Peanut Gallery - Does Yahweh Command Male Rapists to Purchase Their Voiceless...

[BL2KTN]

I lost my response to Achilles... it was probably 1,500 words before I accidentally hit "back." I'll get to it eventually.

 

[TheDag]

Taphas is never rape, so I can't see how giving an example of it not being rape is significant. Taphas refers to overwhelming physical force when used with a personal direct object... the verse we are discussing features taphas in this manner, followed by sex which tells us that the woman has been physically overwhelmed prior to sex. Thus, it is rape.

Not if it is consensual. Did you even read the example I gave? I am guessing you didn't. Go back read it then tell me is it rape. I never said taphas meant rape. I said I gave a clear example where force was used and it was not rape. Once again you fail on basic comprehension which makes me wonder how well you actually understand these terms. This really is the same thing you did in the debate. You don't address the points raised and then claim you have won the debate.

Again, I'm just completely uninterested in where exactly the HCSB came in on whatever list you'd like for 2012 sales, or any other year. The point was that it is a widely-used bible, it was a point made to Achilles (not to you), and whether it was seventh or fifth in overall sales, sixth or ninth in transactions, etc, the point was simply that it is a widely-used translation. The point was made, it was legitimate, and it is not topical to debate the sales numbers of a transaction in this debate. I was merely removing a criticism of his over translations using the term "rape". I'm sure we could open a thread on exact sales numbers of various translations in another thread.

Yet you still have not answered my question. You have not answered what is widely used? Fact is that with unit sales of bibles and particular translation can be in the top ten list but still not be widely used compared to the top three.
Another point I made about the list is that you can not make claims based on figures that change from month to month and year to year. More recent figures show achilles was correct in their claim and that you were wrong. You need to prove that more recent figures are not worth paying attention to otherwise you have not shown him to be wrong like you claimed.
My final point on that which you don't seem to grasp is that you made a very basic mistake is reading those figures which (assuming the best about you) means you just don't comprehend these things very well at all.

 

[Achilles6129]

As far as the link I provided (even though this has kind of become a tangent), it shows that 55% of those polled use the KJV, which obviously does not use rape as a translation for the passage. Now, the NIV, which 19% (obviously these numbers are approximate) use does in fact use rape as a translation. The HCSB is in the single digits and so is not widely read at all.

 

[BL2KTN]

Let's start with the understanding, Achilles, that you are wearing me out. I haven't seen any information yet that destabalized the logic behind my conclusion... but the sheer amount of text you are throwing at me is tiresome. You need to shrink your responses if you wish for me to continue further... I simply don't have time to respond to this degree of minutia.

Before I (briefly) respond to your post, I want to go ahead and lay out the reasons why Deut. 22:28-29 cannot possibly be referring to rape. You have ignored the actual passage(s) under discussion and have based your entire (mis)interpretation off of one Hebrew word which you have used out of context.

"28 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 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." Deut. 22:28-29 (NRSV)

I have ignored nothing. I have quoted and responded to every line of text sent my way.

1) The woman's father is involved

In Torah law a woman's father has the right to give her in marriage or the right to refuse to give her in marriage. It is assumed (because the Torah does not cover absolutely every circumstance - if so, it would be impracticably long) that the woman's father is there to do her will and make sure she does not get manipulated into marrying someone or marry someone who's a "bad character." Consider:

" 17 But if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the bride-price for virgins." Ex. 22:17 (NRSV)

The father has the unconditional ability to refuse to give his daughter to someone in marriage. That, in and of itself, is sufficient to prove that this passage cannot be talking about rape. No father would give his daughter (or anyone else) to someone who raped them. The fact that the father gives his daughter in marriage in this circumstance shows that the woman has complied with the act and indeed wishes to get married.

