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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Harry3142

Regular Member
Apr 9, 2006
3,749
259
Ohio
✟20,229.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In an age when women could not testify in trials, women were given the right to accuse a man of having raped them. And if they were betrothed to another man this was a death sentence for the man whom they accused. This makes those women far from voiceless under these circumstances.

Women were usually betrothed at an extremely young age, and were married on average at the age of 13.5 years, or as soon as they attained puberty, if earlier. So for a man to assault a woman was to quite literally put his own life on the line. The odds were that she was already betrothed, since that was done via family arrangements months in advance. So the man faced a mandatory death sentence.

In those cases where the woman was not betrothed, for a man to rape her was to also seal his fate. He had to marry her, without benefit of divorcement. And a question needs to be asked here: Why was the woman not betrothed? In an era where women were seen as essential for carrying on the family line, for any woman to not be either betrothed or married at a very young age was an indication that there was a serious problem that caused her to be either unwanted or unavailable under normal circumstances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sean611
Upvote 0

Jeremy E Walker

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2014
897
16
✟1,156.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Its interesting that in the Old Testament, women could inherit property, and yet they were treated as property. If there is one thing you need to get from the Bible, it should be this: Whenever you read about a practice in history that sounds unfair, try to find out what life was like at the time and what life was like before that. The past will reveal new information and hopefully give a new outlook to anyone who grew up surrounded by rights they take for granted and rights that other people fought for. The law given to the Hebrews in the desert mandated that if a man wanted to marry a woman, there was a process he had to go through.

He couldn’t just pick her up and carry her off on his back like a sack of potatoes- at least, not among God’s people. The bride price was like a dowry. It was also essentially giving her status. There were 3 stages to the marriage: contract, consummation and then a ceremony. In our culture we have the proposal (which is not really a binding contract), the wedding ceremony, and then both are free to consummate the marriage. This is not the way it worked back then. In the Code of Hammurabi, if a man had not slept with a woman, she was not his wife. In this culture too, consummation was a mandate for marriage. An unmarried girl was her father’s property and responsibility until a man came along. So, while she was considered her father’s property, she was protected by him.

If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

By forcing a man with marital intentions to come up with a bride price, God was providing a way for a woman who was unloved after a situation of rape to gain freedom and justice from the man. If he raped her whether he was interested in her or not afterwards he had to pay it. He either had to make her his wife, giving her protection and rights under marriage, or he had to give her the dowry of a married woman. The father had to consent to this. So while many today look at that and see a raped woman forced into marriage with a man who raped her, there is a choice involved. The man had a choice, the woman had a choice, and the father had a choice. Let’s look at the story of Rebecca in Genesis. This story starts with Abraham being very old and asking a servant to find a wife for his son Isaac. The agreement was that he would find a girl at the well (which was a common place to find them), ask for water, evaluate her character by her response, and then offer her the proposal. Verse 15 tells of the beginning of the confrontation:

Before he (Abrahams servant} had finished praying, Rebekah came out with her jar on her shoulder. She was the daughter of Bethuel son of Milkah, who was the wife of Abraham’s brother Nahor. 16 The woman was very beautiful, a virgin; no man had ever slept with her. She went down to the spring, filled her jar and came up again.
The servant hurried to meet her and said, “Please give me a little water from your jar.”
Drink, my lord,” she said, and quickly lowered the jar to her hands and gave him a drink.
After she had given him a drink, she said, “I’ll draw water for your camels too, until they have had enough to drink.20 So she quickly emptied her jar into the trough, ran back to the well to draw more water, and drew enough for all his camels. 21 Without saying a word, the man watched her closely to learn whether or not the Lord had made his journey successful.
When the camels had finished drinking, the man took out a gold nose ring weighing a beka and two gold bracelets weighing ten shekels. 23 Then he asked, “Whose daughter are you? Please tell me, is there room in your father’s house for us to spend the night?”

