31:32-35), and that Moses ordered the mass-rape of 32,000 young girls without a peep of judgment from Yahweh. I have done so to demonstrate what kind of worldview must exist in order for a commandment such as the topic of this thread to exist. When you can sell your daughter into slavery with rules by the creator of the cosmos telling you how (Exodus 21:7), when you beat a woman to death with rocks if she doesn't bleed during sex (Deuteronomy 22:16-21), and when you kill a woman if she doesn't scream loudly enough while being raped (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)... well, when you have that barbaric of a view of women, that's how you get commandments telling you to force rapists to marry their victims.

Now Jeremy won't deal with the bible's view of women, even though it definitely ties into the debate. He'll call it a red herring and move on, happy that he doesn't have to address it. In fact, debating Jeremy is like catching a herring. Let's take a look at an example of his methods:

Correct. The same word is used for a man who has consensual sex with his neighbor's wife. He has defiled her i.e. made her unclean etc.

I point out that Jeremy is wrong about this. Such a statement appears nowhere in the verse about a wife. He responds:

Verse 23, NOT 22, is the verse I was alluding to when I said that the word anah is found in reference to a woman being shamed or made unclean during the act of consensual sex and that therefore the word does not necessarily imply forced unconsensual sex.

Ah, but look, the verse he's referring to now isn't about another man's wife. It's about a fiance. And thus Jeremy throws out false information, wastes my time discussing it, never admits he made an error, and continues right along making his point that still doesn't work (the guy having sex with another man's fiance has defiled his neighbor's property... thus he's being killed - if she had not been engaged he'd be forced to marry her).

Here's more from Jeremy:

If a woman was choked and raped, the rapist would be killed and the woman would go unpunished.

According to you, but not Deuteronomy. Perhaps you could have written scripture better.

The elders of the Benjamite tribe commanded this. No where do we see that God is pleased with this.

Incorrect. It's actually the elders of the Israelites who conclude mass rape is the best solution to help the Benjamites.

"But the Israelites had compassion on their brothers, the Benjaminites, and said, “Today a tribe has been cut off from Israel. What should we do about wives for the survivors? We’ve sworn to the Lord not to give them any of our daughters as wives.”

And in their compassion they committed genocide, plundered young girls, and kidnapped even more.

And what does Yahweh do about this? Nothing. Although the Hebrew bible is full of Yahweh's judgments (he kills 2,821,364 people for much, much less [not including the flood]), he does nothing about this. Jeremy's suggestion that Yahweh disapproves finds no scriptural support.

In fact, at the beginning of the chapter in which my opponent has engaged in rampant eisegesis, it is clearly stated that the tribe of Benjamin had been CUT OFF from Israel because of its wickedness. If this was not a sign of God’s displeasure and judgment on wickedness and sin I do not know what is!

Unfortunate then that all the other tribes are the ones who do this for the Benjamites. And they're not cut off from Yahweh.

______________________

Conclusion

I have demonstrated the bible commands male rapists to marry their female victims. It is not in-line with modern values, but neither are the other commandments about women. I will be happy to answer any further questions in the gallery. Hopefully Jeremy will conduct himself well in his conclusion, not introducing major new issues I can't respond to (generally considered unethical). We'll see.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

This debate was intended to center around the question:

Does YHWH Command Male Rapists to Purchase Their Voiceless, Female Victims?

So has my opponent proven his case?

What has he offered us besides red herrings?

1. He claims this passage is speaking of an unconsensual and forced act of rape. What reasons does he supply for this?

A. He states that 9 English translations contain the verb "rape" instead of "seize" or "lay hold of". He then says that this is because these translators were men and women of integrity and that they were experts, thus we should believe that this is the best rendering of the Hebrew phrase in question. But not only does this throw my opponent into a very odd position, but his reasoning actually defeats his argument. It is odd because my opponent should believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God because the "experts" full of "integrity" that he appeals to themselves maintain in the prefaces of the Bibles he listed that the Bible is the word of God to mankind! But this is the very thing he is arguing against! His reasoning defeats his own argument because 37 of the 46 translations in English render the phrase as "lay hold" of or "seize" as opposed to rape, whereas only 9 render it as "rape". All things being equal, we should prefer the rendering that has the most support. But this is the very thing that my opponent asks you NOT to do.

B. He says that this is definitely an act of rape because the woman is said to have been violated. But this argument assumes that the word anahcan ONLY be used in reference to someone who has been raped. But clearly this is false. For the very same word is used in reference to a woman who committed adultery with a man that was not her fiancée. This was not someone who had been raped, but someone who had consensual sex with a man not her fiancée and thus was guilty of the capital crime of adultery.

------------------------

Nowhere in the Bible will you find a command to kill someone who has been raped. What you will find is the command to kill adulterers, rapists, murderers etc; which is exactly what we would expect to find in a theocracy.

My opponent throughout the debate has engaged in unbridled and rampant eisegesis. He has read into the texts (many of which are completely irrelevant to the topic) meanings that simply are not supported by the texts themselves.

He has introduced numerous red herrings to attempt to derail the debate, and has appealed to emotion by using his own distorted view of scripture which is constructed upon clear cut cases of fallacious quote-mining rather than sound exegesis.

In conclusion, this law was a law that was intended to ultimately protect young, vulnerable, and in God's eyes, infinitely precious women from those who would be tempted to use them, and abuse them.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Debate is complete. Closing thread.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

BlueLightningTN asked me to place an addendum; as per his request:

Although I still have major concerns about the bible, I have had a change of heart on some things. Please <know> that I believe in a loving God and finding truth wherever it is found.