The verse in Deuteronomy does not give the father an option. The verse in Exodus does. The verse in Deuteronomy refers to a physically initiated encounter, using a term that refers to overwhelming physical force. The verse in Exodus refers to a verbally initiated encounter that does not refer to overwhelming physical force. In the deuteronomical law, covering a different type of encounter than in Exodus, the father is not provided with any choice - just like the woman and physically initiated male - but instead is given monetary compensation without any decision-making necessary.

2) The phrase "they are found"

You will note in the passage under consideration the phrase "they are found" is used. This means that they were both complicit in the act; if the passage were describing rape, then the phrase "he is found" would have been used.

The term "taphas" means to seize / capture / detain / arrest / kidnap. The woman has not simply been raped, but has in fact also be taken. The person who takes her can only be discovered if the girl is also discovered. Forensics and persuasive investigation are non-existent in the bible.

3) Similarity to Ex. 22:16-17

The passage in question is very, very similar to Ex. 22:16-17 which indicates that it is most likely an elaboration of the same law:

"16 When a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married, and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17 But if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the bride-price for virgins." Ex. 22:16-17 (NRSV)

"28 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 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." Deut. 22:28-29 (NRSV)

Notice the similarity of the passages above. Notice also that Deuteronomy is in fact an elaboration upon the law of Exodus, adding that the man will not be able to divorce her all of his days. Deuteronomy also adds the monetary fine for pre-marital intercourse to the law in Exodus.

The two laws deal with separate scenarios. One deals with seduction, the other with physical force. If we wrongly supposed the two laws are the same with Deuteronomy being the elaboration, it would present grave problems in our logic since Exodus elaborates on the father's decision-making opportunities, while Deuteronomy does not. It very much seems that you are trying to make these two laws be the same, when they are not. Jewish authorities on the Torah do not agree with you and never have. It would make little sense to see these as the same law in different forms if they deal with tangibly different scenarios and have never been seen as being the same law.

4) "Taphas," a less intense word, is used instead of "chazaq"

The word indicating rape has taken place in Deuteronomy 22:25 is "chazaq":

"25 “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces (chazaq) her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. " Deut. 22:25 (NASB)

This is talking about an indisputable case of rape. If the author wished to indicate that v. 28 was referring to rape he would have used the same word, chazaq. The fact that he doesn't indicates that the passage is not referring to rape.

Taphas is not a less intense word. This again shows that you do not understand Hebrew. Your belief that a lexicon is sufficient for a layperson to understand a very difficult ancient language is one reason that you err so much.

Taphas refers to overwhelming force that refers to seizure. As an illustration, imagine that taphas refers to going onto your neighbor's property and taking it from him. Chazaq refers to overwhelming force that is used to attack. As an illustration, imagine that chazaq refers to going on your neighbor's property and damaging it.

The less intense word that simply means to hold or to touch something is tamak. Tamak is not used in this verse. For anybody who has studied Hebrew, it is obvious that Deuteronomy would use the word "tamak" if this was any sort of normal holding or touching of the woman. Taphas was used purposefully to indicate that the girl is taken / seized / captured / kidnapped / detained / arrested.

5) Ezek. 29:7 shows a use of taphas toward a human which is not negative (note that "taphas" is parallel to "leaned")

It has been alleged by Biblical critics that whenever "taphas" is used toward a human it always means something incredibly negative, like to overpower with force. This simply isn't true, as Ezek. 29:7 shows:

This is untrue. I have never alleged that taphas always means something incredibly negative. If a criminal experiences taphas, then that is likely a good thing. If a person is about to fall off a cliff and then experience taphas from a rescuer, that is a good thing.