Notice he asked: “Whose father are you?” A girl belonged to her father until marriage.

She answered him, “I am the daughter of Bethuel, the son that Milkah bore to Nahor. 25 And she added, “We have plenty of straw and fodder, as well as room for you to spend the night.”

We see so far that she is a very generous, hospitable woman. On a side note, notice how our views on piercings would conflict with theirs. She had a nose ring and was given another nose ring. This was a sign of beauty- not paganism.

Now Rebekah had a brother named Laban, and he hurried out to the man at the spring30 As soon as he had seen the nose ring, and the bracelets on his sister’s arms, and had heard Rebekah tell what the man said to her, he went out to the man and found him standing by the camels near the spring. 31 “Come, you who are blessed by the Lord,” he said. “Why are you standing out here? I have prepared the house and a place for the camels.”
So the man went to the house, and the camels were unloaded. Straw and fodder were brought for the camels, and water for him and his men to wash their feet. 33 Then food was set before him, but he said, “I will not eat until I have told you what I have to say. Then tell us,” Laban said.

After this encounter, the servant goes directly to her father Laban and tell him of his purpose.

When Abraham’s servant heard what they said, he bowed down to the ground before the 53 Then the servant brought out gold and silver jewelry and articles of clothing and gave them to Rebekah; he also gave costly gifts to her brother and to her mother. 54 Then he and the men who were with him ate and drank and spent the night there.

What you have just read is the marriage contract proposal. They bear gifts along with their offer.

When they got up the next morning, he said, “Send me on my way to my master.”
But her brother and her mother replied, “Let the young woman remain with us ten days or so; then you may go.
But he said to them, “Do not detain me, now that the Lord has granted success to my journey. Send me on my way so I may go to my master."

Next you will read about how there was a consent on the woman’s part as well.

Then they said, “Let’s call the young woman and ask her about it58 So they called Rebekah and asked her, “Will you go with this man?”
I will go,” she said.

Contrary to popular belief, it was not God’s will that marriage be forced upon women. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. There were plenty of incidences where the Hebrews did not obey God’s will. The bride price, however made His will a Law.

Then the servant told Isaac all he had done. 67 Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife, and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death."

Consummation had not happened yet, therefore there was no ceremony.
Just for your reference, read the entire book of Ruth. It is only a few chapters and is yet another perfect example of God providing for women.

Excellent! :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

BL2KTN

Scholar, Author, Educator
Oct 22, 2010
2,109
83
Tennessee, United States
✟18,144.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Libertarian
After a nice hiatus, I'm now ready to take your questions. I am positive that I won the debate, but just like when Republicans and Democrats debate each other, there are some who will disagree. That said, I achieved everything I wished to accomplish and more. Anyone who googles the key words and reads this debate will be educated as to the bible's teachings about women and about rape.

Feel free to ask your questions and I'll try to reply to all the polite ones I can.
 
Upvote 0

Targaryen

Scripture,Tradition and Reason
Jul 13, 2014
3,431
558
Canada
✟29,199.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-NDP
After a nice hiatus, I'm now ready to take your questions. I am positive that I won the debate, but just like when Republicans and Democrats debate each other, there are some who will disagree. That said, I achieved everything I wished to accomplish and more. Anyone who googles the key words and reads this debate will be educated as to the bible's teachings about women and about rape.

Feel free to ask your questions and I'll try to reply to all the polite ones I can.

Considering that everyone said you did not win the debate, that you rambled, jumped to conclusions, couldn't read the text critically enough to put forward at the very least a plausible attack. There are no questions for you, at least none from me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Achilles6129
Upvote 0

Jeremy E Walker

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2014
897
16
✟1,156.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Considering that everyone said you did not win the debate, that you rambled, jumped to conclusions, couldn't read the text critically enough to put forward at the very least a plausible attack. There are no questions for you, at least none from me.