"“When they took hold (taphas) of you with the hand,
You broke and tore all their [j]hands;
And when they leaned on you,
You broke and made all their loins [k]quake.”" Ezek. 29:7 (NASB)

In this instance, "taphas" is used not in a negative sense but in a positive sense of taking hold of someone (with the hand) for help. Obviously here the intent cannot be negative nor is the intent to overpower by force or else the word couldn't have been used when the individual (Israel) is seeking help. In one of your responses you indicated that it must be violent because Egypt broke when Israel "taphas" her, but this ignores the way the word is being used in the passage. Note that the word is parallel to "lean" here in this passage. The debate here is over the use of the word, not the result of the action, as Biblical critics are claiming that the word is only used in an incredibly negative sense like "overpower." The fact that the word is used in parallel to "lean" here in this passage proves that the word can be used of humans in a positive sense. Here the Israelites have no intent to break Egypt to pieces or to cause anything negative to happen to Egypt; they are simply seeking help.

I grow tired of explaining Hebrew scripture to you. In this verse, the people hold onto the person's hands so strongly that their hands are broken. They did not let go. This is why taphas is used here. It could have been correctly translated:

"When they seized (taphas) you with the hand,
You broke and tore all their [j]hands".

or

"When they clenched you (taphas) with the hand,
You broke and tore all their hands."

No matter what, the feeling that is conveyed by the Hebrew is that they have strongly secured the person's hand, and that while still clenched their hands were broken and torn. Their hands are broken and torn by holding on (and it is implied the person's hand was removed, thus breaking it).

The next part is about them leaning on the person and when he removes himself, their loins (pelvis) are shaken by the person removing himself as a balance/support. This simply refers to a weak person trembling with their stability removed.

I think that if you wish to understand scripture at the level you portend to have, you really should take some classes on biblical Hebrew. It would help you to understand these passages.

Thus the use of the word "taphas" in this passage shows that it does not always have a negative connotation when referring to human beings. This means, obviously, that the word "taphas" in Deut. 22:28 does not have to be used in a negative sense (the sense used when speaking of enemy cities or people), but can rather mean that the man took hold of the woman with the intent to lie with her; i.e., he initiated the sexual act. The woman then complied with this act as the rest of the evidence in the passage shows.

I have shown how you are wrong based on no knowledge of Hebrew.

6) Chazaq, not taphas, is always used for rape in the Bible

Taphas is not once used in any rape case in Scripture. Instead, in indisputable rape passages, we find the word "chazaq" being used.

"11 When she brought them to him to eat, he took hold (chazaq) of her and said to her, “Come, lie with me, my sister.” 12 But she answered him, “No, my brother, do not violate me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this disgraceful thing! 13 As for me, where could I [e]get rid of my reproach? And as for you, you will be like one of the [f]fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you.” 14 However, he would not listen to [g]her; since he was stronger (chazaq) than she, he violated her and lay with her." 2 Sam. 13:11-14 (NASB)

Again, this is referring to an attack, not to a seizure / kidnapping / capture. The woman is not taken anywhere, she is simply attacked. Had she been captured, taphas would have been used.

Here chazaq, not taphas, is used of the rape of Tamar.

"25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took (chazaq) his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." Jdg. 19:25 (KJV)

Chazaq is not being used for rape here. It is being used for a highly immoral man (yet supposedly righteous before Yahweh according to the bible) forcibly giving his sex slave girl to a gang of rapists (whose actions kill her). The Hebrew imagery of chazaq in this sentence is that she is thrown out to them with his strength.

Note that there is one passage in Scripture where taphas is used of a sexual situation:

"12 She caught (taphas) him by his garment, saying, “Lie with me!” And he left his garment in her hand and fled, and went outside." Gen. 39:12 (NASB)

Here "taphas" is used for when Potiphar's wife attempts to get Joseph to sleep with her. Notice that in this passage Joseph does escape and is not raped by her. Thus, in every passage of Scripture that deals with rape, chazaq, not taphas, is used. Had the author wished to indicate that Deut. 22:28 was referring to a rape, he would have used chazaq. He did not.

Taphas is used for nothing sexual here (it isn't a sexual word). It is used for grasping / holding / seizing / capturing the fabric so hard that when he leaves his clothes are ripped from him.