:thumbsup::amen:
 
Upvote 0

BL2KTN

Scholar, Author, Educator
Oct 22, 2010
2,109
83
Tennessee, United States
✟18,144.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Libertarian
LiberalAnglicanCatholic said:
Considering that everyone said you did not win the debate, that you rambled, jumped to conclusions, couldn't read the text critically enough to put forward at the very least a plausible attack. There are no questions for you, at least none from me.

Three people have said I did not win the debate, all of them Christians who were extremely critical from the very beginning of the thread. I corrected Jeremy throughout the debate, showed conclusively that rapists must marry their victims, demonstrated that Jeremy's alternatives were not possible, etc, etc. Honestly, the debate wasn't close, it wasn't difficult, and there was never a time that I felt Jeremy was putting forth strong assertions. I've done plenty of debates in my time, I know what it's like to have close debates; this wasn't one of them.

As always, you're entitled to your opinion, and Jeremy is entitled to lap it up as he is apt to do.
 
Upvote 0

drjean

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 16, 2011
15,273
4,517
✟313,070.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I must have missed the parts where it was discussed that the reasoning behind the "rapist" not having a choice, but the father and woman did could very well have been the outcome for the woman. Once deemed impure, no "righteous" man could marry her and she was to live her life as an "old maid" and a burden upon her relatives.

Also, it was much easier to shame a woman back then, whether chattel or not, and even a stolen kiss could be considered such. But even from Genesis the woman's place is set, as being "owned" with a duty to the man, whether current feminists care to entertain such. The good part of that is that God places blame onto the man/husband when things go awry. ^_^

And yes, the idea of having to marry your rapist, in today's world is abhorrent. I should know.
 
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
After a nice hiatus, I'm now ready to take your questions. I am positive that I won the debate, but just like when Republicans and Democrats debate each other, there are some who will disagree. That said, I achieved everything I wished to accomplish and more. Anyone who googles the key words and reads this debate will be educated as to the bible's teachings about women and about rape.

Feel free to ask your questions and I'll try to reply to all the polite ones I can.

Actually it seems you're the only one who thinks you won. Which is a pretty clear sign that you lost.
 
Upvote 0

Jeremy E Walker

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2014
897
16
✟1,156.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Three people have said I did not win the debate, all of them Christians who were extremely critical from the very beginning of the thread. I corrected Jeremy throughout the debate, showed conclusively that rapists must marry their victims, demonstrated that Jeremy's alternatives were not possible, etc, etc. Honestly, the debate wasn't close, it wasn't difficult, and there was never a time that I felt Jeremy was putting forth strong assertions. I've done plenty of debates in my time, I know what it's like to have close debates; this wasn't one of them.

As always, you're entitled to your opinion, and Jeremy is entitled to lap it up as he is apt to do.

Bro, you are right. It was not close.

You spent more time talking about passages that were totally unrelated to the debate topic than you did about the topic itself.

You appealed to panels and committees of Bible experts who believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God in an attempt to prove that the Bible is not the word of God. :doh:

You rambled, you posted red herring after red herring, appealed more to emotion than anything else, and then have the audacity to claim that the reason no one is buying what you are selling is because they are Christians.....

I did not debate you to win a gold medal, or a cookie, or a trophy. I debated you to show you that your view of YHWH is wrong Bro. You have constructed a strawman of your imagination and tried to attack it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TheDag

I don't like titles
Jan 8, 2005
9,457
267
✟28,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Three people have said I did not win the debate, all of them Christians who were extremely critical from the very beginning of the thread. I corrected Jeremy throughout the debate, showed conclusively that rapists must marry their victims, demonstrated that Jeremy's alternatives were not possible, etc, etc. Honestly, the debate wasn't close, it wasn't difficult, and there was never a time that I felt Jeremy was putting forth strong assertions. I've done plenty of debates in my time, I know what it's like to have close debates; this wasn't one of them.