Again, please study Hebrew and respect the text enough to read it for what it says, rather than imprinting it with your own predetermined beliefs.

More in the next post...

 

[BL2KTN]

As we're beginning to run around in circles in this discussion and I have already responded to most of the claims you've made in your response, I am only going to respond to the new information which you have posted.

Thank God.

Here you're just adding definitions to the word (like kidnap, for example). As shown above, the word can simply mean "take hold" or "lay hold of." In this case, the man took hold of the woman with the intent to initiate a sexual encounter and the woman complied, as shown by the rest of the passage.

Taphas means to seize / capture / arrest / detain / etc... if you capture someone against the wishes of their family/clan/society then we typically call it "kidnap". Thus, when taphas is used in that context, kidnap is an appropriate term.

Perhaps Isaiah 3:6 wasn't the best example to use, but I was just trying to show that the word doesn't always have to mean that the person it's used for is an enemy. Ezekiel 29:7 is a much better example and is elaborated upon above.

Once I explained the Hebrew in Isaiah to you, it wasn't a good example. Neither is Ezekiel. This all stems from your lack of education in Hebrew.

See my post above. Note also the fact that "taphas" is parallel to "lean" - this conclusively shows the intent is not to overpower by force (which is what you want the word to mean), only to seek help. Egypt's breaking had nothing to do with the "taphas," but rather with Egypt's weakness. The point of the passage is the intent of the word, not the result (which is based on something else).

Taphas is used to seize / grasp / clasp / clench in the verse you are referring to. It is used correctly, and you continue to be wrong. Hopefully my explanation of how it functions in that verse will help you.

No, and as I've said, it's unnecessary to do so in order to simply ascertain the meaning of a word and its usage.

Hebrew does not function like English, and thus when you try to do word-swapping it does not work at all. Let me see if I can do an illustration for you.

Let's say we're translating Spanish to English. We often teach that the phrase for "I like" in Spanish is "me gusta." However, "me gusta" actually means "to me it brings pleasure." Me is the indirect object (the direct object is implied in the verb), and the verb gustar is used in the first person singular to indicate the quantity and chronology of the subject. There is no equivalent for "me gusta" in English, even though we translate it as "I like." For example, because it means "to me it brings pleasure," you can't use it with a person or else it means a romantic crush. At the same time, there's another level of "like" in Spanish which does not exist in modern English (me encanta) that you have to understand in order to properly translate.

Add to that about five degrees of difficulty and you'll have Hebrew to English translations. Please read the following article to understand why you cannot simply use a lexicon to understand what sentences mean:

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/docs/29_lesson01.pdf

You will note that the words which you believe you can translate with a lexicon, are more like phoneme root meanings which are given modifiers at the beginning and end to qualify them in their context. Further complicating the issue is that Hebrew has a sentence structure and grammar completely different than English.

These are some of the reasons that you have demonstrated you do not understand Hebrew.

It doesn't matter what English term the Bible uses, what matters is what the Hebrew says and the context of the passage.

And we've seen that you don't understand Hebrew. I'm not fluent, but I've taken plenty of classes at the college level. You are in way, way over your head.

Actually, the only thing silly is to believe that Rebecca was three when she was married:

"15 Before he had finished speaking, behold, Rebekah who was born to Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Abraham’s brother Nahor, came out with her jar on her shoulder. 16 The girl was very beautiful, a virgin, and no man had [f]had relations with her; and she went down to the spring and filled her jar and came up. 17 Then the servant ran to meet her, and said, “Please let me drink a little water from your jar.” 18 She said, “Drink, my lord”; and she quickly lowered her jar to her hand, and gave him a drink. 19 Now when she had finished giving him a drink, she said, “I will draw also for your camels until they have finished drinking.” 20 So she quickly emptied her jar into the trough, and ran back to the well to draw, and she drew for all his camels. 21 Meanwhile, the man was gazing at her [g]in silence, to know whether the Lord had made his journey successful or not." Gen. 24:15-21 (NASB)

Unless you believe that three-year-olds can carry water jars on their shoulders and have enough strength to draw water for strangers and their camels then I suggest you modify your opinion and discard your erroneous source.

The bible's own numbers indicate she is three and you cannot refute that point (thus why you didn't). And yes, a three year-old can carry a jar. It isn't a bucket, it's a jar. And the fact that she needs to carry a jar on her shoulders ought to tell you something about her age.

I have already told you that your source which you cite has nothing to do with Scripture. I challenge you again to prove to me that the Bible says Rebecca was a pre-pubescent girl when she was married, or that the numbers in Scripture add up to such a thing (they don't). Rebecca was a woman who had already gone through puberty at this point.

I gave you the numbers from the bible itself. Let me try again:

Abraham is told of Rebecca's birth when he settles in Beer-sheba (Genesis 22:23).
Sarah dies at 127 (making Isaac 37) in Kiriath-arba (thus before Beer-sheba). (Genesis 23:1-2)
Issac is 40 when he marries her. (Gen 25:20)

Thus, the oldest Rebecca can be is three, and three is the age at which Jewish customs of the time allowed for marriage.

Why not pick one of the 30 that don't use rape, or even mention them, then?

I have. Those that use the term "seize" are doing so correctly while also avoiding controversy. If you seize a girl and have sex with her, it is rape. However, the ten that explicitly call it "rape" do so bravely, because they translate it without ambiguity.

As shown in my above post, the law in Deuteronomy does expand on the law in Exodus. It provides the amount of money that the man is to pay and also indicates that the man cannot divorce the woman.

Exodus gives the father the choice, whereas Deuteronomy does not. Exodus begins by seduction, Deuteronomy begins by force. Exodus provides a normal marriage, Deuteronomy gives restraints. These are clearly two separate laws, and they have always been seen as such.

The law in Deuteronomy does not say in the slightest that the father has no choice. You don't understand how to interpret Biblical law. The father has the ability to give his daughter in marriage or not give her; this is unconditional, as Ex. 22:17 shows. The father is perfectly able to withhold his daughter in this situation; he does not, which should show you that this isn't referring to rape.

What part of the word "must" do you not understand?

You're still not understanding Deut. 22:13-21, Ex. 22:16-17, or general Biblical law. Executions in Biblical law are only for adultery, not for any sexual intercourse outside of that. If a woman has sexual intercourse outside of a betrothal, then she and the man are simply to get married, nothing more. She is under no threat of execution.

This is untrue. A woman who cannot prove her virginity to her husband is killed by being beaten with stones.

At this point I have demonstrated that the passage under consideration does not refer to rape. If you do not wish to believe the evidence that I have given, that is your prerogative. However, I will say that unless you have some new material then it would be best to end the discussion here since it has clearly become redundant. I do hope that this discussion has helped others make up their mind about the passage, as I do feel that it is often misused by Biblical critics.

Perhaps those critics understand Hebrew.

 

[Achilles6129]

Sorry I missed your reply - it seems for some reason it didn't come up on my control panel. Anyways, at this point I have provided sufficient evidence that the passage is not referring to rape. If you wish to reject the evidence, we will simply have to agree to disagree. There is one thing that you said, however, that I do wish to address.

The bible's own numbers indicate she is three and you cannot refute that point (thus why you didn't). And yes, a three year-old can carry a jar.

Evidently three-year-olds could also speak well enough to hold a conversation and were also allowed to go to wells by themselves back in that day and age They were also, evidently, strong enough to draw water from a well (which is quite impressive for a three-year-old).

It isn't a bucket, it's a jar. And the fact that she needs to carry a jar on her shoulders ought to tell you something about her age.