As always, you're entitled to your opinion, and Jeremy is entitled to lap it up as he is apt to do.
Um no you only think that you demonstrated that. It is just your opinion. I did not read the last posts by either but only the first three from each and you did not demonstrate what you claimed. I will look forward to you responding to some of the points in the other thread.

One of your biggest errors is to assume 'aggression' in sex is a bad thing no matter what. I once grabbed my wife and threw her onto the bed. Does that mean I raped her? Of course not. Force is not automatically non-consensual. You failed to address different meanings in words. As I asked in the other thread if in the 1940's a person was described as gay would they have assumed they were being described as a homosexual? Of course not. It would have been assumed they were happy.
 
Upvote 0

Targaryen

Scripture,Tradition and Reason
Jul 13, 2014
3,431
558
Canada
✟29,199.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-NDP
Actually it seems you're the only one who thinks you won. Which is a pretty clear sign that you lost.

Hey Blue....yet more people are saying so. Maybe it's a good time to admit it yourself? ;)
 
Upvote 0

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,918
Vancouver
✟155,006.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
I must have missed the parts where it was discussed that the reasoning behind the "rapist" not having a choice, but the father and woman did could very well have been the outcome for the woman. Once deemed impure, no "righteous" man could marry her and she was to live her life as an "old maid" and a burden upon her relatives.

Also, it was much easier to shame a woman back then, whether chattel or not, and even a stolen kiss could be considered such. But even from Genesis the woman's place is set, as being "owned" with a duty to the man, whether current feminists care to entertain such. The good part of that is that God places blame onto the man/husband when things go awry. ^_^

And yes, the idea of having to marry your rapist, in today's world is abhorrent. I should know.
That reasoning was part of the peanut gallery chit-chat, but the actual debate focuses on whether or not the actual passage described a rape, or a consensual seduction.
 
Upvote 0

BL2KTN

Scholar, Author, Educator
Oct 22, 2010
2,109
83
Tennessee, United States
✟18,144.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Libertarian
Um no you only think that you demonstrated that. It is just your opinion. I did not read the last posts by either but only the first three from each and you did not demonstrate what you claimed. I will look forward to you responding to some of the points in the other thread.

One of your biggest errors is to assume 'aggression' in sex is a bad thing no matter what. I once grabbed my wife and threw her onto the bed. Does that mean I raped her? Of course not. Force is not automatically non-consensual. You failed to address different meanings in words. As I asked in the other thread if in the 1940's a person was described as gay would they have assumed they were being described as a homosexual? Of course not. It would have been assumed they were happy.

The term was "seize" and the result of the act was the shaming/violating of the unmarried girl... most likely prepubescent since girls of that time were married at puberty. So yes, it was a bad thing. I would say a fifty-year old man grabbing a twelve-year old and having sex with her is a very bad thing. Furthermore, most of the modern translations have decided this is referring to rape... including one of the most respected versions, Holman. In addition, I showed how the law was applied in Judges, in which Yahweh does not appear to be the least bit perturbed in genocide and mass-rape. Israel was very concerned about keeping oaths and doing what was right in that passage... and what seemed right to them was kidnapping what we would consider children to make them wives by force.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BL2KTN

Scholar, Author, Educator
Oct 22, 2010
2,109
83
Tennessee, United States
✟18,144.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Libertarian
Hey Blue....yet more people are saying so. Maybe it's a good time to admit it yourself? ;)

I am unimpressed with the individuals saying so. Their critiques thus far are easily answered, and the idea that they think their ideas are so strong, while actually basic, gives a good indication as to the strength of their incoming bias.

I'll be happy to answer their questions as I said before, as long as they are polite.
 
Upvote 0

Achilles6129

Veteran
Feb 19, 2006
4,504
367
Columbus, Ohio
✟29,682.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Republican
The term was "seize" and the result of the act was the shaming/violating of the unmarried girl...