Perhaps you should actually study the word before you comment on it:

Hebrew Lexicon :: H3537 (KJV)

(From Gesenius' Lexicon):

...this vessel was one which women were accustomed to carry on their shoulders

I gave you the numbers from the bible itself. Let me try again:

Abraham is told of Rebecca's birth when he settles in Beer-sheba (Genesis 22:23).

Right, and the chronology is never mentioned. They didn't have instant communication back then and things were often told long after the event.

"20 Now it came about after these things, that it was told Abraham, saying, “Behold, Milcah [j]also has borne children to your brother Nahor: 21 Uz his firstborn and Buz his brother and Kemuel the father of Aram 22 and Chesed and Hazo and Pildash and Jidlaph and Bethuel.” 23 Bethuel [k]became the father of Rebekah; these eight Milcah bore to Nahor, Abraham’s brother." Gen. 22:20-23 (NASB)

You'll notice that Abraham is told of the birth of a bunch of people at once; so obviously chronology is not a concern.

Sarah dies at 127 (making Isaac 37) in Kiriath-arba (thus before Beer-sheba). (Genesis 23:1-2)
Issac is 40 when he marries her. (Gen 25:20)

You are correct - Isaac married Rebekah three years after his mother's death.

Thus, the oldest Rebecca can be is three, and three is the age at which Jewish customs of the time allowed for marriage.

To my knowledge, three is never the age at which Jewish customs of the time allowed for marriage. If you're going to make an assertion like that then I suggest you supply some pretty serious evidence for it!

You're looking at the numbers incorrectly based off of a misinterpretation of Genesis 22:23. We have no idea of how old Rebekah was when she married Isaac except that she was a woman who had gone through puberty (as clearly evidenced by the description of her in Genesis 24).

 

[BL2KTN]

Not if it is consensual. Did you even read the example I gave? I am guessing you didn't. Go back read it then tell me is it rape. I never said taphas meant rape. I said I gave a clear example where force was used and it was not rape. Once again you fail on basic comprehension which makes me wonder how well you actually understand these terms. This really is the same thing you did in the debate. You don't address the points raised and then claim you have won the debate.

Feel free to re-articulate your point so that I am more able to accurately respond in the way you desire.

Yet you still have not answered my question. You have not answered what is widely used? Fact is that with unit sales of bibles and particular translation can be in the top ten list but still not be widely used compared to the top three.
Another point I made about the list is that you can not make claims based on figures that change from month to month and year to year. More recent figures show achilles was correct in their claim and that you were wrong. You need to prove that more recent figures are not worth paying attention to otherwise you have not shown him to be wrong like you claimed.
My final point on that which you don't seem to grasp is that you made a very basic mistake is reading those figures which (assuming the best about you) means you just don't comprehend these things very well at all.

I have repeatedly told you I am uninterested in debating you on whether a specific translation of the bible is "widely used" or not. It was an ancillary point I made with Achilles when he tried to discredit a translation. It is not something I am going to discuss at length with other parties in a thread devoted to another thing entirely.

Sorry I missed your reply - it seems for some reason it didn't come up on my control panel. Anyways, at this point I have provided sufficient evidence that the passage is not referring to rape. If you wish to reject the evidence, we will simply have to agree to disagree. There is one thing that you said, however, that I do wish to address.

It would probably be wise on your part, given that we see you don't understand Hebrew.

Evidently three-year-olds could also speak well enough to hold a conversation and were also allowed to go to wells by themselves back in that day and age They were also, evidently, strong enough to draw water from a well (which is quite impressive for a three-year-old).

There is no dialogue in the bible that signals a three-year old is unlikely. And drawing a jar of water does not require any sort of strength.

Perhaps you should actually study the word before you comment on it:

Hebrew Lexicon :: H3537 (KJV)

(From Gesenius' Lexicon):

It simply means a jar or a large jar.

Right, and the chronology is never mentioned. They didn't have instant communication back then and things were often told long after the event.

"20 Now it came about after these things, that it was told Abraham, saying, “Behold, Milcah [j]also has borne children to your brother Nahor: 21 Uz his firstborn and Buz his brother and Kemuel the father of Aram 22 and Chesed and Hazo and Pildash and Jidlaph and Bethuel.” 23 Bethuel [k]became the father of Rebekah; these eight Milcah bore to Nahor, Abraham’s brother." Gen. 22:20-23 (NASB)

You'll notice that Abraham is told of the birth of a bunch of people at once; so obviously chronology is not a concern.

For the sake of argument, let's say there are a few years of wiggle room in there. Okay, then she's five or six, seven or eight. She's still prepubescent when married to a forty-year old.

To my knowledge, three is never the age at which Jewish customs of the time allowed for marriage. If you're going to make an assertion like that then I suggest you supply some pretty serious evidence for it!

You're looking at the numbers incorrectly based off of a misinterpretation of Genesis 22:23. We have no idea of how old Rebekah was when she married Isaac except that she was a woman who had gone through puberty (as clearly evidenced by the description of her in Genesis 24).

You are ridiculous.<staff edit> There is no description of her in Genesis 24 that signals she was post-pubescent at marriage. As for the Jewish custom of marriage at three:

"In the case of a girl, however, a different rule prevails. A father is entitled to arrange the kiddushin of his daughter, whether she is a ketannah or a na'arah, without her consent (Kid. 44b and Sh. Ar., EH 37:1 & 3). Accordingly, if a father effects kiddushin for his daughter by, e.g., accepting kesef-kiddushin for her (see *Marriage), she is considered a married woman and cannot remarry until the death of her husband or her divorce from him (Kid. 44b and Rashi; Tur and Beit Yosef, EH 37; Sh. Ar. EH 37:1, 3)." -- Child Marriage

 

[whitebeaches]

Hi everyone. There has been some flaming noted in some of the posts towards other members. While there's nothing like a nice good discussion let's please remember to be respectful towards one another. Thank you.

 

[Achilles6129]

There is no dialogue in the bible that signals a three-year old is unlikely.

Read the chapter again.

"15 Before he had finished speaking, behold, Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham's brother, came out with her water jar on her shoulder. 16 The young woman was very attractive in appearance, a maiden[c] whom no man had known. She went down to the spring and filled her jar and came up. 17 Then the servant ran to meet her and said, “Please give me a little water to drink from your jar.” 18 She said, “Drink, my lord.” And she quickly let down her jar upon her hand and gave him a drink. 19 When she had finished giving him a drink, she said, “I will draw water for your camels also, until they have finished drinking.” 20 So she quickly emptied her jar into the trough and ran again to the well to draw water, and she drew for all his camels. 21 The man gazed at her in silence to learn whether the Lord had prospered his journey or not.
22 When the camels had finished drinking, the man took a gold ring weighing a half shekel,[d] and two bracelets for her arms weighing ten gold shekels, 23 and said, “Please tell me whose daughter you are. Is there room in your father's house for us to spend the night?” 24 She said to him, “I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, whom she bore to Nahor.” 25 She added, “We have plenty of both straw and fodder, and room to spend the night.” 26 The man bowed his head and worshiped the Lord 27 and said, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of my master Abraham, who has not forsaken his steadfast love and his faithfulness toward my master. As for me, the Lord has led me in the way to the house of my master's kinsmen.” 28 Then the young woman ran and told her mother's household about these things." Gen. 24:15-28 (ESV)

So you believe that:

1) Three-year-olds can carry water jars (which women normally carry) on their shoulders
2) They can be described as "very attractive in appearance."
3) Can carry on conversations
4) Are allowed to go to wells by themselves and talk to strangers
5) They're strong enough to draw water for a bunch of camels with a woman's water jar

The entire description is of a young woman who's already gone through puberty.

And drawing a jar of water does not require any sort of strength.