This was addressed during the debate and you had no answer.

most likely prepubescent since girls of that time were married at puberty.

Nonsense. FYI the age of adulthood in Scripture is 20.

Furthermore, most of the modern translations have decided this is referring to rape...

No they haven't, and this came up during the debate as well.

including one of the most respected versions, Holman.

The Holman is hardly one of the most respected versions. It's a version made by the Southern Baptists and in my opinion not anywhere close to the NASB, ESV, NRSV, etc. By the way, the only "reliable" version that uses rape in that passage is the NIV. The Jewish Publication Society (JPS) also uses rape, but the fact is that you are in the slim minority when it comes to translating that word as "rape."

A simple look at the passage (which was done during the debate) will show to anyone who really wants to know that it is not referring to rape but rather to consensual intercourse. Your claims during the debate are (and were) easily answered and refuted. Let's go over it again:

"23 “If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them [n]to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
25 “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27 When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her.
28 “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days." Deut. 22:23-28 (NASB)

You will notice above that the penalty for rape (in v.25) is death. That alone should tell you that you're misinterpreting the passage in v.28, because if v.28 were actually talking about rape then the man would be sentenced to death as in v.25. You will also recall that "seizes" in v.28 is not the same word as "forces" in v.25 and only means that he instigated the sexual act, not that it was an act of rape. Proof that it was not an act of rape is found in the phrase "and they are discovered" which is a nonsensical sentence if the passage is actually talking about rape. If the passage were talking about rape then it would be known regardless since the girl would obviously say something as soon as she were able. The only way it could remain unknown is if it were consensual intercourse, which is why there is provision made for if they are discovered.

During the debate you completely misinterpreted the "violated" passage in v.29 and assumed that it was proof that the passage was referring to rape. You missed the fact that the same terminology is used for consensual intercourse back in v.24!

So it's easy to see and it's clear.
 
Upvote 0

Targaryen

Scripture,Tradition and Reason
Jul 13, 2014
3,431
558
Canada
✟29,199.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-NDP
I am unimpressed with the individuals saying so. Their critiques thus far are easily answered, and the idea that they think their ideas are so strong, while actually basic, gives a good indication as to the strength of their incoming bias.

I'll be happy to answer their questions as I said before, as long as they are polite.

Great, your unimpressed. Doesn't speak well for someone that claims to be an educator being unimpressed with the actual criticism of your analysis.

Perhaps instead of the ego, you could maybe reason out why the critical slant against is just as unimpressed by your lack of coherance during your debate?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BL2KTN

Scholar, Author, Educator
Oct 22, 2010
2,109
83
Tennessee, United States
✟18,144.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Libertarian
Achilles in reference to the term seize said:
This was addressed during the debate and you had no answer.

The solution Jeremy provided was that the term "seize" now means holding hands / seduction. It was not compelling. I answered this poor solution with an example of where the very same term is used as an application of the law in Exodus... the kidnapping and forced rape of young girls in Judges.

Nonsense. FYI the age of adulthood in Scripture is 20.

You are citing an age at which individuals were required to submit taxes, sacrifices, and could be forced into the military status. I am not aware of any place in scripture that marks this as adulthood.

In reality, what I said is true. Girls were married around twelve, as soon as they started their periods.

Religious Questions Answered with Biblical Answers
Bible: Child Marriage in Ancient Israelite times – Paedophilia? | Discover The Truth
Ancient Israelite Marriage Customs

No they haven't, and this came up during the debate as well.

You will note that the translations using "rape" are mostly modern. The translations not using "rape" are mostly older. Jeremy's argument that more translations use "seize" than "rape" (which he then changes the meaning of "seize" for his needs) is only possible because there are more old translations than modern translations (given that there are centuries available for mining older translations).