The sort of jar we're talking about does.

It simply means a jar or a large jar.

Right - the type that women normally carry on their shoulders.

For the sake of argument, let's say there are a few years of wiggle room in there. Okay, then she's five or six, seven or eight. She's still prepubescent when married to a forty-year old.

The Bible nowhere gives any sort of chronology whatsoever. The truth of the matter is we have no idea how old Rebekah was when she married Isaac, except that she was past puberty. Again, this is shown in the description in Genesis 24.

As for the Jewish custom of marriage at three:

"In the case of a girl, however, a different rule prevails. A father is entitled to arrange the kiddushin of his daughter, whether she is a ketannah or a na'arah, without her consent (Kid. 44b and Sh. Ar., EH 37:1 & 3). Accordingly, if a father effects kiddushin for his daughter by, e.g., accepting kesef-kiddushin for her (see *Marriage), she is considered a married woman and cannot remarry until the death of her husband or her divorce from him (Kid. 44b and Rashi; Tur and Beit Yosef, EH 37; Sh. Ar. EH 37:1, 3)." -- Child Marriage

Very well, you are correct - Jews evidently did allow child marriages (although no minimum age is specified - I suppose that means there is no minimum age). However, in spite of that unfortunate fact, God in no way shape or form sanctions child marriage in Scripture.

 

[BL2KTN]

So you believe that:

1) Three-year-olds can carry water jars (which women normally carry) on their shoulders
2) They can be described as "very attractive in appearance."
3) Can carry on conversations
4) Are allowed to go to wells by themselves and talk to strangers
5) They're strong enough to draw water for a bunch of camels with a woman's water jar

The entire description is of a young woman who's already gone through puberty.

<Staff Edit>I have offered <Staff Edit> that there could be some wiggle room in years, meaning she could be six or seven <Staff Edit> http://www.christianforums.com/t7835946/#post66183241. I will deal with your points quickly, and then I see no reason to discuss this topic <Staff Edit> further. It is ancillary to the main topic of this discussion thread. When you dealt with the main topic, we discovered that you think a lexicon is all one needs to understand an ancient language, and that you will force an ancient text to say what you wish it to say, rather than studying it for original meaning.

1) You put in parenthesis "that women normally carry". The text does not say this, you artificially add it to strengthen your position. A three year old can carry a jar.

2) In a culture that marries young children, yes. This is little different than Muhammad finding Aisha very attractive as a prepubescent child. Other cultures do not operate as you.

3) Yes, most three year olds can respond to and craft sentences.

4) Rules about talking to strangers are an invention of modern culture. It is unlikely that Rebekah had Sesame Street on TV when she returned home to tell her about "stranger danger."

5) A typical jar is not very heavy, even when filled with water. It makes sense that a child would carry a jar on their shoulder.

 

[yonah_mishael]

The term that we use in modern Hebrew for &#8220;rape&#8221; is &#1500;&#1462;&#1488;&#1457;&#1504;&#1465;&#1505; le'enos (that is, &#1488;&#1464;&#1504;&#1463;&#1505; anas). The root appears only once in the Bible, in the book of Esther. (You can find information from BlueLetterBible.org here.)

Since the word is not used anywhere else in the Bible, should we assume that there is no rape in the Bible at all? Is that the conclusion that those who say that &#8220;took her and lay with her&#8221; doesn&#8217;t mean &#8220;raped her&#8221; would have us derive? Yes, the Hebrew (&#1493;&#1468;&#1514;&#1456;&#1508;&#1464;&#1513;&#1474;&#1464;&#1430;&#1492;&#1468; &#1493;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1464;&#1499;&#1463;&#1443;&#1489; &#1506;&#1460;&#1502;&#1468;&#1464;&#1425;&#1492;&#1468 certainly does refer to rape. (I say this as a speaker of modern Hebrew and one who can read the text of the Hebrew Bible fluently.)