The Holman is hardly one of the most respected versions. It's a version made by the Southern Baptists and in my opinion not anywhere close to the NASB, ESV, NRSV, etc. By the way, the only "reliable" version that uses rape in that passage is the NIV. The Jewish Publication Society (JPS) also uses rape, but the fact is that you are in the slim minority when it comes to translating that word as "rape."

Here's an in-depth review of the Holman Study Bible, by Michael Marlowe:

"The marginal equipment of the HCSB is clearly its best feature, and (despite the few lapses noted above) in this reviewer’s opinion it more than compensates for any weaknesses of the text. Probably in the future there will be some inexpensive “text editions” of the Holman CSB which omit the notes, but I can recommend the use of this version for study purposes on the condition that the student uses an edition which includes them."

Review of the Holman Christian Standard Bible

It is for this reason, along with Holman's accurate translation of Yahweh (one of the few bibles willing to do so... maybe the only), that it is held as one of the very best translations.

A simple look at the passage (which was done during the debate) will show to anyone who really wants to know that it is not referring to rape but rather to consensual intercourse. Your claims during the debate are (and were) easily answered and refuted. Let's go over it again:

They were easily refuted because they matched what you presupposed to be true.

You will notice above that the penalty for rape (in v.25) is death. That alone should tell you that you're misinterpreting the passage in v.28, because if v.28 were actually talking about rape then the man would be sentenced to death as in v.25.

The only way in which rape was a capital offense was if the woman was the property of her husband. I showed this in the debate. Your reference is to a woman engaged - the text purposefully makes it known that she is engaged (already the property of the husband), yet you ignore that purposeful distinction. If death was the punishment for rape, then the text would say that instead of giving very specific scenarios. In the scenarios you have provided, the man is killed if he violates another man's property; it is not simply if he rapes a woman.

You will also recall that "seizes" in v.28 is not the same word as "forces" in v.25 and only means that he instigated the sexual act, not that it was an act of rape.

Both Holman and the NIV use the term "rape" in both verses. The Complete Jewish Bible, which is the most literal translation of the Hebrew I know of, matches the NIV and Holman.

"But if the man comes upon the engaged girl out in the countryside, and the man grabs her and has sexual relations with her, then only the man who had intercourse with her is to die." - Verse 25

"If a man comes upon a girl who is a virgin but who is not engaged, and he grabs her and has sexual relations with her, and they are caught in the act, then the man who had intercourse with her must give to the girl’s father one-and-a-quarter pounds of silver shekels, and she will become his wife, because he humiliated her; he may not divorce her as long as he lives." - Verse 28

It appears the term is the same, but your version (NASB) has decided to give the same word a different meaning. I can see why that would confuse your understanding.

The term is different only because w Proof that it was not an act of rape is found in the phrase "and they are discovered" which is a nonsensical sentence if the passage is actually talking about rape.

If I discover a man raping someone, the victim does not suddenly disappear. Also, your idea that it is a nonsensical phrase probably lies in the fact that you are reading the English version... the Hebrew version simply uses a plural direct pronoun that forces the English to say "them".

If the passage were talking about rape then it would be known regardless since the girl would obviously say something as soon as she were able. The only way it could remain unknown is if it were consensual intercourse, which is why there is provision made for if they are discovered.

If she can't prove her virginity to another man then she's going to be beaten with rocks until she dies. It is highly unlikely that she's going to be consensual in accepting a death sentence romp that will also (according to you) result in her only possible husband being killed with rocks. This scripture is referring to rape of an unbetrothed girl by a man of any age.

LiberalAnglicanCatholic said:
Great, your unimpressed. Doesn't speak well for someone that claims to be an educator being unimpressed with the actual criticism of your analysis.

Perhaps instead of the ego, you could maybe reason out why the critical slant against is just as unimpressed by your lack of coherance during your debate?

The prerequisite for me answering questions is politeness. Please try again.

Mark said:
We are on the verge of flaming with a few of these posts. Please remember that the rules say that we are to address the post, not the poster.

Thanks again, Mark.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.